"Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality."
Just for a bit of fun whilst I have a few moments I thought we might like to investigate the best counters to the above argument. I'll start of with a few and you guys can chime in with critiques or comments or other arguments that are hopefully better than mine:
1. Defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is fine - but it rules out the OT/NT God who is further from that definition than Superman.
2. Whatever being that could be defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is not conceivable by the human mind. All we could actually conceive of would be a pale imitation of what that being would be.
3. "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" - by whom? We would get some serious variation of what one person conceives compared to another when talking about perfection. Mine would be female, for example and a bad fit for someone who sees the perfect being as male. There can't be any compromise here, as we are dealing with perfection and hermaphrodite wouldn't do it for me. This leads to polytheism if each of us can conjure up from out imagination our own perfect being that has not been conceived of in exactly the same way.
4. Whatever we conceive of in the mind cannot be made whole by will alone- however neat the philosophy.
5. There is no evidence that existence in reality, even in addition to existence in the mind, makes the greatest possible being better. It could be, for example, that existence a priori denies perfection. Nothing we know of, that exists is perfect.
6. We can change a few of the terms of the argument to prove that it doesn't work. As follows:
Max defined Monster as "that than which nothing scarier can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the scariest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a scarier being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality and is in the room behind him ready to eat him in the next 2 seconds."
aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh
Oh no - still alone. The premise fails.
Anyone got any more/better ones?
Just for a bit of fun whilst I have a few moments I thought we might like to investigate the best counters to the above argument. I'll start of with a few and you guys can chime in with critiques or comments or other arguments that are hopefully better than mine:
1. Defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is fine - but it rules out the OT/NT God who is further from that definition than Superman.
2. Whatever being that could be defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is not conceivable by the human mind. All we could actually conceive of would be a pale imitation of what that being would be.
3. "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" - by whom? We would get some serious variation of what one person conceives compared to another when talking about perfection. Mine would be female, for example and a bad fit for someone who sees the perfect being as male. There can't be any compromise here, as we are dealing with perfection and hermaphrodite wouldn't do it for me. This leads to polytheism if each of us can conjure up from out imagination our own perfect being that has not been conceived of in exactly the same way.
4. Whatever we conceive of in the mind cannot be made whole by will alone- however neat the philosophy.
5. There is no evidence that existence in reality, even in addition to existence in the mind, makes the greatest possible being better. It could be, for example, that existence a priori denies perfection. Nothing we know of, that exists is perfect.
6. We can change a few of the terms of the argument to prove that it doesn't work. As follows:
Max defined Monster as "that than which nothing scarier can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the scariest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a scarier being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality and is in the room behind him ready to eat him in the next 2 seconds."
aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh
Oh no - still alone. The premise fails.
Anyone got any more/better ones?
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
