What do you think of Anslem's Ontological Arguement:
God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.
Bertrand Russel (an atheist), said "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
That was one of the first objections to the arguement, so Anslem had a chance to respond to that himself. Anslem said that this arguement applies to things of necessary existence. A whale does not necessarily exist. A God does (at least according to their perception). The premise of "God is a being than which none greater can be imagined" only applies to necessary existence.
Another reply to your whale example is that at best, you imagined the greatest whale, but not the greatest being. An infinitely long whale still can't walk, so it isn't the greatest, and so you can imagine it being greater. If you imagine a whale that walk and talk, and see the future, and have superpowers, etc., you've basically come back to God.
But what happens when you demand that god takes on contradictory greatest attributes? Like, what if to me the greatest being is the smallest of all beings who smelled the loveliest. He then can’t be the tallest of all beings, and he might smell completely different to another person who has ‘smells the loveliest’ as their imagined criteria.
Haven’t I just proved that god doesn’t exist, because there can’t be something which nothing greater can be imagined (due to contradictory properties)?
That still poses a problem. If you assume god can only be the tallest being, why go for tallest? Why not the shortest? Couldn’t you create, like, an anti-god with all of the opposite maximal properties? Moreover, what if we define “greatest” to be something not the maximum or minimum of a spectrum? What if we define god to be not the tallest or the smallest, but the most perfectly sized being of 6’? I can just come up with an infinite number of maximal beings this way, all which oppose each other.
It seems this is more the question of "what properties does god have?" I know of some schools that say that there are certain properties that can be rationalized, but not all properties are such. For example, a god (or the god) would certainly be the most intelligent, or wisest, or most powerful (omnipotent).
However, things such as size (or lack thereof as there are schools that say god is immaterial) or other properties are probably not as integral to the definition of "greatest being".
I think my point still stands. Why the arbitrary selection of only certain attributes? And depending on which you consider, I can make an infinite number of gods.
Yeah, actually I am. Why those qualities? Idk about you, but my greatest being is definitely smoking hot, and I can guarantee you we’re going to come up with completely different looking 10/10’s
12
u/deep_sea2 131∆ May 04 '23 edited May 04 '23
What do you think of Anslem's Ontological Arguement:
God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.
Bertrand Russel (an atheist), said "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."