Disproving Anselm's Proslogion argument

[jduster]

In his work of writing, the Proslogion, in the "god truly exists" paragraph, he defines God as something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and he uses that in a logical process to get the end result of proving the existance of God.

I've heard of Guanilo's island argument, but is there any other argument that can shut down Anselm's ontological argument?

[tymygy]

Nothing greater can be thought?

But isn't there thousands of religions out there, with thousands of different Gods?

Which one is the greatest thought?

[jduster]

Anselm's argument is not referring to a specific religion though; it is referring to a perfect being (God).

[tymygy]

Anselm's argument is not referring to a specific religion though; it is referring to a perfect being (God).

Oh, so that still doesn't prove HIS God exists...?

[Will]

I wrote one here a while back which played on the axiom of greatness by pointing out how subjective it is. I call it the Perfect Pringle.

The argument:
1. God is, by definition, a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind.
3. God must exist in reality, if God did not then God would not be that which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).

My response:
Let's say that I have Perfect Pringle (P), a potato chip that has infinite surface, height, and perfect taste. This is the greatest potato chip ever, ever. P is the greatest potato chip that can exist - existing is greater than not existing, therefore P must have existed (before I ate it).

The point is the axiom is flawed because it can be demonstrated to be incorrect.

[Recusant]

I think that more than one of the premises are questionable, but you only need to demonstrate that one of them is invalid to refute Anselm's ontological proof.  Like Will, I see no need to go further than the first, though I might take a slightly different approach. (Not to say that Will's doesn't work!)

"If we can conceive of the greatest possible being..."

Can we?  Can a "greatest" even exist in the realm of thought?  Is there a "greatest" number?  If I remember correctly, even if you assert that the human mind can conceive the infinite, mathematically there are infinities that are infinitely larger than other infinites, and so on. Where do you draw the line, and say, "This is the greatest. there can be none greater?" I don't think that's possible.  I'm not the one who came up with this approach to Anselm's proof, but I don't know who did.  I may not have stated it correctly either.  Perhaps one of the more philosophically minded here can give proper credit, and state this refutation correctly, if I've muffed it.

[jduster]

Thank you both.

[Sophus]

Nothing greater can be thought? Then there you have it. Thor is God!



Unless you can come up with something greater than this!

Max: Small is good. My powers are able to slip right through the cracks.
Judith: But what if the cracks are closed up?
Max: Then I have a re-cracker, which goes right through that.
Judith: But what if they have some sort of material that re-crackers can't get through?
Max: Then I have a double re-cracker, which can get through anything in this whole universe. And that's the end, and there's nothing more powerful after that, ever. Period.
Alexander: He has a double re-cracker.
Ira: He does sound powerful.

P.S. My daddy is stronger than your daddy.

[theantithesis]

In his work of writing, the Proslogion, in the "god truly exists" paragraph, he defines God as something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and he uses that in a logical process to get the end result of proving the existance of God.

I've heard of Guanilo's island argument, but is there any other argument that can shut down Anselm's ontological argument?

The problem with Anselm's argument is that it says nothing about the thing being discussed, god in this case, but only about the person speaking's imagination. That Anselm can imagine a being that no other is greater does not necessitate the existence of an actual such entity. I can imagine an incredible blowjob where no other is greater. That such a blowjob I am actually receiving would be greater than one I am only imagining is immaterial. My ability to imagine great things does not will them into existence out of the aether.

That and the term "great" is poorly defined. Vague terms make for bad arguments.

[elliebean]

Easily refuted by almost any substitution of properties: ie. something "that than which nothing lesser/more evil/tastier/more invisible/less heavy/more blue/more empty/funnier/more smelly, etc. can be thought".

I personally like "than which nothing more non-existent can be thought".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not to mention that he never demonstrates existence to be a perfection.

[Gawen]

There is a logical difference between saying "God is" and "God is X”. The difference is not what God is like but whether God exists. Anslem's argument simply tells us that if God existed, God would exist, but cannot do any more than that; show us whether God really exists or could exist. Postulating the existence of something does not necessarily mean that that something exists either and that existence is not a predicate of something. In other words, it is not an attribute to be added to something, for example, goodness or mercy. One cannot say, "Put all the dogs that exist in one cage and all the dogs that do not exist in the other" but one can say "Put all the brown dogs in one cage and all the black dogs in another".

Anselm's argument ends up with a God who is not limited by logic; the rules and laws of the Universe. It does not work logically when considering the existence of evil. By this we prove such a God outside logic does not exist. And then we know the realization that logic is a problem for a theoretical omni-God.