The Most Unique Argument for God's Existence

Saint Anselm of Canterbury is considered the father of medieval philosophy. He's written a lot in both of his two major works, the Monologion and the Proslogion, and within the latter is his famous ontological argument for God's existence.
In summary, Anselm says that we'd all believe that if God existed, he would be something than which nothing greater can be thought. So God would exist in the imagination as something which nothing greater can be thought. But it's greater to exist in both imagination AND reality. Therefore, to truly be something which nothing greater can be thought, God must exist in reality also.
As for my own critique, I take issue with the word "greater." For one, it's not really defined in the Proslogion. Secondly, why is it greater to exist in both reality and imagination? We often have very vivid imaginations which could create beautiful things. To actualize something is to apply boundaries to it, boundaries that may not otherwise have existed within the mind.
#philosophy #religion #god

INSTAGRAM: @amygdalacomics

[avishevin]

I have never heard an argument for god’s existence that does not presuppose god’s existence.

[D_S_L]

My personal critique is that Anselm's reasoning has the same fallacious argumentation as Pascale's Wager, in that, you can essentially make the argument for most any presumably non-material entity other than God.

For example, I can say, "I think that the concept of invisible omnipotent gnomes living beneath the surface of the Earth is the greatest thought one can think. Therefore, all powerful invisible gnomes must exist in reality if I truly believe them to be the "greatest" 😅

My point is, I suppose, that even within the realm of religion, human subjectivity still plays a significant role

[SharedPhilosophy]

Basically, define god as something that must exist, therefore, he exists 🤯

[low-keyvibin]

*Doctor successfully do surgery*
Patient: Thanks god!
Doctor:😐

[ourdivinemouseoverlord]

Yay, I learned something new today.

My critique of this argument is that I find God's existence to be linked in some way to consciousness. If a person's consciousness were a manifestation/creation of God's, then that consciousness must also be greater than all conceivable consciousnesses. In other words, consciousness would be infinite and include every possible consciousness in reality. But that is most certainly not true because my consciousness follows rules and has clear boundaries (for example: I perceive to always be living in a state of objective reality. If my mind were infinite, then bizarre things would be happening all the time and it wouldn't make sense). Therefore, God has to be finite and can't be as great as possible as the argument states.

[davidnorman]

I'm tired of saying this, but the fundament of most world religions is faith. If the existence of a god can be proven based on evidence then all faith is redundant.. and religion would be a science.

[TheGlenn]

I think my problem is one that a lot of people have already said in one way or another, but why does acknowledging that it would be greater for something to exist in reality make it real? Like... That's not cause and effect. That's just wishful thinking.

[peamutbubber]

Alright here is my attempt at a proper response:

Assumption 1: God is something that which nothing greater can be thought.

Already we run into the bogus use of the word greater, what metric are we using by which god is greater? Or are we just using words without meanings now?

Assuming the statement to be true anyway.

Next the author attempts to separate mind and reality, which is another assumption. We havent defined reality or thought, how are they connected and are they connected at all?

Now the author assumes the following: thing X is greater if it exists in reality and the mind, than Y which exists in mind only.
Here we have a big problem, we need to know what metric we are using to define greater, currently the statement has no meaning.

How can we compare objects greatness in reality to objects greatness in the mind. How are the mind and reality connected? And what even is reality and the mind? A host of problems have already been identified. Is reality created by the mind, or is the mind situated within reality? How can you prove either case?

Then we run into a glaring logical error. We are trying to say, for X to be the greatest thought, X must exist in reality.

It is a logical leap to assume there exists a greatest thought, considering we dont even know what greater means in this context.

Additionally, we assumed it is greater to exist in thought and reality, than thought alone. However, the greatest of thoughts doesnt need to exist in reality, because it is the greatest THOUGHT. If X exists in thought and reality it is greater than Y which exists in thought alone. But the metrics for being greater here are DIFFERENT.

We are saying X is greater than Y as an object because it exists in reality. But this has no bearing on which is the greater thought. Example:
-you think you win the lottery, but in reality, you win nothing. Then we compare the thoughts, so the author would have us believe that the thought of losing the lottery is greater than the thought of winning. Already the word greater is losing meaning that is never had in the first place.

Like earlier mentioned, comparing the greatness of thoughts is not even a definable operation, therefore is meaningless. It is impossible to order the set of "complex numbers", which are relatively easy to understand.

Thoughts are incredibly complicated in comparison, to the point they have an assumed definition, ordering thoughts which are poorly defined objects in terms of greatness is entirely subjective and impossible in a general sense. Overall, the argument gets a 0 from me. Like any attempt to prove or disprove god, cant even come up with a good definition and completely defeats the point of faith.

[maxungar]

this sounds similar to my shoddy recollection of one of descarte's meditations. did descarte "repurpose" this argument?

[kingdm]

Kants critique of this was pretty good

[hoangainam]

Understandable, thank you and have a great day.

[christopherstoney]

I am reminded of Puddleglum's speech after burning his feet in the enchanted fire (The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis).

[allen_tor]

Greater is that a thing that exists in reality and in mind is more than the thing that exists in mind. By definition the thing that exists in mind and in reality is greater because it is more than the thing that only exists in mind.

[wyzer]

Awesome video! Let's dive into it a little bit (more) with a couple words: _synergy_ and _gestalt._ _Synergy_ is when the parts of a machine/group work together to create more output as a whole (than would be produced by the combined totals of the individual components). _Gestalt, _ similarly to synergy, is when the overarching functions of a system (or group of systems) combine to create something "greater than the sum of its parts". In this particular concept (e.g. the ontological argument for the _"mandatory"_ existence of a "greater" being), _GOD_ would be the combined aspects of synergy, observation, and the resulting _gestalt_ created by said synergies. TL;DR- Define "God" as "everything that exists" plus "the awareness of existence" to emulate a cosmopantheistic entity that is "more than just reality". Even shorter TL;DR- The Universe is God and we are all parts within.

[StrangeCornersOfThought]

This intro was amazing! Really powerful hook. Good job man.

[WillEhrendreich]

A better one to deal with would be the Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga. There has been a little bit of development in the last few hundred years, and it's probably best to look at some more contemporary versions of the arguments and see how they hold up.

[liammcooper]

This is, pure and simple, sophistry. Anselm uses rhetoric to come up with an argument that sounds like it *could* be true. For one thing, "God must be personal because he has to have the highest level of person-hood" is ludicrous prima facie, because God must also have the highest level of imperson-hood. Secondly, if God is the "greatest" of everything, then he's also "the greatest evil" in which case he's not worthy of being called a benevolent god (Theodicy argument). Finally, the linear concept of "reality must be dependent upon one thing" is flawed, because Anselm doesn't address the theme of interdependence which is common in eastern religion; where all of reality is dependent on all other aspects of reality, and thus there is nothing that can be conceived of as "greater than everything".

[CassiusZedaker-prkc]

Plato would say that things which can only be thought are greater than the things which can be both thought of, and exist in reality. Because the things that exist in reality are mere copies or iterations of the Forms of the things, and degradations of them. The Forms are apprehended by the intellect alone, and are eternal in nature, which makes them superior to physical objects, which are at best copies of the Forms, and subject to change and disintegration.

For Plato, God is apprehended by the Intellect alone, since God is nothing else but the Form of The Good, towards which the Philosopher keeps his mind constantly focused. For Plato, a God that existed "in reality" would be either nonsense or a degradation.

[pauldore]

My issue with this is that it's akin to trying to imagine "the highest possible integer, that which no other higher integer exists". This number does not exist because any possibility can be refuted by simply adding one to it. The same can be said for god. Any "greatest possible being" can be proven to not exist by imagining an even greater being which creates said being.

[LBoomsky]

This is kinda like defining ought as the ultimate defining force of actual things in reality, which i've contemplated.
God could be because he should be because he is what ought to be, and that ought is plausible answer to why some things exist rather than other things since rationality can only explain things on the basis of logistics which are contingent on something to be logical of not why there is in the first place.