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

[Betterave]

Wan and WmJack,

It’s off-topic so I don’t want to get into it, but former atheist Antony Flew is an interesting example where modern science apparently did lead an unbeliever to God.

 

[R_Daneel]

All language is essentially arbitrary. 20th century philosophy focused heavily on language. I studied structuralism, deconstruction, and lacanian ideas. Hence, why I advocate “thought outside of language” for comprehend this proof.

All language is based upon conventions, that much is true. Suppose you meet someone, and neither of you speaks the other one’s language. Yet, you can start learning each other’s languages, by raising one finger and say “one” in your own. Then repeat with two fingers, and say “two”. And so on. So, yes language is based on commonly accepted convetions. If yoy say that language is arbitrary in the sense, that we use some arbitrary voice-forms to designate something, then I agree with you.

However, if you say that the concepts we express in liguistical form are also arbitrary, then I disagree. You proposition of “thought outside of language” is an oxymoron. The “nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” is a very wise observation.

My written advice would be to instead focus on Descartes formulation…he uses the word “perfection”; which is not a relational operator but it conveys the same concept as “greatest” (a superlative, not the relational operator…“greater”) to someone who is capable of understanding the proof.

You see, this is a problem. We have a concept of comparision (bigger, smaller, etc…). We use the word “greater” to compare two entities while using one single attribute which is measurable. The word “greatest” designates the extreme of this comparision. There is no “greatest” separated from comparisions.

You must take a mathematical approach to conceiving of God, not a linguistic one; since math is not arbitrary or subjective, but language is. Everything we see around us is IMPERFECT in the sense that we see absence. I will use the mathematical example of a triangle. No human being can draw a “perfect triangle” nor super computer can; since by definition a triangle consists of an infinite set of connected points creating a 3 sided figure; however, we CAN conceive of a perfect triangle in Plato’s world of ideas or in the mind. The same sort of process must be used when conceiving of God.

Well, since I am a mathematician, this would present no problem. Plato’s “perfect trinagle” (or any triangle, the word “perfect” is superfluous) is just another concept. Concepts are not physical objects, they are the mental abstractions of physical objects - at least at first approximation. We are able to step on and create new “concepts”, which have no physical counterparts - which are fully imaginary. Your usage of “imperfect” presupposes “perfect”, which is just another concept, designating some idealized form. When applied to physical objects it is not very meaningful. What is a “perfect apple”? Which performer was the “perfect Sherlock Holmes”?

You say that a similar process is needed when conceiving God. I happen to agree. God is the “idealized” human - the “ultimate superman” - but, of course only the “good” attributes are considered. And here is the first problem. There is no objective set of attributes which must be maximazed. Now God is a concept - quite vagely defned. But since concepts do not have a necessary counterpart in reality, a mere assertion that the “perfect whatever” must exist is just incorrect, and wishful thinking.

Of course the basic problem is the assumption that “existence” is just another attribute, which is either present or missing. Which is complete nonsense, and only a very few philosophers still cling to it. Evaluate the next proposition: “I have a delicious, red apple in my hand… oh, and by the way, it also exists”. Or try this one: “I have a nonexistent red apple on the top of my nonexistent book, which contains the full text of Hamlet”. A complete nonsense, wouldn’t you say? Something that does not exist does not have attributes.

The proposition “something which exists is ‘greater’ than something which does not exist” is another meaningless statement. Now, it may mean that something which is physical, is “better” than something that is merely conceptual. This one is not true either. It is dependent on what we talk about. A real, physical meal is nourishing, an imagined (“perfect”?) meal is not. However we can imagine a new biological weapon which can conceivably kill all the Catholics, I would say that an actualized weapon of this kind is definitely not “greater” than the imagined one.

As for people saying that Anselm developed this argument to prove a conclusion (God exists) that confirmed his belief. It is true, but he did so with specific compassion directed toward those who do not believe in God.

Well, he failed. Using words (designating concepts) in a brand new way, which can only be understood if the “Holy Ghost” visits upon you is not an effective way of convincing atheists.

Something to ponder: a proposition has no “intrinsic meaning”. All propostions occur in a communication channel, where there is a sender, a proposition and a receiver. The sender has some mental image he wishes to express via the propostion. The receiver evaluates the proposition and creates a mental image. If the two mental images are the same, the communication attempt was successful. If this is not the case, the communication was unsuccessful.

P.S.: I will go on a vacation tomorrow. Will be back in about one or two weeks. See you then.

 

[coolduude]

@R Daneel:

Here’s my response about the contradictions, although it differs from Betteraves

As you correctly pointed out, something cannot be maximally tall and maximally short at the same time*; it cannot be maximally good and evil at the same time. Rather, it must be one or the other- not both. Now we may never know if God is maximally tall or maximally short. But we can know if He’s maximally good or evil, and here’s the proof (I think, anyway). Now, R Daneel, wouldn’t you agree that an evil being would be maximally selfish? It would never want to share, etc. So, in theory, it would never create anything because it doesn’t want to do anything for it’s creation (divine creation is different than human ‘creation’). However, something exists rather than nothing. Therefore, this being did create and is not maximally selfish. Instead, it is maximally good.

And here’s the back up for the premise that ‘something in reality is greater than something in the mind’:

Anselm holds that existence in the understanding and in reality is greater or more perfect than existence in the understanding alone. Roughly, this means that what actually exists is greater or more perfect than what does not actually exist: existence is a “good-making property”, a property that improves its possessor, a property that it’s better to have than not to have. An existent ship is “greater” than a non-existent one, an existent friend better than a non-existent one.

• A maximally great being could, in theory, actually be both maximally good and evil at the same time. I say this because if God exists, He surely isn’t governed by the laws of logic (unless the laws of logic are as necessary as God’s existence) because He created the laws. So while it may be a contradiction to us, God could actually do it because He created the laws of logic. It would be the same as God breaking the laws of physics because He created those, too. Now this is all merely specualtive, but it makes sense, don’t you think?

 

[Betterave]

As you correctly pointed out, something cannot be maximally tall and maximally short at the same time*; it cannot be maximally good and evil at the same time. Rather, it must be one or the other- not both. Now we may never know if God is maximally tall or maximally short…

duude, just to be clear, this is your argument, not the ontological argument, and it will likely only confuse RD more. It’s not a good argument, which he will recognize, but he will quite possibly assume that this bad argument is the ontological argument and walk away confirmed in his misconceptions. (Please don’t do that RD.)

Question: Do you really not know whether God is maximally tall or maximally short?

 

[coolduude]

duude, just to be clear, this is your argument, not the ontological argument, and it will likely only confuse RD more. It’s not a good argument, which he will recognize, but he will quite possibly assume that this bad argument is the ontological argument and walk away confirmed in his misconceptions. (Please don’t do that RD.)

Question: Do you really not know whether God is maximally tall or maximally short?

I’m assuming that the correct answer is that God is infinite- He is boundless.

Right or wrong?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Language is a symbolic order based on an arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified. The signified would be what you refer to as a “concept” embedded in language. There is no way to verify that the signified that results from the word “cow” is the same in your mind as mine; it is based on our experiences with cows in our life, the pictures of cows that we have seen, and other attributes. Some people when you mention the word “cow” might actually picture a glass of milk instead of a beast on a farm because the milk comes from cows and their mental connection to the word “cow” must first go through concepts that directly affect them, such as having a glass of milk everyday, before they actually conceive of the animal. Their neural network is programmed into such a thought pattern due to evolutionary reasons. People develop connections to words based on experience and the way that a particular word affects their survival or basic needs (eating, sleeping, reproduction, etc)
If the two mental images are the same, the communication attempt was successful. If this is not the case, the communication was unsuccessful.
this is so blatantly false as you may now see or will see if you decide to dabble in linguistics/language theory. The fact that elizabethan english is not the english we have now, or the fact that the meaning of language changes over time is evidence enough that it is arbitrary in nature. Heraclitus’ concept of flux even appears with modes of communication. The most effective communicators (“senders”) are conscious of the language used by their target audience and attempt to replicate those terms in a similar context as the “receiver”, or in a new context; and this is usually done with metaphor. But by no means are the metaphors used by the “sender” used to communicate to the “receiver” normally used to communicate with another “receiver” in another context of communication. The brain works by establishing connections between many different concepts and mentally “bridging” these concepts to produce meaning. In essence, there is no one “concept”, but a neural network of related ideas, that through differentiation, and “otherness” they are distinguished; distinguished often by means of what they are “not” rather than what they “are”. This is why consciousness is an act of negation. In the mind of a schizophrenic, poet, or dare I presume a “Divine Mind”, all concepts are related, and it is possible to make a valid comparison between all things. In such a mind, there is no such thing as the logical fallacy of “false analogy”; “apples” are the same concept as “sherlock holmes”.
“This sentence is false” is a meaningless statement, but other than that “meaningless statements” do not actually exist since it is the Subject who ultimately processes the statement and produces meaning. That you cannot produce meaning from the term “perfection” does not mean that it is meaningless and likewise, that it is “greater to exist than to not exist” is axiomatic; not nonsense. You can only reject such a proposition hypocritically since if you honestly rejected it, you would commit suicide and afterwards be unable to reject the statement (although I hold the belief that you would, you dont). Lastly on this point, non-existent things can have attributes if you conceive of the non-existent thing in your mind. The imaginary full text of Hamlet in your mind, if you were to mentally open it and begin reading, would read the same as an actual printed version you could buy at the book store.

The idea that the Holy Ghost is needed to believe in the Holy Ghost is not the main route I drive to convince atheists of what I believe. Nevertheless, I highly recommend nonbelievers to invoke Him while pondering this proof. It seems “nonsensical” to them but it is just one of those “you have to take my word for it” kind of things.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Your usage of “imperfect” presupposes “perfect”, which is just another concept, designating some idealized form.

This “idealized form” is the thought object of the proof. Try to conceive of an “ultimate idealized form” instead of the word “greatest” or “perfection”. I have knowledge of the concept of “complete knowledge of all things” or “omniscience” only because I myself lack a complete fullness of knowledge. The concept exists and is understood by means of a negation. It is logically possible that some sort of being has this attribute that I do not have. This concept of “complete knowledge of all things” would also then by necessity include “complete knowledge of the knowledge of all things” and complete knowledge of the being itself that is capable of containing the concept. This “knowledge of” meta-realization presents itself as an infinite string, …ex knowledge of knowledge of knowledge, etc ad infinitum, and therefore must eventually be abbreviated.
When contemplating “existence” and more perfect forms of it, it may be helpful for you as a mathematician to picture a number line. Negative numbers technically do not exist, but we can conceive of them and understand the meaning. Just like there is always a “greater” number on the number line, my own existence is inferior, to the “greatest” mode of existence, which is no where to be found on the number line but is abbreviated with infinity. Because I came into existence or began to exist, I lack a FULLNESS of being, which is what I mean when I say “perfect existence” or “greatest existence”…this fullness and lack of absence. My existence is “greater” than the existence of my dog, in the respect that its duration is longer. It is possible to conceive of an mode of existence that neither began nor will cease. This “infinite existence” is the totality and fullness of being that I lack, and must exist out of necessity wedded to the “ultimate idealized form” that is not found as a finite number on the number line, and cannot not exist also in reality, but not not exist beyond reality and is reality itself since this mode of being must be omnipresent. Such is God.

Coincidentally, I am going on vacation also. Attached in this post is the section from Anselm’s work where the syllogism I posted earlier is derived.

CHAPTER III.

God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.

AND it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist;. and this being you are, O Lord, our God.

So truly, therefore, do you exist, O Lord, my God, that you can not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist. Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms xiv. 1), since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool?

CHAPTER IV.

How the fool has said in his heart what cannot be conceived. --A thing may be conceived in two ways: (1) when the word signifying it is conceived; (2) when the thing itself is understood As far as the word goes, God can be conceived not to exist; in reality he cannot.

BUT how has the fool said in his heart what he could not conceive; or how is it that he could not conceive what he said in his heart? since it is the same to say in the heart, and to conceive.

But, if really, nay, since really, he both conceived, because he said in his heart; and did not say in his heart, because he could not conceive; there is more than one way in which a thing is said in the heart or conceived. For, in one sense, an object is conceived, when the word signifying it is conceived; and in another, when the very entity, which the object is, is understood.

In the former sense, then, God can be conceived not to exist; but in the latter, not at all. For no one who understands what fire and water are can conceive fire to be water, in accordance with the nature of the facts themselves, although this is possible according to the words. So, then, no one who understands what God is can conceive that God does not exist; although he says these words in his heart, either without any or with some foreign, signification. For, God is that than which a greater cannot be conceived. And he who thoroughly understands this, assuredly understands that this being so truly exists, that not even in concept can it be non-existent. Therefore, he who understands that God so exists, cannot conceive that he does not exist.

I thank you, gracious Lord, I thank you; because what I formerly believed by your bounty, I now so understand by your illumination, that if I were unwilling to believe that you do exist, I should not be able not to understand this to be true.

 

[Betterave]

I’m assuming that the correct answer is that God is infinite- He is boundless.

Right or wrong?

The right answer is that Jesus was likely of average height (neither maximally tall nor maximally short).

The other right answer is that God is neither maximally tall nor maximally short (nor maximally spicy, nor maximally wet, nor maximally well-dressed, nor a maximally good basketball player, nor the greatest Yankees fan, nor the greatest president of the United States, etc.).

 

[Soulewolf]

Since the ontological proof has been recently “resurrected” via Norman Malcolm (Harvard) and Plantinga (ND), I thought it was be interesting to discuss it. Most Catholics now don’t find recourse to it, and many still believe that Kant “killed” it with his semantical “predicate” nonsense.

Malcolm found another version of Anselm’s proof (in anselm’s writings) which has remained dormant over the years and is apparently immune to these “verbal gymnastics” lines of critique. Anselm “believed in order to understand rather than seeking understanding in order to believe”. I maintain that he discovered via prayer, an irrefutable argument for the existence of God. On the other hand, even if we as Catholics, can prove the existence of God, there will never be a proof for “faith”. People believe whatever they want irrespective of truth.

Anyway I’d be interested in hearing some commentary from believers and non-believers. Here’s the syllogism. You can find the argument in Malcolms writings but I think you need to pay money to actually get the article.

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.

you are begging the question. assuming god exists or doesnt exist can not be the premise of a proof that proves god does or doesnt exist. premise 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are logically invalid.

 

[R_Daneel]

As you correctly pointed out, something cannot be maximally tall and maximally short at the same time*; it cannot be maximally good and evil at the same time. Rather, it must be one or the other- not both. Now we may never know if God is maximally tall or maximally short. But we can know if He’s maximally good or evil, and here’s the proof (I think, anyway). Now, R Daneel, wouldn’t you agree that an evil being would be maximally selfish? It would never want to share, etc. So, in theory, it would never create anything because it doesn’t want to do anything for it’s creation (divine creation is different than human ‘creation’). However, something exists rather than nothing. Therefore, this being did create and is not maximally selfish. Instead, it is maximally good.

First, there is a very long way from being not selfish to being maximally good (which is also undefined). But your reasoning is incomplete anyhow. Someone may create other beings for fun, for experimenting, for torturing them, or for miriads of other reasons. But the problem is even deeper. To say “something is great” is 1) subjective and 2) complex. Greatness, no matter how one defines it is a complex attribute. Who would be the greatest conceivable sport’s hero? The one who is faster? Jumps higher? The one who is stronger? Why would all these attributes manifest themselves in the same person?

And here’s the back up for the premise that ‘something in reality is greater than something in the mind’:

Anselm holds that existence in the understanding and in reality is greater or more perfect than existence in the understanding alone. Roughly, this means that what actually exists is greater or more perfect than what does not actually exist: existence is a “good-making property”, a property that improves its possessor, a property that it’s better to have than not to have. An existent ship is “greater” than a non-existent one, an existent friend better than a non-existent one.

He may have held that view, but that does not make this view sensible. Say that one holds the concept of a particularly debilitating disease in mind. Then he attempts to create a microbe which will infect others with that disease. No rational person would say that the “existing microbe” is “greater” than the hypothetical one.

But this whole comparision process is nonsensical. One cannot compare an existing apple to a nonexisting one. Only existing apples (this is just an example) can be compared. According a popular phrase one who attempts to “compare apples to oranges” is trying to do something nonsensical. Anselm held the view that existence is just another attribute, which is either present or absent. This view has been discarded by most philosophers as sheer nonsense. And rightfully so. It is sheer nonsense, and so is the concept of a “greatest conceivable being”.

 

[Betterave]

First, there is a very long way from being not selfish to being maximally good (which is also undefined). But your reasoning is incomplete anyhow. Someone may create other beings for fun, for experimenting, for torturing them, or for miriads of other reasons. But the problem is even deeper. To say “something is great” is 1) subjective and 2) complex. Greatness, no matter how one defines it is a complex attribute. Who would be the greatest conceivable sport’s hero? The one who is faster? Jumps higher? The one who is stronger? Why would all these attributes manifest themselves in the same person?

A better question: Why would you continue to insist on missing the point? There is no greatest conceivable sport’s hero. There is only one greatest conceivable (we call it “God”).

He may have held that view, but that does not make this view sensible. Say that one holds the concept of a particularly debilitating disease in mind. Then he attempts to create a microbe which will infect others with that disease. No rational person would say that the “existing microbe” is “greater” than the hypothetical one.

But this whole comparision process is nonsensical. One cannot compare an existing apple to a nonexisting one. Only existing apples (this is just an example) can be compared. According a popular phrase one who attempts to “compare apples to oranges” is trying to do something nonsensical. Anselm held the view that existence is just another attribute, which is either present or absent. This view has been discarded by most philosophers as sheer nonsense. And rightfully so. It is sheer nonsense, and so is the concept of a “greatest conceivable being”.

Instead of making strongly-worded dogmatic assertions, why not respond to the post that has already commented in some detail on this issue?

 

[R_Daneel]

A better question: Why would you continue to insist on missing the point? There is no greatest conceivable sport’s hero. There is only one greatest conceivable (we call it “God”).

That is the point. The proposition of “greatest conceivable X” is undefined and nonsensical no matter what you substitute into “X”. The second error in the process is the idea that “existence” is just another attribute, which is either present or missing, and from that error comes the third problem of asserting that “existence” is somehow “greater” than “nonexistence”. The whole “proof” is just nonsense piled upon nonsense.

The funny thing is that the same line of argument was discussed at length a long time ago, but in that case the proponent of the argument was a reasonable person who abandoned it, realizing its errors. There is a very good observation which runs like this: “Way back everyone believed in God, until some philosophers tried to prove it”. You cannot prove it, no matter how hard you try. Stick to your unproven and unsubstantiated (and thus: blind) faith. Don’t be shy. Be proud of your faith. Hebrews 11:1 says best: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

 

[Betterave]

That is the point. The proposition of “greatest conceivable X” is undefined and nonsensical no matter what you substitute into “X”. The second error in the process is the idea that “existence” is just another attribute, which is either present or missing, and from that error comes the third problem of asserting that “existence” is somehow “greater” than “nonexistence”. The whole “proof” is just nonsense piled upon nonsense.

I’d have thought your whole “analysis” of the “proof” was just nonsense piled upon nonsense (blind assertion piled upon straw man piled upon non sequitur piled upon abusive dismissal, etc.). It’s pointless to make authoritatively-worded claims about matters regarding which you have (and have repeatedly demonstrated) a flawed understanding.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’d have thought your whole “analysis” of the “proof” was just nonsense piled upon nonsense (blind assertion piled upon straw man piled upon non sequitur piled upon abusive dismissal, etc.). It’s pointless to make authoritatively-worded claims about matters regarding which you have (and have repeatedly demonstrated) a flawed understanding.

I suggest you read the parable about the “mote and beam”.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

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 have not read all the various threads, so maybe you have already debunked this “line”.

Question: Do you deny that it is sad, not as it should be, for some one to not want to help someone else in need? or another way, Is it right and good to care about ourselves and others?

If there is a moral should, or a moral right and good; what is the source of the moral order? mankind? subjective, right? Something above mankind? Something finite? subjective again, right?

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

You talk about “every aspect” and in “every conceivable thing”. So this being is also the “greatest” in evil?

Just a small (name removed by moderator)ut. I have been taught that there is no created evil, evil is the absense of good. It is a turning of our wills against God and His grace. Not a created thing.
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?

Existence cannot be viewed as one of the attributes, which is either present of absent. Why is existence not one of the attributes of God or us? I do not understand.

 

[R_Daneel]

Existence cannot be viewed as one of the attributes, which is either present of absent. Why is existence not one of the attributes of God or us? I do not understand.

Your sentences form a strange sequence. On one hand, in the first one you say (correctly) that existence is not an attribute. Then you ask why is existence not an attribute? Why do you ask this question? Non-existent “things” cannot have attributes. In order to have attributes something must exist first.

 

[Betterave]

I suggest you read the parable about the “mote and beam”.

Why?

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Your sentences form a strange sequence. On one hand, in the first one you say (correctly) that existence is not an attribute. Then you ask why is existence not an attribute? Why do you ask this question? Non-existent “things” cannot have attributes. In order to have attributes something must exist first.

Sorry, for the misunderstanding. I ment to have quotation marks or a question mark on the first sentence, as it was a quote from your post. I believe my misunderstanding of your statement might be because I assumed that anything that had attributes must exist, so if we are talking about attributes of something, then it exists.

Is it correct, or just redundant, to say that all existant things have the attribute of existense? If God exists (which I believe) does He have the attribute of existence by His nature, inseparable from it? Do we have the attribute of existense by gift?

 

[JohnDamian]

I believe my misunderstanding of your statement might be because I assumed that anything that had attributes must exist, so if we are talking about attributes of something, then it exists.

Existance is an attribute; and the prior attribute in the heirachy of existance. Existance is not distinct really from essence; yet is formally distinct.

All thing’s are essentially predicated by being; which operates as a univocal trancendental. It is coextensive with other predicates; but operates indistinctly with regards to quiddity and existance.

That is to say; being is the first object of the intellect. The placing of being as prior in the quiddity of a thing is found in Proclus Elements of Theology.