Thread: Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

Neither of those is Anselm's argument though. I mean, I know the first one is supposed to be analogous rather than exactly the same, but it isn't - it doesn't have the same logical structure at all. So your attempt to show that the argument can't possibly work... didn't work. You actually rebutted Decartes' ontological argument (the argument featured in the videos above), which is different.

Originally Posted by Alric

The argument is basically gibberish. It doesn't make sense at all. The faulty logic happens at step 4.

What precisely is wrong with step 4? Isn't it a trivial consequence of step 3?

The argument assumes that because a god can't exist in just the mind due to it's definition, it must exist. However, that is a faulty assumption.

I disagree. The argument doesn't assume this at all - it's the result of a simple, indubitable logical inference. You forgot about step 2; you've already agreed that either God exists in the mind alone, or God exists in the mind and reality. You also agree that God can't exist in the mind alone. Therefore you must agree that God exists in the mind and reality.

What you're currently doing is analogous to saying that you know that your friend went to holiday in France or Germany, and you also have proof that your friend didn't go to Germany, but you refuse to concede that your friend is in France.

Like I said, the argument doesn't make sense because it is based on a poorly defined definition. Lets try this.

Define 'fukshit' to be the greatest catastrophe which we can conceive.

1. The idea of fukshit exists in the mind (we can conceive of fukshit by definition).
2. Thus, fukshit either exists in the mind alone, or in the mind and reality.
3. It is greater to exist in the mind and reality rather than the mind alone.
4. Thus, if fukshit exists in the mind alone, we can conceive a greater catastrophe, which contradicts the definition of fukshit.
5. Fukshit exists in reality.

According to your argument you must believe that fukshit is a real catastrophe that exists in reality. That is the exact same structure as your argument for god, yet clearly if fukshit really existed it would have killed us all, since I image the greatest catastrophe possible would wipe out the entire universe. Also, I just made up the word and it is utterly meaningless.

Your argument holds no ground in logic, because the definition is poorly picked.

Here is another one.

Define 'Alric' to be the greatest poster which we can conceive.

1. The idea of Alric exists in the mind (we can conceive of him by definition).
2. Thus, Alric either exists in the mind alone, or in the mind and reality.
3. It is greater to exist in the mind and reality rather than the mind alone.
4. Thus, if Alric exists in the mind alone, we can conceive a greater being, which contradicts the definition of Alric.
5. Alric exists in reality.

So now I am the greatest poster in reality right? Your argument just proved it. Oh wait, your 'argument' doesn't even attempt to address me being the greatest poster. It assumes I am from the start, and then just proves I exist, then since I exist the assumption of me being the greatest poster must also be true. Like I said, the argument doesn't even make sense.