Yes, but you have to prove God doesn’t exist or God exists. Nobody has done that. No refutation for Anselm’s ontological proof exists. A real woman is better than an unreal woman. I don’t think you can dispute that.
Yes I actually want someone to give and explore other arguments than those 2. Anselm’s ontological argument is another way to convince ourselves while God still has the status of an ad hoc hypothesis, that is which can neither be proved or disproved, and can at best seem to be true or not. But this is to my knowledge about God’s existence arguments. I merely know the most popular ones and would like to know more, whether hypotheses that converge with the empirical observations or more convincing non-empirically based arguments.
On the train of hypotheses that converge with what is empirically observed, the being which is greater than any other being could be an organism somewhere in the cosmos that have been born like any life forms from the universe. An enormous life form, maybe space dwelling, with more or less significant impact on its surroundings and the universe. It would have acquired some self-preservation, and maybe even self-replication because of the natural properties emerging from mollecular structures and dynamics. That is if we accept the possibility of the greatest being being smaller than the universe.
Another possibility is that the organism comes from a universe beyond ours and that our universe is a part of the organism Itself or that It created our universe either willingly or unwillingly or that our universe is simply part of its environment.
Lovecraft for exemple depicts an indifferent alien God/Demiurge, Azathoth, an Outer god from which our universe is a creation of his dream.
There is also this famous Man in black movie scene :
From the wildest to the simplest, such theories are still ad hoc hypotheses however. A priori non-demonstrable. To my humble understanding the belief in God might require a leap of faith.
1 Like
Well, I was merely showing you what a real woman vs. an unreal woman means for Anselm’s argument. There are many more arguments to study of course e.g. The Problem of Happiness. Check it out
Why do you think “Anselm’s argument” works?
Not true. Gaunilo of Marmoutier (the greatest possible island must exist?), Aquinas (exists a priori?) & Kant (existence is a property?) refute Anselm. Besides, even if valid, the argument is clearly not sound (deduced from a definition rather than a factually true premise?).
1 Like
I don’t think that you argument is complete as it leaves gaps re the Nature of this “God that exists”
I have been working on an argument which seeks to provide a most likely “Nature of The Creator” which purposefully rejects any type of supernaturalism…
Rather than C&P the argument into this thread, I have created My First Thread on this Message Board and share it there…along with any critique of your argument here.
Anselm’s is about the greatest thing in the universe, not the greatest thing in a certain category. He’s not talking about the greatest mountain or the greatest elephant, etc.; he’s talking about the universe’s greatest thing. While the greatest soccer player may or may not exist, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” has to.
Aquinas had his own arguments (the 5 ways) which have not survived the test of time. Anselm’s has. Kurt Godel formalized it and nobody seems to notice the elephant in the room.
Kant was thrown off by existence appearing in the position of a predicate. Just because Anselm lists existence among predicates like omnibenevolence, etc. doesn’t mean that existence is a predicate. If I stand next to 7 feet tall athletes that doesn’t make me a 7 foot athlete 
There’s a sleight of hand involved in modal ontological arguments that can be demonstrated by presenting the argument more clearly.
At their most fundamental, their premises take the following form:
- X is God if and only if X necessarily exists and has properties A, B, and C1.
- It is possible that God exists.
To prevent equivocation, we must use (1) to unpack (2), reformulating the argument as such:
- X is God if and only if X necessarily exists and has properties A, B, and C.
- It is possible that there exists some X such that X necessarily exists and has properties A, B, and C.
The phrase “it is possible that there exists some X such that X necessarily exists” is somewhat ambiguous. To address this ambiguity, we should perhaps reformulate the argument as such:
- X is God if and only if X necessarily exists and has properties A, B, and C.
- It is possibly necessary that there exists some X such that X has properties A, B, and C.
We can then use S5’s axiom that ◊□p ⊢ □p to present the following modal ontological argument:
- X is God if and only if X necessarily exists and has properties A, B, and C.
-
It is possibly necessary that there exists some X such that X has properties A, B, and C.
-
Therefore, there necessarily exists some X such that X has properties A, B, and C.
This argument is valid under S5. However, (4) needs to be justified; it is not true a priori.
It may be claimed that if “there exists some X such that X has properties A, B, and C” is not necessarily false then it is possibly necessarily true.
However, consider these claims:
- There exists some X such that X is the only Y and is Z
- There exists some X such that X is the only Y and is ¬Z
Given that these cannot both be true, under S5 they cannot both be possibly necessarily true. But neither are they necessarily false.
And so, once more, (4) needs to be justified.
It may be countered that (3) and (4) are not equivalent. If they are not equivalent then prima facie one cannot derive (5) from (3), and so something other than S5 is required. This is where the sleight of hand occurs.
1 The particular properties differ across arguments (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.); we need not make them explicit here.
2 Likes
I’m not sure the existence of god can be proven via arguments I do believe though that intuition may be our best tool at acknowledging whether god exists or not.
different people have different intuition diluted with prior preconceptions. If they have made up their mind there is no god then intuition is futile and affirms their preconceptions. The best one can hope for is to have an open mind whether God exists then observe the wonders of nature.
If this does not satisfy and one remains an atheist then one must assume that they worship science.
The scientific method emerged during the enlightenment period and since then there’s been great advances in understating the world around us with various superstition being replaced by scientific explanation and knowledge however even this scientific method has limits imposed on it by the universe such as question wishing to penetrate what the state of things was before the big bang etc which are outside the remits of science.
My personal view is that there’s a divine power in the universe whose true nature I do not fully know yet I remain in awe of it.
I have suggested to agree which God is being talked about here, and define what God is, to be able to then prove the existence of God with clarity. Not sure it had been done.
1 Like
Is thie Gödel’s version?
Such a level of formalism isn’t necessary. I’m grateful for the explication nevertheless.
The question is, does greatness imply existence?
No.
This doesn’t follow. 
Besides, science is a methodology / practice and not an object of “worship”.
Wrong word … what’s the word when one follows science or appreciates the scientific method ?
Anselm thought so. What gives? We do define things to exist e.g. the axiom of infinity
\exists x : \emptyset \in x \wedge (y \in x) \implies y \cup \{ y \} \in x
Gödel’s version is:
\begin{array}{rl} \text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \\ \text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \\ \text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \\ \text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \\ \text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \\ \text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \\ \text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \\ \text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \\ \text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \\ \text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x) \end{array}
1 Like
I couldn’t get to modal logic. Kismet.
Thank you. I’ll save it for later reading, after I have a command over modal logic.
Do you think Anselm’s original argument is flawed? I don’t see anyone disputing that a real thing is better than an unreal thing.
For one, it’s not clear what it means for something to be better than another thing. It also conflates. What does it mean for me to imagine a real God and what does it mean for me to imagine an unreal God? Can I imagine a real God even if God is not real? If I can, then the argument falls apart, as there’s no difference in my imagination between a) imagining a real God, but God is not real and b) imagining a real God, and God is real. The (un)reality of God is completely independent of my imagination.
1 Like
It can be hard to think in long forgotten ways. A stone in the mind (unreal) vs. a stone in one’s hand (real). A suggestion.
Okay, let’s take it for granted that a real stone is “better” than an unreal stone (whatever that’s supposed to mean).
Anselm’s argument is effectively; The Greatest Stone is the greatest stone imaginable, a stone in my hand is greater than a stone in my mind, therefore if there isn’t a stone in my hand then I can imagine a greater stone, therefore The Greatest Stone exists.
Unfortunately for Anselm, there isn’t a stone in my hand.
Replacing “stone” with “being” and “in my hand” with “in reality” doesn’t make a difference.
2 Likes
Naturalism (from which atheism usually follows) does not “worship science” so much as it eliminates supernatural entities from the study of nature.
2 Likes
No issues with that and it aligns with my mode of enquiry in relation to my search for truth.
Truth rather than lies as I’d prefer a uncomfortable truth rather than a soothing lie … as the cliche goes.
Quick question and this may be off topic but let me ask or forever hold me peace. Do you think when it comes to truth that it is eternal and unchanging or something else ?