God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

[Smoogles]

This is a repost of a post I did just a little while ago I would like to see what people think, how they could prove this wrong logically and with reason. Do not post unless you have concrete evidence, or if you don't even understand it (good luck because it has been tried and tried again and never contradicted for decades).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also a word to all atheists, this is the perfect argument that proves God's existance... if you're intellectually gifted enough to grasp it then you will understand, but open your eyes...

Anselm’s ontological argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum, which means that it takes a hypothesis, shows that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications, and so concludes that the hypothesis is false.

In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist. Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.

If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist.

The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God. There is, because it’s possible to imagine a God that does exist. There isn’t, because it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.

A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; God exists.

A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2) is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being. (3) follows simply from (1) and (2).

Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God.

(5) follows simply from (3) and (4).

Also if you believe that non-existence was greater than existence then you would've woken up today and shot yourself in the head, no questions asked; so everyone seems to agree that Existence>Non-Existence.

No one can disprove this because it is a Definition of what God is, not an observation or theory, just concrete knowledge. If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?

And if any atheist... I mean ANY atheist would like to debate me please disprove the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments and then we may speak. If you have nothing but beliefs as so many christians seem to then please do not bother with my time if you have nothing other than a good definition and concrete evidence. Because so much of Atheism seems to be based on belief also, and here are some arguments that prove God's existence. Now please show me what disproves God.

This proves that there is a God and nothing further, it is satisfying in that aspect but dissatisfying in that it gives no further detail into how God 'is', it doesn't take any "chances".

[Charles Darnay]

You are right in that it is hard/impossible to argue with the argument because it is not an argument - it is a very good, solid, logical construction. However, it is incomplete in that it does not REALLY prove that God exists.

To over-simplify things I will begin thus: Anselm's argument suffers the same fate as Thomas Aquinas' theory and that is that you can remove the word God and replace it with "weird plate of banana mush" and get the same results. By this I mean that it is a logical argument to prove that anything exists - it does not address the religious concept of God. In order to accept this theory you must first believe in God and that is what is absurd.

I will agree that it addresses the fact that existence is better than non-existence, but not existence of God....atheists are not nihilists....atheists believe in existence as much as theists, just a different form.

If you want to really play with logic, even nihilists believe in some existence, the existence of non-existence and this non-existence existence, according to Anselm, is better than non-existence - essentially, non-existence dose not exist - if you catch my logic....but once again, this has nothing to do with a religious proof

[jgweed]

From a philosophical and perhaps neutral point of view:

One might argue that Anselm's proof rests solely on a definition of god as necessarily including actual existence as a predicate; but while this might tell us much about how we conceive of god, it does not tell us whether god actually exists or not.

A stronger argument could be made that to predicate what we understand as existence may not be appropriate to god's existence; existence is only applicable to the universe, but we also understand god to be "outside" "or beyond" this universe. Thus. even it be argued that our definition of god must necessarily include existence, then this existence is unique to God.

Yet another argument is that while "everyone agrees" that to exist is better than not to exist, that remains a human value. To apply this human prejudice to God is unwarranted.

[aeroport]

Interesting thread.

(good luck because it has been tried and tried again and never contradicted for decades).

Seriously? I don't think it was ever properly accepted as 'proof' in more than the nominal sense, for the very reasons you mention. David Hume, Kant, and Bertrand Russell (that I know of) have all contradicted it - I couldn't really tell you with what degree of success, but the ontological argument shouldn't be treated as something as widely accepted as your post makes it sound.

Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.

This has always been my beef with the OA. I don't know how he came up with the idea that God can actually be 'conceived'. God has always seemed to me essentially to be defined by his 'inconceivable'-ness. Rather than 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' it would be 'that which is greater than all that can be conceived'. Catch my meaning here? This would make the whole argument rather pointless, though... The idea, I'm thinking, is that God should be impossible to prove, thus necessitating faith.

No one can disprove this because it is a Definition of what God is, not an observation or theory, just concrete knowledge. If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?

Sounds like a theory to me.
If humans can indeed 'conceive' of God (here the word becomes rather suggestive), it seems to me that this argument can go both ways.

[Smoogles]

I respect all of your lovely opinions I really do, I love to see the mind at work and everyone's reasoning behind the theories out there; I can sympathize with the Atheists' point of view towards God and religion and general trust me I had a lot of doubts also. I have questioned even the 'Problem of Evil' in relation to God and found myself stuck. But let's see what the Atheistic side of the problem brings to the table... something more sensible and believeable?

Maybe one has Feuerbachs' point of view or maybe Marx, whoevers it is it has weaknesses worse than the Ontological Argument (Yes, argument not proof). The theory that we are all born to want to be the best of our ability (Feuerbach) and in that be perfect; is solely saying that let's suggest that there was a Robber (considering this is generally seen as wrong, maybe more can sympathize?) which wanted to be the perfect robber and never be caugh and go down in history. Does it make him right that he is robbing others? But who am I to say what is wrong is wrong so lets say that someone morally and ethically incorrect did something to the best of their ability it would there too seem that he is infact doing what Feuerbach suggested but if that were true there would be endless backstabbings and hunger for power, so in a way God (even if he doesn't exist) does help settle things in that one cannot be perfect but one can achieve while keeping in mind one's 'morals' and 'truth'. So the idea of it would be gratifying. This is just a small explanation as to how even Atheist beliefs (If there is such a thing) can be disproven to even exist, and if there wasn't Theist people then why would Atheist even exist into being except in the rational mind? Why not just be a non-believer? There has to be something that strikes a cord with them.

To Charels

This is an argument not proof, the only proof in this world is 2+2=4 because in that you can also do 4-2=2 and it will still be true. You can contradict it and it will still hold. And your "bannana mush" topic just helped me prove my point in that God does exist but maybe not to the extent that is referred to in the Bible but his existence is unquestionable none-the-less. I am just showing an argument up for debate, from my perspective, that shoes the existence of God. Atheism just seems to be the contradiction of what philosophy was created for (To root out the bad answers) unless this argument is proven untrue, then there is no such thing as Atheism.

To jgweed

It is the definition of God, yet to be disproven and it is not a proof rather a , again, definition. Which proves the existence of God and disproves Atheism. Desecrates, the person whom rewrote this and proved it to be logical proved that existence > non-existence because God infact must exist if it can be concieved in thought, if there is something greater than what you can concieve then THAT being must be God.... In the end the most-perfect being one can concieve. And if what you understand exists within your understanding then you should surely understand why God exists and so on and so fourth. It is pointless to refute this argument. Even if I were 'Atheist' I would question the validity of my non-belief. Even though it doesn't go far, it doesn't mention anything about what/how we believe God to be from the bible it still argues that there must be a God.

To Jamesian: (You are a the most educated out of you three, and I respect your insight, thank you for your time to post. :])

It is not proof, rather a valid argument in which cannot be disproven thus making God exist. I have too read Hume (We have not experienced enough in the natural world to come to a conclusion), Kant, and Russell and what they are saying is that there is no "First Cause" (surely you should understand what I mean by that) and we are here merely as rocks, made from earth, we have the understanding and reasoning of rocks, we provide carbon dioxide to plants and plants provide oxygen to us, it seems too perfect don't you think? This is the only planet (that we know of) that con host us, that has a magnetic field that repells meteors, with an Ozone, and we can have the so-called (free will). There must be some being that has set this world up so perfectly.

Yes I 'catch your drift' I can see how you think one may not even be able to concieve a God but you must be able to concieve the most perfect being in theory right? You must be able to picture or at least attempt to picture absolute perfection, that is less perfect than that of the God in Reality. I can see your predicament though, and it is well thought of.

The domino theory my friend is the Cosmological Argument to God's existence.

There, the only thing that is missing from this argument; that makes it so weak is the fact that it doesn't describe the God we want to hear, is he loving? Is he the creator? It falls very short in that it just says God Exists, Atheism to me seems pointless with this out.

All of your comments were very thoughtful by the way. I enjoy a good argument, especially on such an important matter as this.

[NickAdams]

Maybe one has Feuerbachs' point of view or maybe Marx, whoevers it is it has weaknesses worse than the Ontological Argument (Yes, argument not proof). The theory that we are all born to want to be the best of our ability (Feuerbach) and in that be perfect; is solely saying that let's suggest that there was a Robber (considering this is generally seen as wrong, maybe more can sympathize?) which wanted to be the perfect robber and never be caugh and go down in history. Does it make him right that he is robbing others? But who am I to say what is wrong is wrong so lets say that someone morally and ethically incorrect did something to the best of their ability it would there too seem that he is infact doing what Feuerbach suggested but if that were true there would be endless backstabbings and hunger for power, so in a way God (even if he doesn't exist) does help settle things in that one cannot be perfect but one can achieve while keeping in mind one's 'morals' and 'truth'. So the idea of it would be gratifying. This is just a small explanation as to how even Atheist beliefs (If there is such a thing) can be disproven to even exist, and if there wasn't Theist people then why would Atheist even exist into being except in the rational mind? Why not just be a non-believer? There has to be something that strikes a cord with them.

We have a burgler with high work ethics and low social ethics; do these two ethics have to be in agreement? But, Feuerbach says we want to be the best of ability; the abilities that would make someone a promising burgler, could also be utilized to another end.

Why not just be a non-believer?

It would still have a connection to what is not believed. It would be best not to acknowledge anything in that regard. All religious inqueries should be answered with, "I don't think I understand what you mean." Identify with anything but theism. Labels like atheist and non-believer should be applied by theist and believers. Alternately, one not having a belief in god does not exclude the alternatives. Even non-believers believe in something.

In the end it is better to know than to believe, so find me lodging with the former.

[Smoogles]

To Nick Adams
I can see you have done your homework and I can see your point, but there is knowing in the points risen in regards to my last post. And your thoughts on non-believers believe in something is quite true, but then that would contradict itself in some form or another. And that Burgler comment was in reference to someone with bad intentions that will go to any ends to complete a task, which means a perfect someone. But your points do seem to logical in that they have reason to back them up, sadly to say you cannot account for all posters....

Please keep posting your intellectual thoughts on this matter, people of the public, this is a most interesting debate on the reality of God. No one likes a Religious Pragmatists.

[AimusSage]

Link:Hundreds of proofs of God's existence

Who could possibly argue against those heaps of proof?

[Smoogles]

That's the last attempt to prove his non-existence? Parody's? Lol, I guess but yea anyone with a REAL opinion on this matter please post your thoughts and your reason behind those thoughts.

[Charles Darnay]

ouch.


Anyway, my biggest problem with your argument right now is your treatment of atheism. As already stated, atheism is a belief that goes beyond "against theism" - this is certainly what the belief is predicated on, but not limited to. My "banana mush" analogy was simply to demonstrate that Anselm's argument (as already stated) proves existence and can be used by any group to argue existence: theists can use it to argue the existence of God and atheists can use it to argue the existence of (whatever is not God). So my question to you (anyone really) would be:

What is the purpose of this argument - what good is it? Surly Anselm was not the first to argue that existence is better than non-existence - this has existed since antiquity - so what can we really take away from it if it seems generally agreed here (by both sides) that the argument does not prove the existence of God (as seen in the Bible)?

[Jeb0092]

All the argument proves is that God is imaginable.

Substitute "FSM" for God in the Argument and I am on Board!

[Smoogles]

To Charels:

I am sorry if I come off as rude toward Atheism, to put it lightly. See the only reason Anselm created this argument was to convert people (Barbarians, and Vikings, etc) into believers. He lived in an age where he and his homeland were under constant attack from outsiders from the borders, he believed that by converting them then they should stop, makes sense right? I mean if you were muslim you wouldn't attack the Taj Mahal. One might ask, what if the Viking asked: "What makes you so sure that, that God is your God and not mine?" and Anselm would reply "Well if your God is so great then why didn't you come up with this first?". And if you were a Barbarian, being a rational being (as all humans are) then you would accept it. So all in all this argument is meant to prove God's existence, nothing more, nothing less. I feel like starting a post on The Problem of Evil, I would probably be put down, and down again. And you should stop your idea of "Bannana Mush", it just proves my point even further right, but you can use it to prove Non-existence is less perfect than existence in future referense like so: It is as if I have the greatest bannana mush in the world and you can have it for 10$ the only problem is it doesn't exist, wouldn't you rather have real bannana mush? I can see how atheist can use it to explain the existence of whatever is not God, but sadly for atheist God is Defined in it therefore he exists whether anyone likes it or not, until proven otherwise of couse. And just fyi, I am undecided if I am Theist or Deist.....

To Jeb:

Go to sleep.

[jgweed]

It certainly seems that the validity of St.Anselm's argument, found in the Proslogicion, can be questioned simply on the philosophical grounds of logic, and that one does not have to be one of those horrible and despicable atheists to do so.

Would one want to turn the coin around by suggesting that to be a non-atheist, one must accept invalid arguments?

[Smoogles]

To jgweed:

Could you please enlighten me on how logically it can be questioned? This is new to me.

[jgweed]

"...the only reason Anselm created this argument was to convert people (Barbarians, and Vikings, etc) into believers."

I am not sure at all that reducing the Archbishop of Canterbury's reason for making the argument to his desire to covert the barbarians to Christianity and to save Merry Old England is either historically accurate, given his dates (c.1033-1109) or sufficient to explain the intent of his writings.He was probably more interested in fusing Aristotelian logic with his own, sometimes Neo-Platonistic, theological beliefs, than leading the troops, as it were, against William the Conquerer.