He is specifically advocating not becoming involved in the sort of discussion now occurring here, that the parties 'should not seek sheer “winning” in a debate'. — Banno
Similarly Banno offers the following, a worthy candidate: — Leontiskos
As he says: “what if someone were to say that there is something greater than everything there is [...] and [that] something greater than it, although does not exist, can still be thought of?” Evidently, we can think of something greater than the thing greater than everything, unless the thing that is greater than everything is the same as that than which nothing greater can be thought of. But Anselm’s point here is precisely that although, of course, there is nothing greater than the thing greater than everything, which is supposed to exist, something greater than what is greater than everything still can be thought of,if the thing greater than everything is not the same as that than which nothing greater can be thought of. So if the thing greater than everything is not the same as that than which nothing greater can be thought of, then something greater still can be thought of; therefore, that than which nothing greater can be thought of can be thought of, even if it is not supposed to exist.
That's an example of ampliation, where we use natural numbers to reach beyond themselves. — Banno
He defines god as the greatest thing that can be thought of, and there is no guarantee that there is any such thing. — Banno
g:=ix¬(∃y)M(y,x) does not work becasue there might simply always be some y such that y is greater than x. — Banno
But Leon, this is not a candidate for the greatest number. That's the point. It's the first (defined by "min") of a whole new sequence of numbers greater than any natural number.
Similarly, no sooner do you think of a being greater than any other, than you can think of a being greater than that individual. The series need have no end. — Banno
And you misrepresent my saying that the parsing of his argument, the formatting, was ugly as my saying that the argument was ugly. — Banno
God, it appears, is by Anselm reckoned as that than which & etc. And that seems a matter of definition and presupposition - thus not proved. And there are problems with "greater" - I think Banno got that covered. In any case, I do not see how greater than can be a specific value. Further, assuming you make an honest effort to understand Anselm, perhaps you can say what he means, what you think he means, by "exist" and "reality."Anselm's proof is for the conclusion that God "has to exist also in reality." — Leontiskos
But as it seems the thread was also about Anselm's proof, I opted in. — tim wood
Its focal point is St. Anselm’s famous proof for God’s existence, although that proof is not what the paper is ultimately centered on. — Leontiskos
God, it appears, is by Anselm reckoned as that than which & etc. And that seems a matter of definition and presupposition - thus not proved. — tim wood
By the meaning of the term,
(1) God is the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater
Now suppose that
(2) God is only in the intellect (i.e. God is thought of, but does not exist)
But certainly
(3) any thought object that can be thought to exist in reality can be thought to be greater than any thought object that is only in the intellect
And it cannot be doubted that
(4) God can be thought to exist in reality
Therefore,
(5) Some thought object can be thought to be greater than the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater [1,2,3,4]
which is a contradiction, whence we have to abandon our supposition that God is only in the intellect, so he has to exist in reality, too. — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 2
What a prat. — Banno
Your animosity towards me leads you to simply gainsay my every point. — Banno
Sure do! But it's a tedious exercise. But before starting, am I to understand you have no problems with it?So do you find any problems in Klima's natural language formulation of Anselm's proof? — Leontiskos
Then this thought object cannot be quantified in any way, for to be quantified entails that another, greater, can be thought. And this here is fatal. Need we go on?(1) God is the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 2
But before starting, am I to understand you have no problems with it? — tim wood
Then this thought object cannot be quantified in any way, for to be quantified entails that another, greater, can be thought. And this here is fatal. Need we go on? — tim wood
So I'll set aside Leon's endless requests to repeat myself and take the criticism of (1) as read. — Banno
He defines god as the greatest thing that can be thought of, and there is no guarantee that there is any such thing. — Banno
But if the thought of god is not coherent, then (2) collapses. — Banno
(3). ∀x∀y(I(x)∧R(y)→M(y,x))
This says that for any x and any y, where x is in the intellect but y is real, y can be thought greater than x. This requires some attention, because it is mainly here that the presumption that god exists slips in. It's sitting there in plain sight, in that we have it that from (1) that there is a greatest thing, and here the presumption that that greatest thing is real. — Banno
Even if we admit (1), why shouldn't we just suppose that the greatest thing can be conceived of, but not be real? Why could it not be the case that the greatest thing can be imagined, and yet might not exist? — Banno
A general point to note: within the premodern metaphysical vision, particularly in Neoplatonism and Christian theology, being was understood as a form of plenitude—what the ancients called the Pleroma, the 'fullness of being'. From this perspective, being is not a neutral or arbitrary descriptor, but an expression of fullness, goodness, and actuality, compared to which non-existence or non-being is a privation or deficiency. — Wayfarer
(3) any thought object that can be thought to exist in reality can be thought to be greater than any thought object that is only in the intellect — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof - Section 2
Also worth noting that for the medievals, arguments for God’s existence were devotional as much as polemical — Wayfarer
The ontological argument, in this context, is not merely a logical proof but an intellectual prayer — Wayfarer
I'm pretty sure you know enough logic to know that truth and validity are not the same thing. As to whether his proof is even valid depends on definitions he has not given.Klima claims that the proof is valid, and it looks to me that he is correct. — Leontiskos
Anselm, and I assume Klima, hold that God "exists in reality." "Exists" and "reality" do not appear to be defined - are you going going to define them? Still though, I take that for anything that exists in reality there are accidents; e.g., as big/small, tall/short, whatever/whatever else. And once quantified/qualified, a greater can be conceived. Thus this God can have, on this construction, no fixed aspect at all, and since everything that exists in reality has some fixed aspect, it must be that God does not exist in reality.I see you saying, "This thought object can't be quantified, and that's fatal." I'm not sure I understand the objection. — Leontiskos
Thus this God can have, on this construction, no fixed aspect at all, and since everything that exists in reality has some fixed aspect, it must be that God does not exist in reality. — tim wood
Further, it is adduced without proof that objects in reality are greater than objects of thought. Yet lots of things are clearly greater as objects of thought than as instantiated in reality. E.g., two, justice, love, The American Way, and even God himself. — tim wood
And finally, as a being conceived - in any way whatever - He must be conceived by a conceiver. And who might that be? It cannot be God. Me? You? Banno? We will all have different conceptions; does that mean different Gods? — tim wood
How can that be, as God is not defined in any way except as a being than which & etc.? My argument is against - or at least questioning - another argument. And that argument, which is not really Anselm's and not really Klima's, but that may be yours, is that God, because of the presumed dual efficacy of being a thought object that is always better and because to exist in reality is always better than being a thought object, necessarily exists in reality. And these dual principles are simply assumed when they need to be proved.Well this looks like an argument against God, — Leontiskos
And I think it's pretty clear that Anselm's God cannot meet these criteria. Nor, for that matter, do (I think) any of the original Christian thinkers think that He could or did. — tim wood
I'm pretty sure you know enough logic to know that truth and validity are not the same thing. — tim wood
(a) M(g,g) God can be thought to be greater than god. This is a valid deduction - it follows from the premises. There is the obvious problem of god being thought to be greater than himself. If you are happy with that, then all is fine, but if this strikes you as a bit rich, then this might well be treated as a reductio, showing that at least one of the premises is on the nose. — Banno
Evidently, this piece of reasoning cannot be torpedoed on the basis that it presupposes that there is something than which nothing greater can be thought of, as it only requires that something is thought of than which nothing greater can be thought of. But Anselm makes it clear that anyone who claims to understand the phrase “that than which nothing greater can be thought of” has to think of something than which nothing greater can be thought of, which, therefore, being thought of, is in the intellect, as its object. By the above argument we can see, however, that it cannot be only in the intellect, whence we concluded that it has to be in reality, too.
Then you know something that is not so.I know you think the early Christians did not believe that God exists, but luckily we don't have to discuss that theory in this thread. — Leontiskos
Just like Zeus, eh? Btw, do you stop to think about what omnipotent means and implies? Is omnipotence the greater thing?If God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" then he is necessarily omnipotent, from which it would seem to follow that he can meet any criteria he likes. — Janus
Presents no riddles once understood. And understanding can be got from Anselm himself in his opening to his discourse, reference to which the OP generously supplied above. He believes, and his proof is a paean to his belief and through his belief to what he believes. That is, it's about belief - it's that simple.Anselm's ontological argument presents a few riddles — sime
It seems, therefore, that all that Anselm’s proof requires is that modicum of rationality which is needed to understand a simple descriptive phrase, to reflect on what the description implies, and to conclude to these implications concerning the thought object one has in mind as a result of understanding the description. — Gyula Klima, St. Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding - Section 3
The Pope and an atheist are having a discussion...
and it slowly gets more and more heated until eventually the Pope can't take it anymore and he says to the atheist - "You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there."
The atheist laughs and says - "With all due respect, we sound awfully similar. You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there but the difference is you think you've found it.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.