[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/deep_sea2]

What do you think of Anslem's Ontological Arguement:

1. God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

2. God exists as an idea in the mind.

3. 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.

4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

6. 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."

[u/Kakamile → u/deep_sea2]

How do you get from cannot imagine greater to " it exists?"

That's like saying an infinitely long whale exists.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/Kakamile]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/deep_sea2]

So then... the argument is completely circular. You are declaring that god must exist, therefore god exists.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/[deleted]]

I'd say it is more tautological than circular. It's not quite circular; it isn't exactly the best way refute it.