[fappenhosen]

I dont understand why you're obsessed with loaded guns at peoples heads. It doesn't equate.

The argument is based around ones ability to concieve a great being. It then states that reality is itself greater than the imaginary. And therefore more true. So a great being hops magically from imagination to reality because reality is better.

So if you want to talk about guns you might say "Concieve the best gun". I don't know. You work it out from here.

[spoon]

Anselm's argument does not say that things exist simply because you can think of them.

It defines god as "perfect". Then it says that something that exists in reality is more perfect than something that exists in the mind. Ergo, god exists. Thought=reality only when conditions of the thought are only met through reality.

At least, that is my understanding of the argument. Yak-attack, correct me if I am wrong.

[Shmeggley]

Good point, but there's still a related problem - people make definitions, and if you're going to define God as perfect and include existence as a necessary condition of being perfect, well, you can do that for anything you can imagine. "The perfect unicorn is one that exists". Nope, didn't work.

[fappenhosen]

What about perfect imagination?

*head explodes*

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.

[fappenhosen]

lolwut why would one destroy the other? Are they brothers that dont get on?

[Ghost of V]

Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.

God is the most perfect being.

God is the most perfect omnibenevolent being who: floods humanity (Genesis 7:21-23), forces people to commit murder to "test their faith"  (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8 ), turns people into salt pillars and burns down people's homes (Genesis 19), slaughters every Egyptian firstborn (Exodus 12:29), sends a plague to kill people after they complained to God that He was killing too many people (Numbers 16:41-49), killed 42 helpless children by sending bears to dismember them (Kings 2:23-24), kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow (Genesis 38:9-10), and endowed several groups of worshipers with His holy power to commit mass genocide (Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9).

Should I go on? 

Obviously perfect.

[spoon]

Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.

That has been my understanding all along, but who are we to say that reality is "more perfect" than thought? Why is perfection at the discretion of seemingly imperfect beings?

[fappenhosen]

Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.

God is the most perfect being.

God is the most perfect omnibenevolent being who: floods humanity (Genesis 7:21-23), forces people to commit murder to "test their faith"  (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8 ), turns people into salt pillars and burns down people's homes (Genesis 19), slaughters every Egyptian firstborn (Exodus 12:29), sends a plague to kill people after they complained to God that He was killing too many people (Numbers 16:41-49), killed 42 helpless children by sending bears to dismember them (Kings 2:23-24), kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow (Genesis 38:9-10), and endowed several groups of worshipers with His holy power to commit mass genocide (Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9).

Should I go on? 

Obviously perfect.

I can imagine a being that didn't do all those things. This being is more perfect. It would be more perfect if it was real.
Ergo: Abrahamic God doesn't exist.

[Shmeggley]

Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.

First, why is it necessary that a perfect being exists in the first place? And what would "more perfect" mean anyway? Is there any reason why there shouldn't be an upper limit to how good, powerful and wise someone can be? Why does there have to be some being that has all these qualities to an infinite degree?

Second, if God is so great, why would he have this pathological urge to destroy his equal? Couldn't they work together? Besides, if there are an infinite number, is it even mathematically possible to reduce that to just one?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Hello. I am going to have to exit the debate for a time. In addition to debating about 6 people single-handedly, I am getting married, moving, & dealing w/ my ever obnoxious family of origin. I shall return. This is not surrender, but truce. See you soon.

[Ghost of V]

Hello. I am going to have to exit the debate for a time. In addition to debating about 6 people single-handedly, I am getting married, moving, & dealing w/ my ever obnoxious family of origin. I shall return. This is not surrender, but truce. See you soon.

Godspeed.

[spaceman spiff]

Wasn't there a parody of this ontological argument that "proves" god doesn't exist? I remember reading it somewhere, it goes more or less like this:
1 - The creation of the universe is the most wonderful achievement imaginable
2 - The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive is the achievement
3 - The greatest handicap possible is non-existence
4 - If we imagine that there is a creator for the universe, we can imagine a greater being that doesn't exist and still created everything
5 - An existing god is therefore not the greatest being we can conceive, since a more impressive god would be one that created everything while non existing
6 - God doesn't exist

[Rama Set]

Wasn't there a parody of this ontological argument that "proves" god doesn't exist? I remember reading it somewhere, it goes more or less like this:
1 - The creation of the universe is the most wonderful achievement imaginable
2 - The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive is the achievement
3 - The greatest handicap possible is non-existence
4 - If we imagine that there is a creator for the universe, we can imagine a greater being that doesn't exist and still created everything
5 - An existing god is therefore not the greatest being we can conceive, since a more impressive god would be one that created everything while non existing
6 - God doesn't exist

Amazing

[spoon]

Wasn't there a parody of this ontological argument that "proves" god doesn't exist? I remember reading it somewhere, it goes more or less like this:
1 - The creation of the universe is the most wonderful achievement imaginable
2 - The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive is the achievement
3 - The greatest handicap possible is non-existence
4 - If we imagine that there is a creator for the universe, we can imagine a greater being that doesn't exist and still created everything
5 - An existing god is therefore not the greatest being we can conceive, since a more impressive god would be one that created everything while non existing
6 - God doesn't exist

I like this because it uses arbitrary or subjective language, such as "most wonderful achievement", "greatest handicap", in much the same way that Anselm's argument does.