Questioning Anselm's Ontological Arugment - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

itchy93 · 09-08-2003, 02:16 PM

Hey all,
I'm taking my first philosophy class in college (Intro to Philosophy) and I'm understanding everything very well. However, the question I have is based primarily on semantics (my teacher is very busy, and not very accessible).

For those not wholly familiar, Anselm claims that "God" is a "being than which nothing greater can be conceived," or the Greatest Conceivable Being. This is based on the premise of two realms of existence: existence in theory, and existence in reality.

However, Guanillo objects to this definition, stating that, while God may be the greatest being existing in theory, and a being of equal "greatness" existed both in theory AND reality, then it would be a greater being, and could be conceived as thus.

My question is this: if we accept infinite as being a valid theory, why couldn't the Anselm's definition be taken as such? That is, not to classify God as a finite being "than which no greater can be conceived", why not as the infinitely greatest being? That would counterobject to Guanillo's objection, and would satisfy Anselm's original definition.

On a side note, I am fully aware that this may be the most incomprehensible piece of dribble many of you have read; if you require elaboration, do not hesitate to ask.

Itchy93

lurkette · 09-08-2003, 02:34 PM

Various philosophers' reactions to Anselm's argument.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis...m-critics.html

Mathematical deconstruction of Anselm:
http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/anselm.html

And the best one yet:
http://www.uq.edu.au/philosophy/dsm/mannisongod.html#oa

Basically, Anselm's argument is a tautology. His argument presupposes the existence of that the existence of which he's trying to prove (how's that for an Anselm-ism!) and the argument basically breaks down to "If God exists, then God exists." Not terribly compelling.

CSflim · 09-08-2003, 03:25 PM

This was already discussed on another thread. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=19343

You can get into all sorts of lingustic twists and turns, but anyone with the slightest bit of clarity of though can see straight through the argument. Yes it is exceedingly difficult to argue with it, but that doens't change what it is. Gödel's Theroem anyone?

Johnny Rotten · 09-08-2003, 04:49 PM

You must agree that existence is objectively "better" than nonexistence for the argument to follow through to perfection. However, some people prefer oblivion over an afterlife of some kind. It is a very Christian mindset to presuppose the superiority of existence, since we are taught that it's sacred and only God has the power or right to say otherwise.

Moonduck · 09-08-2003, 05:38 PM

Actually, the earlier thread on this particular proof was really good. It was easily one of the best threads of its' sort I've seen anywhere. Rousing discussion with very little rancor, and very good lines of argument, even ignoring the BIaJ.

itchy93 · 09-09-2003, 05:58 AM

Thanks for your views and information, all. I'll check out the links and see what I learn!

Itchy93

09-08-2003, 02:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
itchy93 Tilted Location: Wandering North America	Questioning Anselm's Ontological Arugment Hey all, I'm taking my first philosophy class in college (Intro to Philosophy) and I'm understanding everything very well. However, the question I have is based primarily on semantics (my teacher is very busy, and not very accessible). For those not wholly familiar, Anselm claims that "God" is a "being than which nothing greater can be conceived," or the Greatest Conceivable Being. This is based on the premise of two realms of existence: existence in theory, and existence in reality. However, Guanillo objects to this definition, stating that, while God may be the greatest being existing in theory, and a being of equal "greatness" existed both in theory AND reality, then it would be a greater being, and could be conceived as thus. My question is this: if we accept infinite as being a valid theory, why couldn't the Anselm's definition be taken as such? That is, not to classify God as a finite being "than which no greater can be conceived", why not as the infinitely greatest being? That would counterobject to Guanillo's objection, and would satisfy Anselm's original definition. On a side note, I am fully aware that this may be the most incomprehensible piece of dribble many of you have read; if you require elaboration, do not hesitate to ask. Itchy93

09-08-2003, 02:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Various philosophers' reactions to Anselm's argument. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis...m-critics.html Mathematical deconstruction of Anselm: http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/anselm.html And the best one yet: http://www.uq.edu.au/philosophy/dsm/mannisongod.html#oa Basically, Anselm's argument is a tautology. His argument presupposes the existence of that the existence of which he's trying to prove (how's that for an Anselm-ism!) and the argument basically breaks down to "If God exists, then God exists." Not terribly compelling. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

09-08-2003, 03:25 PM	#3 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	This was already discussed on another thread. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=19343 You can get into all sorts of lingustic twists and turns, but anyone with the slightest bit of clarity of though can see straight through the argument. Yes it is exceedingly difficult to argue with it, but that doens't change what it is. Gödel's Theroem anyone? __________________

09-08-2003, 04:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	You must agree that existence is objectively "better" than nonexistence for the argument to follow through to perfection. However, some people prefer oblivion over an afterlife of some kind. It is a very Christian mindset to presuppose the superiority of existence, since we are taught that it's sacred and only God has the power or right to say otherwise. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

09-09-2003, 05:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
itchy93 Tilted Location: Wandering North America	Thanks for your views and information, all. I'll check out the links and see what I learn! Itchy93 __________________ That's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

09-08-2003, 05:38 PM	#5 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	Actually, the earlier thread on this particular proof was really good. It was easily one of the best threads of its' sort I've seen anywhere. Rousing discussion with very little rancor, and very good lines of argument, even ignoring the BIaJ.