[spoon]

Yackoff has referenced this quite a few times in his posts, so I decided to read up on it. My first impression upon reading it was that it was dumb...

As was the second impression, and the third, etc.

My main complaint with the argument is his concrete use of subjective words and phrases such as "greater than" or "perfect".

Specifically, at what I consider the pivotal point in his suppositions, he concludes that "something that exists both in reality and in the mind is greater than something that exists in the mind alone." Why is this the case?

Another weak spot is his premise. He makes the supposition that god is simply a being which cannot be improved upon. If that is the case, and the image of perfection is completely objective (as suggested by the argument), we should be able to determine exactly what god is, what he does, and how he does it.

It seems to me that Anselm's argument is nothing more than a flimsy, paradoxical word game with an audacious conclusion.

[DuckDodgers]

My biggest problem is the premise that something you can think of exists simply because you can think of it.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I think you are both missing the point. & Spoon, I've done nothing to earn your calling me out of my name. I have always been polite to you. Anyway, as I was saying, the point of the Ontological Argument is NOT to create something out of nothing. That would be stupid. The point is to prove that God exists already. I'm not going to do so @ this time or on this thread, as I have done so on the other. I recommend visiting there.

[spoon]

First of all, "Yackoff" is an endearing term, and yes, I appreciate your politeness.

I never implied Anselm was trying to create something out of nothing. I argued that the logic he used to conclude that god must exist in a physical sense is flawed. I will read the other thread and see if I can figure out where you refuted my points.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Fair enough. Continue in that thread if you have thoughts on the matter. I don't multi-task well.

[DuckDodgers]

I'm going to carry of our ontological discussion hear since it's a thread devoted to it.

Does it matter whether God claims to be jealous?  Perhaps the equal entities have accepted that neither may vanquish the other and so rule as one being and they are just stating that man should not worship anything but them.  Perhaps each entity has been given it's own world of creatures to rule.  Maybe the Mormons have it right in saying God is one among many of his species each with their own world.  This is all irrelevant to the ontological argument since it does not deal with any evidence and simply deals with thoughts.

You can imagine a being which no greater exists.  I can imagine a being equal to yours.  Equal is not greater, therefore multiple gods.  End of story.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, Duck, its a point of view. But I don't think it can stand against 1 Supreme Being ultimately knocking out all 'contenders for the throne', if you will.

[DuckDodgers]

But all the supreme beings are equal.  Their fight would end in a stalemate as neither could defeat the other.  Why are you now fighting what the ontological argument agrees is reality?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Ok, lets go from the top. In the ontological scenario, I as a thinking being (a la Descartes, who came along later; Cogito, ergo sum) can conceive of a Being a greater than which, or an equal to which, cannot possibly be conceived. As per our earlier example of 'fuck you infinity & one times', the number just keeps going up. My Being is always a step ahead of yours, therefore remaining supreme.

[Ghost of V]

If your argument is sound like you claim, so are many other arguments using the same logic.

I am imaging the greatest evil, therefore it exists. This evil kills your God and plunges everyone to Hell. Oh my... Does that mean we're already in Hell?

[DuckDodgers]

The original argument put forward made no mention that equals were banned, therefore they are allowed due to not being greater.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Vaux, I'm pulling your question from the other thread here. Lets continue all discussion here. I don't multi-task well. As per the idea of evil, evil is, per Augustine the Greater, the absence of good. So it is impossible to conceive of evil existing as such, but rather, not existing, which, per Anselm, is not as beneficial a trait as existence. A world w/o a being w/ the 3 omnis would be a mess. Humans can barely follow legal & moral codes now, most of which were based on religious mandate. Imagine that mandate not existing? Of course, you'll say that religious law doesn't prove God's existence. I agree. But it shows that men have thought these matters through that were usually smarter than us. Forgive me. I'm feeling poorly & must rest. I'll be back later. NOTE: Jews don't believe in Hell.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Duck, you have chosen to introduce the element of equality, which was not in Anselm's argument. I have chosen to be the asshole that says, 'ha! My God is one point greater than yours!' Ultimately, we're back to the original argument. Forgive me. I must rest, as I do feel ill. TTYL, Group.

[Ghost of V]

I have heard many religious people claim "you cannot comprehend the majesty of God" or some such thing. I think you have even said something to this affect a few times yourself. If you cannot comprehend the full majesty of God, how does this argument work exactly?

The argument your using would only be meaningful to someone who completely understands the essence of God. Even then: it still wouldn't prove anything, because this argument is more like elaborate word games and troll bait instead of something substantial.

Regardless, I hope you feel better. Your trolling is always engaging.

[DuckDodgers]

You had previously asked me to refute the argument, I've been attempting to do so by imagining an equally great being to the greatest being.  I feel this loophole invalidates Anslem's argument that God exists and rather validates that gods exist.  Using your very logic, I've disproved Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with a single thought.

Also Vaux had made since interesting points.

[fappenhosen]

My Being is always a step ahead of yours, therefore remaining supreme.

But it remains supreme in your head. You need to get used to this notion. It's in your head. Being able to think of "great" things does not mean they exist. Any more than thinking of non-great things.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Just as Duck's equal beings are in his head? Fap, I'll ask this question a 3rd time: if someone puts a loaded & cocked pistol to your brain & then asks, 'Does your continued existence as a thinking thing mean more or less than your existence as worm-food, what would you say. Is a live Fap better than a dead Fap? NOTE! THE QUESTION IS RHETORICAL. I DON'T WANT TO KILL FAP.

[Ghost of V]

Is a live Fap better than a dead Fap? NOTE! THE QUESTION IS RHETORICAL. I DON'T WANT TO KILL FAP.

*face palm*

[Shmeggley]

You had previously asked me to refute the argument, I've been attempting to do so by imagining an equally great being to the greatest being.  I feel this loophole invalidates Anslem's argument that God exists and rather validates that gods exist.  Using your very logic, I've disproved Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with a single thought.

Also Vaux had made since interesting points.

Interesting. What could be greater than a maximally great being? How about an infinite number of maximally great beings?

[Ghost of V]

Interesting. What could be greater than a maximally great being? How about an infinite number of maximally great beings?

Great, Shmeggles! Guess what? You just created a whole pantheon of supremely powerful Gods just by thinking about it!

How do you feel now that you're the creator of so many infinitely powerful beings?