Anselm's Ontological Proof, Your thoughts?

[SenorSalsa]

Essentially the Proof is:

God is the greatest conceivable being
the greatest conceivable being must have existence
Therefore God must exist

I personally think this is the greatest proof for God I have seen. It is so simple yet so effective.

However, others think God’s existence is presupposed by the premise, and therefore proves nothing.

Your opinions? Your arguments?

 

[Badaliyyah]

Essentially the Proof is:

God is the greatest conceivable being
the greatest conceivable being must have existence
Therefore God must exist

I personally think this is the greatest proof for God I have seen. It is so simple yet so effective.

However, others think God’s existence is presupposed by the premise, and therefore proves nothing.

Your opinions? Your arguments?

Nothing is presupposed. The word “God” plays no role in the proof, other than being a handy shorthand for “that, the greater than which cannot be conceived”. As long as that concept is meaningful, the ‘proof’ works. Proof might not quite be the right word though, since Anselm is essentially arguing that God is self-evident.

salaam.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Nothing is presupposed. The word “God” plays no role in the proof, other than being a handy shorthand for “that, the greater than which cannot be conceived”. As long as that concept is meaningful, the ‘proof’ works. Proof might not quite be the right word though, since Anselm is essentially arguing that God is self-evident.

salaam.

Right. But because we have titled the greatest possible being God, it tells us things like God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Eternal, Personal, etc.

And that by anybody’s definition would count as God.

The most common stumbling block people have is that they see the claim that the greatest conceivable being must have existence as false.

Their argument is generally, yes the greatest possible being would exist, but that does not mean that in actuality it exists.

The fault I see with that logic is that the kind of existence such a being would have is necessary and eternal, so if it would have to exist, if it “should have” existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A perfect being is that which nothing greater can be thought of. If one admits that a perfect being is a possibility, then one has to accept that a perfect being exists. This is because a perfect being cannot fail to exist, since it is by definition perfectly being. Thus it is impossible for it to be a mere possibility, because possibilities in terms of actuality are contingent on a perfect reality in order to be. In other words a perfect reality is necessary for possibilities to exist and thus the two cannot be placed in the same genus. Therefore a perfect being must be necessarily existent before we can speak of possible realities, since there is no cause for metaphysical possibility in nothing or potential reality. Being or reality must absolutely and timelessly precede possibility before anything else can be spoken of as being possible.

Thus one has to either admit that it is impossible to know a-prior whether or not perfection is a possibility, and this is for the simple fact that perfection cannot be placed in the same category as a possibility. Or admit that a perfect being cannot fail to exist; and thus exists necessarily by nature.

It is a contradiction to ask if perfection is a possible being, since we must admit of its objective existence in order to speak logically about possibilities.

Anselm’s ontological argument is a different argument, but the argument for the existence of a perfect being evolved from his argument.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Thus the real question to ask is whether possibilities exist. Possibilities evidently exist. Therefore an absolutely perfect reality through which possibilities are possible, must exist.

 

[R_Daneel]

Essentially the Proof is:

God is the greatest conceivable being
the greatest conceivable being must have existence
Therefore God must exist

There are three serious problems with this propostion.

1. First, “greatness” is a subjective thing. What one considers “great” is not considered “great” by someone else.
2. Second, even if there would be a meaninful, objective attribute of “greatness”, it would be a composite attribute. And there is no assurance that two possible attributes can be at a maximal value at the same time. Sometimes attributes are contradictory. A maximally “tall” person cannot be also maximally “short”. Or a maximally tall person is not necessarily also maximally fat.
3. Third, the real problem is that Anselm had this misconception that “existence” is just another attribute, which is either present, or absent. It would be nonsense to say that "this apple is red, tasty, round, and - oh by the way - it also exists.

 

[hatsoff]

1. Third, the real problem is that Anselm had this misconception that “existence” is just another attribute, which is either present, or absent. It would be nonsense to say that "this apple is red, tasty, round, and - oh by the way - it also exists.

Exactly. When we speak hypothetically, we are speaking about a model of the world which is different from reality (or, if you’re an idealist, your model of experience). So, anything we say about entities in that model will only make sense with respect to the model. In other words, the “existence” of a hypothetical being applies only to the hypothetical model of reference, and not to reality (or your model of experience), or indeed to any other model.

 

[SenorSalsa]

There are three serious problems with this propostion.

1. First, “greatness” is a subjective thing. What one considers “great” is not considered “great” by someone else.
2. Second, even if there would be a meaninful, objective attribute of “greatness”, it would be a composite attribute. And there is no assurance that two possible attributes can be at a maximal value at the same time. Sometimes attributes are contradictory. A maximally “tall” person cannot be also maximally “short”. Or a maximally tall person is not necessarily also maximally fat.
3. Third, the real problem is that Anselm had this misconception that “existence” is just another attribute, which is either present, or absent. It would be nonsense to say that "this apple is red, tasty, round, and - oh by the way - it also exists.

Certainly things like physical traits are unable to be maximized.

However, nobody would argue that it is better to be unwise as opposed to wise, so omniscient is the greatest of that attribute

It is better to be powerful than weak, so omnipotent is the greatest of that attribute

It is better to be absolute than contingent

In fact, I think your objection, rather than disproving the ontological argument, makes a good case for a non-physical God. With physical traits, it is a matter of preference or situation, but when dealing with nonphysical traits, there seems to be a preferred trait in every category.

As to existence, it certainly would make sense to say the apple exists (is real) if you were told to compare it to a picture of an apple and choose which you would prefer.

We would not normally describe an apple as existing, not because it is not a trait, but because it is presupposed. We presuppose that things we see have existence.

Take however, the example of a girl trying to think of “Mr. Right”. She could come up with all these traits (strong, tall, dark hair, polite, etc), but in the end, will she continue to chase her mental construct of “Mr. Right”, or will she choose somebody she meets in reality? It seems obvious that she would prefer the actual man (who may only be average height) to the mental construct (who would be 6’4).

 

[Catchy_Username]

Island X is the greatest conceivable Island
the greatest conceivable island must have existence
Therefore Island X must exist

 

[SenorSalsa]

Island X is the greatest conceivable Island
the greatest conceivable island must have existence
Therefore Island X must exist

Any time we speak of “island”, we speak of something that can come and go depending on ocean levels, earthquakes, volcanoes, and eventually the life of the planet it is located on.

The existence that islands have is temporary, contingent

The existence we ascribe to the Greatest Conceivable Being is absolute, eternal.

additionally, since there are things that are greater than islands, it also doesn’t fit there. When we say Greatest Conceivable Being, it is presupposed that Being (in its sense of a living thing) is better than a nonliving thing (like a rock, or island), the thing that we are really looking for is the “Greatest Conceivable”, the only reason we use the word Being is because language doesn’t look friendly on noun-less adjectives

Thats why the proof works for the GCB and not for islands

 

[NonNobisDomine]

Basic problem is this: If you prove that a necessary being exists, who is to say that it is the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Jesus? That gap still requires a leap of faith. All you have proven is that a necessary being exists, that doesn’t mean it is a person or good or God.

If God’s existence could be proven (which I dont believe it can), then why have faith? Christianity is a religion of faith, without which it is impossible to please God (hebrews), why try to reduce the God of faith to the God of the philosophers?

All the “proofs” can offer are reasons why we believe there is a god. Will they actually motivate people into becoming Christian? I think not. What is required of them is a complete paradigm shift, that is the replacing of their small-f faith, which is a basic attitude about reality, with capital F-Faith, which is contained in revelation. The proofs only work when operating out of that paradigm.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Basic problem is this: If you prove that a necessary being exists, who is to say that it is the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Jesus? That gap still requires a leap of faith. All you have proven is that a necessary being exists, that doesn’t mean it is a person or good or God.

If God’s existence could be proven (which I dont believe it can), then why have faith? Christianity is a religion of faith, without which it is impossible to please God (hebrews), why try to reduce the God of faith to the God of the philosophers?

All the “proofs” can offer are reasons why we believe there is a god. Will they actually motivate people into becoming Christian? I think not. What is required of them is a complete paradigm shift, that is the replacing of their small-f faith, which is a basic attitude about reality, with capital F-Faith, which is contained in revelation. The proofs only work when operating out of that paradigm.

True, it will not prove the Christian God, but the ontological proof does prove God is a person, good, all knowing, all powerful and some other traits, as they are necessarily better than their alternatives. No one would argue that bad is better than good, or that ignorance is better than knowledge.

Additionally, it can prove that there is only one God, because if there were two gods, it would each was lacking in some way, for God has to be the greatest being, and has to be over everything else, and yet if there were two gods, neither could be subordinate to the other.

The reason why I am interested in a proof for God is because there are some people out there who see things in a very scientific way. For them even the possibility of a god is unthinkable. Proofs can help them see the possibility, or even necessity that there is some sort of god.

Additionally, various proofs can prove characteristics of God, to discuss different conceptions of God. For example showing why God must be One, or why he must be a creator god.

Lastly, I don’t think that it takes away from faith in any way. God created us with an ability to know Him (if only partially), all that proofs do is help people to realize this ability. Then Faith comes in from moving from knowing God exists to believing in the Christian God

 

[RobNY]

Most of the reasons given against the so-called ‘ontological proof’ are rather flimsy. For instance, I find the typical Kantian counter-objection against “existence as a predicate” to be rather indecisive. The proponent of this objection must establish a distinction between higher and lower order predicates which, quite frankly, is just too difficult to do effectively. Or again, the perfect island counter-argument fails precisely because the perfect island contains predicates which do not admit of a maximum.

Rather, I think we ought to take a cue from Leibniz’s explicit drawing out of Anselm’s argument. He says, if God is possible, then God must exist. The reasoning is fairly simple. God, being a non-contingent being, must either exist necessary or non-exist necessary. He cannot be in a mode of contingent existence or non-existence (for then we would be committed to saying that the Greatest Conceivable Being could be caused to come into existence, or blocked from coming into existence… which is hardly consistent with what a GCB is).

Now, it is the premise that God is possible which is precisely what the theist must substantiate. But it seems very difficult to establish it.

Usually our mark of logical possibility is consistency, or the absence of contradiction in something’s notion. But it’s not clear that we have such knowledge concerning God. For instance, we don’t have a complete list of the attributes of God, and thus it is impossible for us to declare that all of His attributes are mutually compossible (“possible together”). But in the absence of this knowledge, neither can we grant the ontological argument.

Leibniz has a rather ingenious argument in favor of God’s possibility. He reasons that a perfection is a positive property such that it cannot contradict with any other positive property. He reasons, thus, that God who has all and only positive properties must have a coherent notion. The problem with Leibniz’s argument is the rather heavy theoretical baggage which one must accept in order to get to his conclusion.

So although the traditional counter-objections seem to me to miss their mark, neither can I say that the ontological argument is sound, because God’s possibility is not established. This is why the ontological argument fails.

-Rob

 

[NonNobisDomine]

True, it will not prove the Christian God, but the ontological proof does prove God is a person, good, all knowing, all powerful and some other traits, as they are necessarily better than their alternatives. No one would argue that bad is better than good, or that ignorance is better than knowledge.

In a sense the greatest concievable being is not the same as the God that we worship. God’s nature is completely unknowable and any concept of him is an idol. God is beyond thought and conception. The God who reveals himself to us through the Christ cannot be understood completely and to argue that if we understand him completely, we understand him to exist is hard to swallow. Even Aquinas thought that God’s existence couldnt be demonstrated via the a priori ontological argument.

I dont see how it proves that God is a person … God could be Being itself (Ipsum esse) instead of A being.

It is argued that if you accept that God is the greatest concievable being, you are forced to accept existence as a necessary predicate or you are left with a logical contradiction. Kant critiqued this by arguing that existence isn’t a real predicate. The concept I have of an imaginary $100 and the concept I have of a real $100 are the same. Both are green, shaped the same etc., but existence belongs only to the real $100. You cannot get existence out of a concept. Concepts are not real beings, but mental beings. We gain our ideas out of things that actually exist, which we can sense empircially. This is the classical view of ideogenesis, that is how we form ideas. Thomas Aquinas himself is an empiricist and because of that he thinks the only way God can be proved is by infering from Gods effects, not by some logical trick.

Interestingly enough, I think it would be good to discuss the more modern version of this argument in Rene Descartes. Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, desires to establish an indubitable foundation for philosophy. He starts by doubting, until he cannot doubt any longer. He is left with a reformulation of St. Augustines “Si fallor sum,” if I am wrong, (at least) I exist. I think we are all familiar with his “I think, therefore I am.” The only indubitable thing which philosophy can be established on is based upon this inward turn. After establishing that he exists, Decartes says that he has this IDEA of perfection. He himself knows that he is not perfect (like his argument and my presentation of it) and so from the idea of perfection he reasons his way to a perfect being, which has to exist.

Did I miss anything?

The reason why I am interested in a proof for God is because there are some people out there who see things in a very scientific way. For them even the possibility of a god is unthinkable. Proofs can help them see the possibility, or even necessity that there is some sort of god.

Modern science has decided to reduce itself to ONLY those things which can be verified by means of experimentation. God does not fit into the scientific mode … because God is a spirit. Good luck. Personally, I think all the “proofs” can do for you is to show how your belief in a God is reasonable, not how to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists.

 

[bolsheviks]

Essentially the Proof is:

God is the greatest conceivable being
the greatest conceivable being must have existence
Therefore God must exist

I personally think this is the greatest proof for God I have seen. It is so simple yet so effective.

However, others think God’s existence is presupposed by the premise, and therefore proves nothing.

Your opinions? Your arguments?

The problem is “the greatest conceivable being must have existence.”

Maybe in the convoluted world of medieval theology that made sense, but it’s always been a strikingly thoughtless claim imo. It can’t be justified. No amount of wordplay is going to convince me.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

“the greatest conceivable being must have existence”

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ok my greatest conceivable being is a giant red hamster that has 5 heads and an IQ of 10000000000000000000000000000000000 it also fires god killing peanuts from its eyes.

Does my rabbit now exist?

You have no logic reason to suggest the greatest conceivable being must have existence.

 

[SenorSalsa]

“the greatest conceivable being must have existence”

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ok my greatest conceivable being is a giant red hamster that has 5 heads and an IQ of 10000000000000000000000000000000000 it also fires god killing peanuts from its eyes.

Does my rabbit now exist?

You have no logic reason to suggest the greatest conceivable being must have existence.

First, not your rabbit doesn’t exist, because your greatest conceivable being is a hamster

Second, and more importantly, its not your greatest conceivable being its the greatest conceivable being.

So just because you think the greatest thing is a big red hamster doesn’t mean it is. In fact, it almost certainly isn’t. Would you rather be a hamster or a human person?

 

[bdelykleon]

“the greatest conceivable being must have existence”

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ok my greatest conceivable being is a giant red hamster that has 5 heads and an IQ of 10000000000000000000000000000000000 it also fires god killing peanuts from its eyes.

Does my rabbit now exist?

You have no logic reason to suggest the greatest conceivable being must have existence.

This is a false and purely humorist argument, a red hamster (or the big spaghetti and other platitudes of the kind) isn’t an infinite being.

I like very much the Anselmian argument, but its problem to me is that it pressuposes an Platonistic worldview, and not everyone accepts it.

Like I read the argument:
God is the greatest conceivable being
Therefore, God is the infinitely transcendent, yes, no problem with it, this is mostly the definition of God we have in Exodus. And there is no binding on “greatness” being subjetive, relatively to this question it isn’t, God is greatest in every conceivable positive way: the more just, the more intelligent, the more beautiful, not that I think htat, it is his definition.

the greatest conceivable being must have existence

This is the central argument, which has been shallowly treated here. Anselm himself goes further and says.

You can imagine the greatest possible of beings, therefore it exists as concept in your mind.
But if it exists in your mind only, and not in the world, then it is not the most perfect of beings. You can always think of a greater being, which, besides having all these qualities, exists in reality, therefore it exists.

Therefore God must exist

As I said before, the greatest problem with this formulation (i’m not so acquainted with Leibniz or new, modal, formulations) is that it concedes that a conceptual existence is a true existence, that’s why I’m a little uneasy with the original Anselmian formulation.

As for a very common objection of this argument, mentioned above, that it is not possible to conceive an infinite being, I strongly disagree as I can’t see any contradiction in any of God’s concepts and, even more, an infinite source of being is actually pressuposed by much of metaphysical tought.

But as I said, the Platonic twist to the original argument makes me uneasy to procclaim it proved. But the idea that the concept of God is its proof of existence strikes me as something quite plausible.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

First, not your rabbit doesn’t exist, because your greatest conceivable being is a hamster

Second, and more importantly, its not your greatest conceivable being its the greatest conceivable being.

So just because you think the greatest thing is a big red hamster doesn’t mean it is. In fact, it almost certainly isn’t. Would you rather be a hamster or a human person?

My hamster has every attribute of the greatest conceivable being, except multiplied by ten.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

This is a false and purely humorist argument, a red hamster (or the big spaghetti and other platitudes of the kind) isn’t an infinite being.

The point is if i can substitute anything in for god, then it does not get you anywhere.

X is the greatest conceivable being
X the greatest conceivable being must have existence
Therefore X must exist

You now have the problem of demonstrating that X is “god”, in your case yahweh, and not harry the super powerful hamster.

And that is while ignoring that fact that “the greatest conceivable being” need NOT have existence.