Anslem's argument is sound.

[henryp]

So this is where it gets tricky, because I'm going to say value to mean one thing, and you think of it as another.

I value donuts.  They are delicious.  I do not value brussel sprouts.  They are gross.  

I don't believe my valuing donuts but not brussel sprouts says anything about donuts or brussel sprouts having any intrinsic value. 

I do value my life.  But in the same way I value donuts.  It's something I like.  That most of us like being alive does not make life inherently valuable.  It's just a common opinion.  Just like most people liking donuts doesn't make them more valuable than brussel sprouts, which are generally despised.  

What I think you need for your argument is a way to show human life is valuable that isn't based on an opinion, as you can see with many examples that opinion of value and intrinsic value (such as with donuts) are not connected.

You may not like brussel sprouts for personal use, but if others do eat them, you should value them for other's sake. And that should value is due to objective standards, they are beneficial for people. And that is based on facts. Whether you like them or not, doesn't take away their value to others.

You take away the objective value of humans and all that is left is us defining what we are by our mere desires and judgment of ignorance with no reality to our actions.

Finding a reality in which humans lack objective value distasteful doesn't mean it isn't true.  It's the big flaw in so many people's thinking.  They pick a destination they want to arrive at, and then try to form an argument that allows them to get there.  

You need humans to have an objective value for your views on life to make sense.  If you want to believe that on faith, I think that's great.  But when you start making arguments based on logic, you can't include a bunch of things you wish were true, or generally held beliefs.  When someone digs into the reasoning, the shovel eventually needs to hit a foundational fact.

You say "brussel sprouts are beneficial to people, so they have value."  I respond with "But why is something being beneficial to people valuable?"  You say "People have objective value."  I say "Why do people have objective value?"  You say "Because otherwise things are bad."  And I say "What if reality is just bad?"   

Your argument is rooted not on logic, but optimism.  Which again, is fine.  Wanting to believe the world is good doesn't bother me at all.  But for the style of arguments you're presenting, that can't be at the foundation.

[Cyberman]

God has been proven to you guys over and over again, when you digest a single argument, all the arguments will also click.

Now you're being silly. Arguments don't prove anything, they have to map to and comport with reality. That's the card you've been palming all along.

[Edwardo Piet]

The fact the greatest conceivable being by definition is conceivable just proves that the imagination exists, it doesn't prove that the greatest conceivable being exists. The only way it could possibly prove that the greatest conceivable being exists is if the greatest conceivable being is imaginary. Ergo, the final conclusion that the greatest conceivable being must exist because existence is greater than nonexistence and existence is also conceivable... fails to recognize that the imagination DOES exist and "unreal" in the sense of "imaginary" is different to completely nonexistent. Not existent = not present, not anything at all, and imaginary/unreal= existent but only within the imagination. The problem is that "nonexistent" and "not real" are often equivocated and it's not clear which sense of "existence" is being discussed (actually present in any form of reality at all including the imagination on the one hand, and merely present in specifically external non-imaginary reality outside the mind, on the other hand).

I mean, the only thing that I know exists for sure is my own imagination. I don't even know if my external body is real. So if the ontological argument and my own personal evidence really proved God then all it would really be doing was proving that *I* was God. But if I'm also imaginary and so is everyone else that's as meaningless as saying neither I nor anyone else is imaginary and we're all equally real and then we're back to square one again.

[Foxaèr]

God has been proven to you guys over and over again, when you digest a single argument, all the arguments will also click.

God has not been proven to anyone, least of all you. Certainly, you've fallen for something in which you were raised, thought you escaped it because you wanted to be rebellious, and then returned to it because it felt comfortable.

There is no evidence for god. Period. Any evidence you might think you have is personal and not relational to reality.

Nothing can "click" with us when we are the ones residing in reality when you are the outsider with your unrealistic belief.

[Edwardo Piet]

Indeed, and I also disagree with number one; I did not ask to be born and sometimes at my absolute lowest I wish I never had been or that I could have a 'kill switch'... just an instantaneous, painless way to cease to exist.

If no one would remember or miss me . . . I would take that 'kill switch' 90% of the time at least . . . if we're talking truly painless.

To be clear I am not remotely suicidal and would never attempt suicide for a second time. I neither wish to live nor die most of the time. Occasionally I enjoy myself but even then I feel empty and as though my life is not ever going to go anywhere because it's not like I even have any desirable goals I wish to achieve or if there's even anything I'd want to buy or invest in if I won the jackpot lottery. Nor can I give myself credit for any failures or successes as there is no free will. I wish to have better relationships and closer friendships with people but for those things to be truly meaningful they have to be mutual. So it's not something I myself can cause. And then atop of all this there's the fact I'm an epiphenomenalist so no amount of thinking or deciding or planning will in fact cause a better life for myself because ultimately it's my unconscious brain functions that trigger my conscious deliberations. So I just have to hope to have better ideas, decisions, deliberations and have to hope to follow through and become better motivated, somehow, someday, goodness willing. My life really feels like spectating myself, really, utterly powerless, out of control, chaotic and empty, but not chaotic in any sort of necessary destructive way. Mostly just a stagnant way. But most of the time too neutral to be depressing but still too neutral to be worthwhile.

I've had a few crystallized great moments in my life. And that's what really gives my life meaning. It's quality, not quantity. I hope to someday come into contact with more beautiful moments. However brief they are. I both crave and fear acuteness more than I crave or fear anything more permanent.

I don't know whether this was poetic or depressing.

I'm not chaotic good, I'm chaotic neutral, and my life is what it is.

[LuisDantas]

Anselm's so-called argument is not an argument at all.

It is an appeal to aesthetical bias. Moving for some people, but entirely devoid of even the attempt of having logical sense.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not seeing sound premises with conclusions that follow with no fallacies. Each of your arguments has been dissected and found wanting, MK, and all you can do is bleat 'nuh uh, they're PROOF!'

[henryp]

If no one would remember or miss me . . . I would take that 'kill switch' 90% of the time at least . . . if we're talking truly painless.

To be clear I am not remotely suicidal and would never attempt suicide for a second time. I neither wish to live nor die most of the time. Occasionally I enjoy myself but even then I feel empty and as though my life is not ever going to go anywhere because it's not like I even have any desirable goals I wish to achieve or if there's even anything I'd want to buy or invest in if I won the jackpot lottery. Nor can I give myself credit for any failures or successes as there is no free will. I wish to have better relationships and closer friendships with people but for those things to be truly meaningful they have to be mutual. So it's not something I myself can cause. And then atop of all this there's the fact I'm an epiphenomenalist so no amount of thinking or deciding or planning will in fact cause a better life for myself because ultimately it's my unconscious brain functions that trigger my conscious deliberations. So I just have to hope to have better ideas, decisions, deliberations and have to hope to follow through and become better motivated, somehow, someday, goodness willing. My life really feels like spectating myself, really, utterly powerless, out of control, chaotic and empty, but not chaotic in any sort of necessary destructive way. Mostly just a stagnant way. But most of the time too neutral to be depressing but still too neutral to be worthwhile.

I've had a few crystallized great moments in my life. And that's what really gives my life meaning. It's quality, not quantity. I hope to someday come into contact with more beautiful moments. However brief they are. I both crave and fear acuteness more than I crave or fear anything more permanent.

I don't know whether this was poetic or depressing.

I'm not chaotic good, I'm chaotic neutral, and my life is what it is.

But at least you don't believe in God!

[Mystic]

@Wallym, my certainty in love is that we are all connected. You are right, appeal to emotion is not a proof. But vision by love to the extent you are certain on top of certain that a mystical intrinsic value to things is assigned objectively and with absolute vision is one of the most foundational parts of being human.

While someone may take their doubt as proof that they have no connection or link to God, through love, I know we are not only connected, but I understand exactly what the mystic link that connects us all is.

If you value life at all, even if your life, outside of emotion, outside of simply pain and happiness, but value it out of a belief it ought to be valued, then Anslem's argument shows you ought to believe in God. And if you don't value your own life, but value the life of others, then again, Anslem's shows you ought to believe in God at least if you would to be honestly consistent.

[henryp]

@Wallym, my certainty in love is that we are all connected.  You are right,  appeal to emotion is not a proof.  But vision by love to the extent you are certain on top of certain that a mystical intrinsic value to things is assigned objectively and with absolute vision is one of the most foundational parts of being human.

While someone may take their doubt as proof that they have no connection or link to God, through love, I know we are not only connected, but I understand exactly what the mystic link that connects us all is.

If you value life at all, even if your life, outside of emotion, outside of simply pain and happiness, but value it out of a belief it ought to be valued, then Anslem's argument shows you ought to believe in God.  And if you don't value your own life, but value the life of others, then again, Anslem's shows you ought to believe in God at least if you would to be honestly consistent.

I don't believe life ought to be valued, outside of the practicality of existence. If I did believe life had intrinsic value, I'd seriously consider Anselms argument.  I actually went to St. Anselm College, amusingly enough.  The idea is nice though.