The "Greatest" proof (pun intended) for the existence of God - Anselm

[dostoyevskyfan]

That, plus a lack of time to post and the fact that I was using a mobile device!

Basically, the Ontological Argument and all variations thereof, hinge on the intention to ‘imagine’ God into existence by giving him the quality of ‘necessary existence.’ The logic, such as it is, is held together loosely by dodgy semantics and a desire for the conclusion to be true.

As I pointed out to WSP on a thread a few weeks back, arbitrarily giving something the characteristic of ‘necessary existence’ doesn’t make it exist; if it did I’d be off spending the ‘necessary pile of money in my bank vault.’

All the ‘proofs’ for God are so easily debunked, yet people keep posting new minor variations as if they think they’ve cracked it! I’d be really pleased if someone came up with a juicy new one that we can all get stuck into!

I believe you are saying this because you are not taking the proper approach to conceiving of God. It is a purely intellectual pursuit that must be divorced from all sorts of “picture thinking” as Hegel correctly described the process. The goal is to elevate your consciousness to the highest possible thought which necessarily implies that you begin by being conscious of your own consciousness. Contemplating God’s essence which, out of necessity and revealed by what is not consciousness, leads to understanding that His essence is existence, and therefore is the highest form of prayer for an atheist.

You must understand that the mode of being of God is pure, raw, immaterial intellect; not an elderly man sitting on a throne in the clouds with a white beard. Jesus refers to the guided object of prayer as “the Father” which would conjure up such an image, but this is only a metaphor which is easily understood by simple human beings. This purposeful pedagogy of Christ is intended to make advanced concepts easily understood by the “everyman” in so far as they need to understand them to attain salvation. An advanced pedagogy of a highly knowledgeable teacher (Christ) relates new material to material that the students already know (pre-existing knowledge) because this increases retention.

That being said, you are basically putting Kant’s objection into your own words, which indicates that you are not understanding the evolution of the ontological argument and how it has changed over a thousand year period or how it is now immune to such objections. I am not saying this to belittle you, only that I have a sincere desire for you to understand it, if you genuinely wish to.

The predicate “necessary existence” is not arbitrarily ascribed to anything to sort of “will it into existence”; it is a property that alone belongs to the highest/greatest possible thought or as Hegel says, “Notion”. We can use a definitive article and just refer to it as “The Notion”. “Necessary existence” by definition cannot apply to anything else. Your existence is superfluous, so is mine, so is the existence of the money in your bank. I could set your bank on fire and destroy all of your paper money. Once I do this, the existence of your paper money is no longer necessary and therefore does not have the property of “necessary existence”.

The greatest possible being, if it exists, cannot be destroyed. The possibility of destruction would imply a deficiency in its being and would mean that “it” is not the greatest possible being. Hence, we have only two options: necessary existence and logically impossible existence.

My advice, if you have a burning desire to refute this argument, is to try and demonstrate a contradiction in the concept of God. (is that premise 5?) But I could talk about rocks that God cannot lift all day with you if you want.

 

[RobNY]

My advice, if you have a burning desire to refute this argument, is to try and demonstrate a contradiction in the concept of God. (is that premise 5?) But I could talk about rocks that God cannot lift all day with you if you want.

Showing (6) to be false would be sufficient to prove that God doesn’t exist.

The opponent of the argument only needs to block (6) from obtaining, not prove it to be false.

-Rob

 

[coolduude]

It’s embarassing, isn’t it!

I notice that you haven’t commented on the reformulation of it that I posted later

 

[Hubriss]

1. If God exists, then his existence is logically necessary. (timeless, eternal, uncreated, etc)
2. An impossible non-existence is greater than a possible non-existence. (eg. a unicorn)
3. If God does not exist, then his existence is logically impossible since He is that “than which nothing greater can be conceived”. (He cannot come into existence, or come out of existence)
4. Either God’s existence is logically impossible or logically necessary.
5. If God’s existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self contradictory.
6. The concept of God is not self-contradictory.
7. Therefore God is logically necessary.
8. Therefore God exists.

Discuss.

The term “logically” should not be in any of this. You can take it out of every point and the argument will be better off. Except maybe in 5.

1. Is only tautology because God is typically defined partly as a being whose existence is necessary.
2. I either don’t know what that means or don’t know what the point of it is.
3. Ok. May need some tuning depending on the actual nature of existence but we don’t know.
4. Could be agreed depending on how God is defined.
5. Seems false. The concept of God doesn’t have to be self-contradictory to be impossible. There does not have to be a correlation between logic and reality, because impossible things can be logical depending on the premises and propositions you start with. God can be impossible simply because it’s impossible.
   6-7. Misuses the contrapositive. From 5, if the concept of God is not self-contradictory, then the existence of God is not impossible. (Instead of “the existence is necessary.”)

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

1. Is only tautology because God is typically defined partly as a being whose existence is necessary.

No. All this is saying is that if “the greatest possible being” exists today, then he will also exist tomorrow (for the sake of example ignore that God exists outside of time). In other words, if God really does exist, then He cannot suddenly not exist in the future. Such a being that can be destroyed is not the greatest possible being.

1. I either don’t know what that means or don’t know what the point of it is.

Many non-believers who I discuss this with will attempt to switch the term “God” with a term “unicorn” or “flying spaghetti monster”. Unicorns do not present a contradiction in terms or are in any way self-contradictory, but that doesn’t mean that they exist. Unicorns, since they are an imperfect type of “picture thought” have a possible non-existence, or like you mention at the end of your post, their existence is not impossible. But it is greater to have a logically impossible non-existence than a “possible non-existence” or an “existence that is not impossible”. Hopefully this will also help you to understand your error of mislabeling 6-7 as a “misuse of the contrapositive”.

1. Ok. May need some tuning depending on the actual nature of existence but we don’t know.

This is saying something similar to the very first premise. In other words, if God does not exist right now, He cannot suddenly “pop” into existence in the future. So if God does not exist right now, then He would have always and forever not existed, nor will exist; hence what we mean by “logically impossible” existence.
.

1. Seems false. The concept of God doesn’t have to be self-contradictory to be impossible. There does not have to be a correlation between logic and reality, because impossible things can be logical depending on the premises and propositions you start with. God can be impossible simply because it’s impossible.

Actually there is a correlation between logic and reality. We have the law of identity, non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. The 5th premise is just the law of non-contradiction. Name one impossible thing that can be “logical” according to the three eternal laws of logic I just mentioned. It may be that you just reject the law of non-contradiction. If this is the case, one philosopher proposed that such a person “should be burned until they realize that to be burned is not the same as to not be burned, and be beaten until they realize that to be beaten is not the same as to not be beaten”.

6-7. Misuses the contrapositive. From 5, if the concept of God is not self-contradictory, then the existence of God is not impossible. (Instead of “the existence is necessary.”)

See my commentary above on unicorns and spaghetti monsters. There are only 2 options concerning the existence of God; logical necessity and logical impossibility. This is established earlier in the syllogism for reasons I have explained in this post.

 

[wanstronian]

I notice that you haven’t commented on the reformulation of it that I posted later

No, because although it’s ultimately wrong, it’s not so excruciatingly child-like in its construction and phraseology.

 

[R_Daneel]

All the ‘proofs’ for God are so easily debunked, yet people keep posting new minor variations as if they think they’ve cracked it!

You know, this reminds me of all those weirdos who keep sending in “proofs” of “squaring a circle”, or “doubling a cube”, or “trisecting an angle” (using only a straight edge and a compass) to mathematical journals, or those other ones who keep on “creating” perpetuum mobiles. They all complain that they are not taken seriously. Poor suckers.

 

[R_Daneel]

What about Plantinga’s argument?
(By the way, if you guys want me out of this thread let me know and I’ll make my own )

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Ok, let’s look at it.

The phrase “maximally great” is meaningless. When it is defined, the definition is arbitrary, and only reflects the personal opinion of the one who offers it. Also “greatness”, no matter how it is defined is a composite attribute, unlike “tallest”, or “fattest”, or “maximally tasty”, etc - which are all simple attributes. Suppose that we define “great” as a composite of “tall” and “fat”. There is no assurance that the tallest being is also the fattest. In mathematics this is called a multi-function maximazation problem. So, #1 is a meaningless propostion. And since everything else depends on it, the whole “proof” is just another meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

The concept of the “possible world” denotes some hypothetical construct, which differs from our actual world to some degree. As a hypothetical construct, it is fine.

The concept of “necessary existence” means that some being exists in all possible worlds. This definition is also fine.

There is one possible world which is empty. It is the null-world. Since the null-world has no elements, there is no “necessary” being. If someone wishes to argue that the null-world is only a hypothetical construct, he should remember that the definition of the “possible world” (which is also a hypothetical construct) does not impose any further restrictions, except that it is different from our actual world to some degree. Yet, if we wish to accommodate this dissenter, we can create two possible worlds, one containing a being “X”, and another one, containing being “Y”. These two worlds have nothing in common, therefore no “necessary” being exists. Planinga’s little semantical ploy is just as useless as all the other attempts to “prove” God.

I keep wondering, why are people so adamant on fabricating some “proof” for God’s existence? Suppose some of them would succeed. That would be end of the necessity of “faith”. There would be no need to believe in God any more. “Faith” is touted as virtue, coming from the special grace from God. Why try to get rid of it? And one more observation. When atheists ask for a positive proof, the answer is always the same: 1) God cannot be proven in a test tube, or 2) If we had a positive proof for God’s existence, it would “rob” us our free will to believe in him, or some other, equally inane nonsense. So, on one hand the theists wish to maintain the necessity od “faith”, and on the other, they try to undermine it by attempting to create these futile little “proofs”. Is there no consistency in their efforts?

 

[wanstronian]

I believe you are saying this because you are not taking the proper approach to conceiving of God. It is a purely intellectual pursuit that must be divorced from all sorts of “picture thinking” as Hegel correctly described the process. The goal is to elevate your consciousness to the highest possible thought which necessarily implies that you begin by being conscious of your own consciousness. Contemplating God’s essence which, out of necessity and revealed by what is not consciousness, leads to understanding that His essence is existence, and therefore is the highest form of prayer for an atheist.

You must understand that the mode of being of God is pure, raw, immaterial intellect; not an elderly man sitting on a throne in the clouds with a white beard. Jesus refers to the guided object of prayer as “the Father” which would conjure up such an image, but this is only a metaphor which is easily understood by simple human beings. This purposeful pedagogy of Christ is intended to make advanced concepts easily understood by the “everyman” in so far as they need to understand them to attain salvation. An advanced pedagogy of a highly knowledgeable teacher (Christ) relates new material to material that the students already know (pre-existing knowledge) because this increases retention.

It seems to me that you’re just defining God in a way that will better support the argument. You don’t need me to tell you that this is not a robust way to defend an argument!

That being said, you are basically putting Kant’s objection into your own words, which indicates that you are not understanding the evolution of the ontological argument and how it has changed over a thousand year period or how it is now immune to such objections. I am not saying this to belittle you, only that I have a sincere desire for you to understand it, if you genuinely wish to.

Are you saying that the argument is incomplete? Because taken at face value, it clearly doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You imply that there is a whole backlog of conceptualising that must occur before the argument becomes sound. The problem with this is that you are putting the cart before the horse: “Step 1. Assume that God exists. Step 2. Conceptualise him in this way. Step 3. Look at the Ontological Argument; now it makes sense.”

Clearly this is problematic. What justification do you have for conceptualising God in a certain way?

How do you think the argument has evolved? How is it now immune?

The predicate “necessary existence” is not arbitrarily ascribed to anything to sort of “will it into existence”; it is a property that alone belongs to the highest/greatest possible thought or as Hegel says, “Notion”.

It was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have used “define it into existence.”

That said, your comment above is just empty assertion. Where’s your justification?

We can use a definitive article and just refer to it as “The Notion”. “Necessary existence” by definition cannot apply to anything else.

Why not? Simply because you have said so? Why must it apply to anything at all?

Your existence is superfluous, so is mine, so is the existence of the money in your bank. I could set your bank on fire and destroy all of your paper money. Once I do this, the existence of your paper money is no longer necessary and therefore does not have the property of “necessary existence”.

Okay, but this doesn’t change the fact that you are arbitrarily ascribing the ‘necessary-ness’ characteristic to God, with no good reason. You’re just giving God the characteristics required to make him exist. “His essence is existence, therefore he must exist.” If he exists, his essence might indeed be existence, but it’s a big ‘if’ that is not influenced in any way by the components of the argument. If he doesn’t exist, his essence is irrelevant. So you’re not proving anything here, just asserting.

The greatest possible being, if it exists, cannot be destroyed. The possibility of destruction would imply a deficiency in its being and would mean that “it” is not the greatest possible being. Hence, we have only two options: necessary existence and logically impossible existence.

This is just fluff. These aren’t the only two options at all. Quite apart from the totally subjective meaning of ‘great’, the ‘greatest’ possible being means just that - the ‘greatest’ being that can possibly exist. There’s nothing about that concept that means it can’t subsequently be destroyed. You’re just ascribing indestructability to your God concept in order to manufacture only two possibilities and hence give the argument more chance of succeeding.

My advice, if you have a burning desire to refute this argument, is to try and demonstrate a contradiction in the concept of God. (is that premise 5?) But I could talk about rocks that God cannot lift all day with you if you want.

I have no ‘burning desire’ to refute the argument - the flaws are strikingly apparent to anybody who can tie their own shoelaces, and the argument has been effectively refuted on countless occasions by far more eminent people than me.

But I’m interested - how do theists reconcile this contradiction? (I presume you’re talking about the hypothetical: “If God can do anything, can he make a rock that he can’t lift?” or similar.) How is this not a contradiction, when omnipotence is one of the trademark characteristics of God?

As I said before, the Ontological argument can be used to ‘prove’ the existence - or non-existence - of anything, simply by arbitrarily ascribing the qualities needed to make the proof work. It relies on Special Pleading, Argument from [personal] Authority, ambiguity and logical fallacy.

 

[R_Daneel]

If you want a good chuckle, read these hundreds of proofs for God’s existence: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm - but don’t take them too seriously… one poster did (not too long ago) and it was embarrasing for him or her… Someone made a real funny observation, too. He said it must be a Christian website, and its URL really means: “God! less geeks!”…

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

If you want a good chuckle, read these hundreds of proofs for God’s existence: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm - but don’t take them too seriously… one poster did (not too long ago) and it was embarrasing for him or her… Someone made a real funny observation, too. He said it must be a Christian website, and its URL really means: “God! less geeks!”…

A collection of straw man arguments on a parody website does not contribute to this conversation, does not help people who want to understand advanced Christian philosophy, and only serves as a distraction. Keep in mind that you are on a Catholic website that takes its 2,000 years of intellectual tradition seriously. If you are here for “laughs” or do not seek the truth with charity, you may be on the wrong website…or you may not find yourself on this website for much longer. Many of us have no problem with constructive criticism, but please do not derail my thread with your garbage. Thank you sir.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Ok, let’s look at it.

The phrase “maximally great” is meaningless. When it is defined, the definition is arbitrary, and only reflects the personal opinion of the one who offers it. Also “greatness”, no matter how it is defined is a composite attribute, unlike “tallest”, or “fattest”, or “maximally tasty”, etc - which are all simple attributes. Suppose that we define “great” as a composite of “tall” and “fat”. There is no assurance that the tallest being is also the fattest. In mathematics this is called a multi-function maximazation problem. So, #1 is a meaningless propostion. And since everything else depends on it, the whole “proof” is just another meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

I suppose we could talk about all of the versions of the ontological proof since they are all related in that they use some kind of term: “greatness”, “perfection”, “maximal excellence” etc. When we use this sign to signify a concept, we are not referring to a subjective value judgment like we would when critiquing a piece of art. For some people the Mona Lisa is the “greatest” possible work of art conceived by man. To others it is just a fat lady with a smug half smile. In order to fully comprehend the ontological proof you must be capable of thinking outside of language. When we speak of these terms in an ontological sense we are referring to presence and absence, being and nothingness. They denote the superlative or infinite presence of all positive qualities. See plato’s conception of “The Forms” for clarification.

There is one possible world which is empty. It is the null-world. Since the null-world has no elements, there is no “necessary” being. If someone wishes to argue that the null-world is only a hypothetical construct, he should remember that the definition of the “possible world” (which is also a hypothetical construct) does not impose any further restrictions, except that it is different from our actual world to some degree. Yet, if we wish to accommodate this dissenter, we can create two possible worlds, one containing a being “X”, and another one, containing being “Y”. These two worlds have nothing in common, therefore no “necessary” being exists. Planinga’s little semantical ploy is just as useless as all the other attempts to “prove” God.

Let me get this straight, a world with nothing in it? If there are no elements, that would include the element of the world itself; hence nothing and no world. How can that even be a “world”? That’s just nothing. A “non-existent” world cannot even qualify as a “world” at all, let alone a “possible” world. That’s just semantical twaddle in the vein of alice in wonderland’s “mock turtle soup” which is soup made from ingredients comprised of the absence of real turtles. Nice try but nonsense!!!

I keep wondering, why are people so adamant on fabricating some “proof” for God’s existence? Suppose some of them would succeed. That would be end of the necessity of “faith”. There would be no need to believe in God any more. “Faith” is touted as virtue, coming from the special grace from God. Why try to get rid of it? And one more observation. When atheists ask for a positive proof, the answer is always the same: 1) God cannot be proven in a test tube, or 2) If we had a positive proof for God’s existence, it would “rob” us our free will to believe in him, or some other, equally inane nonsense. So, on one hand the theists wish to maintain the necessity od “faith”, and on the other, they try to undermine it by attempting to create these futile little “proofs”. Is there no consistency in their efforts?

So you are advocating your own conception of “faith”(I disagree with you on what it means to have faith) to replace knowledge? In other words, you admire ignorance in religious believers rather than those who have knowledge? You may hold a position similar to kierkegaard, and advocate some sort of fideism, but Catholics don’t. Our tradition is grounded in reason and rationality. Faith will eventually become obsolete as it will inevitably intersect with science. In some sense it already has…considering that it was a Catholic priest, LeMaitre, who refuted Einsteins theory of an eternal universe and then proposed the big bang theory…but thats for another thread.

Lastly, I will say, as I already have, that proof of God, even if logical and beyond a shadow of a doubt will not inspire faith in some people. Most of the contemporaries of Jesus did not dispute that he preformed miracles or rose from the dead, yet they still did not have “faith” that he was God or the son of God. This even includes Thomas the disciple. We also see this through Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho the jew. In the dialogue, Trypho does not dispute the fact that Jesus performed miracles, he merely blamed them on “black magic” that Jesus had learned when he was in egypt. In short, people reject the ontological proof not because of logical objections or error in structure, but because they desire the conclusion to be false.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Wans, I think I addressed some of your concerns in the above post. Keep in mind that the ontological proof was formulated in the context of Catholicism. Therefore, if you are outside the “language game” (to use a term by Wittgenstein) of Catholicism, you may not be in a position to criticize it. In other words, if you are ignorant of how Catholics conceive of God, then the proof may not make sense to you. Also, can you really consider yourself an “atheist” with respect to what I believe if you don’t have knowledge of what I believe, and therefore can’t logically reject it? Something to think about.

I made a post a long time ago about the rock paradox. I don’t feel like retyping it so here is the link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6696705#post6696705

 

[R_Daneel]

A collection of straw man arguments on a parody website does not contribute to this conversation, does not help people who want to understand advanced Christian philosophy, and only serves as a distraction. Keep in mind that you are on a Catholic website that takes its 2,000 years of intellectual tradition seriously. If you are here for “laughs” or do not seek the truth with charity, you may be on the wrong website…or you may not find yourself on this website for much longer. Many of us have no problem with constructive criticism, but please do not derail my thread with your garbage. Thank you sir.

I suggest to lighten up a bit and don’t take yourself too seriously. A little fun never hurt anyone

I suppose we could talk about all of the versions of the ontological proof since they are all related in that they use some kind of term: “greatness”, “perfection”, “maximal excellence” etc. When we use this sign to signify a concept, we are not referring to a subjective value judgment like we would when critiquing a piece of art.

Well, you should, because that is exactly what you are doing, even if you are unaware of it. That concept of “greatness” is ill-defined and subjective. Whatever you consider “great” is not considered great by someone else.

Let me get this straight, a world with nothing in it? If there are no elements, that would include the element of the world itself; hence nothing and no world. How can that even be a “world”? That’s just nothing.

The concept of a “possible world” is a thought experiment - another world, which is different from ours. Take away one tree from this world, and you get another possible world. Take away all the other galaxies except the Milky Way, and you get another possible world. Then take away all the other stars except our Sun and the planets, and you get another possible world. And so on… The null-world is just another possible world. An abstraction, just like all the others.

But you seemed to have overlooked the other abstractions I presented, a world with only a being “X” in it, and another with only the being “Y” in it. Since the intersection of these two worlds in a null-world, there is no being present in both of them, therefore there is no “necessary being”. And that is all there is to it. The necessary being is just another nonsensical concept.

 

[coolduude]

R Daneel:

You haven’t touched the reformulation I posted. Maybe because its right?

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel:

You haven’t touched the reformulation I posted. Maybe because its right?

I did. It is on the previous page.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel:

You haven’t touched the reformulation I posted. Maybe because its right?

Is this what you mean?

1. God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
3. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
4. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)
7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

1. Let’s just say that there is a very vaguely defined concept you call “God”.
2. Subjective, arbitrary and the “greatness” is undefined.
3. God’s properties are not defined.
4. Meaningless, since (2) is undefined.
5. Since God is undefined (3), this is meaningless.
6. God is given this “definition” to suit your argument. And your “God” is still undefined.
7. I can imagine a being that is “greater” than the traditional concept of God. After all my “great” can be different from your “great”. So what now?
8. Yes, that is true.
9. Therefore this is false.

 

[coolduude]

R Daneel;:

1. Let’s just say that there is a very vaguely defined concept you call “God”.
2. Subjective, arbitrary and the “greatness” is undefined.
3. God’s properties are not defined.
4. Meaningless, since (2) is undefined.
5. Since God is undefined (3), this is meaningless.
6. God is given this “definition” to suit your argument. And your “God” is still undefined.
7. I can imagine a being that is “greater” than the traditional concept of God. After all my “great” can be different from your “great”. So what now?
8. Yes, that is true.
9. Therefore this is false.

1. No, there is not. According to this argument God is that then which no greater can be conceived. Hardly vague. You have said that greatness is arbitrary- it changes for each person (what can be great for one person is not great for another). First of all, aren’t most, if not all, definitions arbitrary? For example, I may think that a certain shade of blue is teal and you may think that a certain shade of teal is blue. Anyway, greatness in this context is not arbitrary- I think we can all agree that a maximally great being is great in every conceivable thing. In other words, a maximally great being cannot be outdone. All it’s attributes are maximally great and nothing can surpass it. For example, a maximally great being is maximally great in moral perfectness, ‘normal’ perfectness (not making mistakes), etc. Every aspect of this being is maximally great- you name it and it’s maximally great.
2. How is this “subjective, arbitrary and the greatness is undefined”? (I just covered greatness). Existence in reality really is better than existence in thought. Isn’t an invention better as a tangible item rather than a thought in the inventor’s head? The same goes for this being we are arguing over. It is better for this being to exist in reality than in thought- it would make a world of difference. So existence in reality is better than existence in thought.
3. See number 1.
4. See number 2.
5. See 'maximally great being" (number 1)
6. I think this is a very adequate definition for God- that than which no greater can be conceived.
7. No, I really don’t think you can. After all, a maximally great being would be maximally great and nothing greater than it could be conceived. So good luck thinking of that!
8. Finally, we agree!
9. Therefore you are ‘false’- God exists in reality.

 

[R_Daneel]

1. No, there is not. According to this argument God is that then which no greater can be conceived. Hardly vague. You have said that greatness is arbitrary- it changes for each person (what can be great for one person is not great for another). First of all, aren’t most, if not all, definitions arbitrary? For example, I may think that a certain shade of blue is teal and you may think that a certain shade of teal is blue. Anyway, greatness in this context is not arbitrary- I think we can all agree that a maximally great being is great in every conceivable thing. In other words, a maximally great being cannot be outdone. All it’s attributes are maximally great and nothing can surpass it. For example, a maximally great being is maximally great in moral perfectness, ‘normal’ perfectness (not making mistakes), etc. Every aspect of this being is maximally great- you name it and it’s maximally great.

You talk about “every aspect” and in “every conceivable thing”. So this being is also the “greatest” in evil? You don’t seem to realize that some attributes are simply contradictory. Something that is maximally tall cannot also be maximally short.

Now, I am pretty sure that you will now backpedal, and will amend your position. (All the others with whom I had this conversation did that, so you will be in good company.) You new position will probably be that this “maximally excellent being” is only maximal in the positive attributes, and will be lacking in the negative ones. You should realize that here is the arbitrary and subjective factor, by labeling some attributes as “positive” and others as “negative”.

1. How is this “subjective, arbitrary and the greatness is undefined”? (I just covered greatness). Existence in reality really is better than existence in thought. Isn’t an invention better as a tangible item rather than a thought in the inventor’s head? The same goes for this being we are arguing over. It is better for this being to exist in reality than in thought- it would make a world of difference. So existence in reality is better than existence in thought.

Serious error, which has been realized a long time ago. Existence cannot be viewed as one of the attributes, which is either present of absent. Some medieval theologians committed this mistake, but it has been debunked a long time ago. It is easy to demonstrate this by offering a proposition like: “I have an apple in my hand, which is red and delicious, and which also exists”. Surely you can see that?

 

[Betterave]

It seems to me that you’re just defining God in a way that will better support the argument. You don’t need me to tell you that this is not a robust way to defend an argument!

I.e.: “You’re just using the terms invoked in your argument in a way that makes the argument work. No fair! I want to interpret them in a different way so your argument won’t work (and so I can call your argument a joke that no minimally sane and rational person should take seriously, even if certain stupid Harvard professors do).”