(October 24, 2017 at 8:42 am)MysticKnight Wrote: These two premises prove Anselm's argument is correct though secular Academia presents it with the worse bias:
1. It is greater to exist than not to exist (We try to prevent death because we all believe in this).
I always liked CS Lewis as an apologist. The key trickery he used, was using what people wanted to believe was true as a premise. It's very sneaky to say things like "It's better to exist, than not exist!" Because that's what people think. But people thinking something doesn't make it a fundamental truth. It makes it a widely held opinion.
An interesting exercise for you, I think, would be to break down a lot of your premises not to the root of what people believe, but what they are in the absence of human opinion.
Things designed to continue existing are more likely to exist. Naturally, life forms that have a desire to exist are going to have more staying power than one's that don't. A population of super suicidal monkeys isn't going to exist long. There is nothing inherently good or bad about that. Our desire to prevent death is not different than a rock formation with a composition that makes erosion slower than other rock formations.
I don't think you'd argue one pile of rocks is greater than another pile of rocks because it erodes slower. There is no ultimate meaning in piles of rocks existing or their erosion speeds if you take out human opinion.
