View Full Version : A proof of the existence of God
Theodoric
12-01-2004, 12:11
Following on from Russââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ tongue-in-cheek proof of the existence of God I thought I'd post a more serious one for you to try your philosophical reasoning against. I claim no novelty for it as itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s 1000 years old now, well before even my time. Itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Anselmââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s so-called ontological proof. Obviously, after a millennium, it has attracted its fair share of criticism. A cautionary note I ainââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t no philosopher so I probably havenââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t expressed it as clearly as I should have, besides which this sort of argument tends to make my head start aching.
1. When we speak of God we are talking about an entity who can be defined as "a being of which nothing greater can be conceived."
2. When we speak of God the idea of God is within our understanding and capable of being defined.
3. However it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality, than to exist in the mind alone.
4. Therefore, since God is that than greater than which cannot be conceived (see 1) and since he exists in the mind (see 2) since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (see 3) then God must logically exist both in the mind and in reality.
Following on from Russââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ tongue-in-cheek proof of the existence of God I thought I'd post a more serious one for you to try your philosophical reasoning against. I claim no novelty for it as itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s 1000 years old now, well before even my time. Itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Anselmââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s so-called ontological proof. Obviously, after a millennium, it has attracted its fair share of criticism. A cautionary note I ainââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t no philosopher so I probably havenââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t expressed it as clearly as I should have, besides which this sort of argument tends to make my head start aching.
1. When we speak of God we are talking about an entity who can be defined as "a being of which nothing greater can be conceived."
2. When we speak of God the idea of God is within our understanding and capable of being defined.
3. However it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality, than to exist in the mind alone.
4. Therefore, since God is that than greater than which cannot be conceived (see 1) and since he exists in the mind (see 2) since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (see 3) then God must logically exist both in the mind and in reality.
hard to get your head round that one!
It's a valid modus ponens, but I doubt all three premises ;)
Basically, it's greater to exist in reality as well as in someone's mind.
Therefore as god is greater than everything, being greater he must therefore also exist in reality.
Basically, it's greater to exist in reality as well as in someone's mind.
Therefore as god is greater than everything, being greater he must therefore also exist in reality.
that does not seem right somehow
downquark1
12-01-2004, 12:21
1. When we speak of God we are talking about an entity who can be defined as "a being of which nothing greater can be conceived."
key words, we are using logic based on a word that humans have conceived and which has never been proven possible.
We don't know if there is something beyond our comprehension because we can't comprehend it.
that does not seem right somehow
It works if you believe in god in the first place and don't think about it too much
Theodoric
12-01-2004, 12:34
that does not seem right somehow
Here is a translation (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.html) of Anselm's original text.
Chapter 2: That God Really Exists
Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.
Erm....so what this seems to be saying is that something we cannot comprehend, because it is greater than our thought is capable of, must exist ??
I am the first to admit there must be a great many things we are incapable of imagining, but that doesn't mean they exist ??? :confused:
My head hurts !! :(
downquark1
12-01-2004, 13:21
Erm....so what this seems to be saying is that something we cannot comprehend, because it is greater than our thought is capable of, must exist ??
I am the first to admit there must be a great many things we are incapable of imagining, but that doesn't mean they exist ??? :confused:
My head hurts !! :(
That's that the conclusion I came to, but it's hard to keep more than one of those sentences in my head at the same time :spin:.
Unless I'm missing something - I agree with basa.
Where's Bexy, she would be able to translate :shrug:
I don't follow the implication of this comment either:
For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it.
What exists, the painting or the subject of the painting ?? Someone created all the smileys on this forum. They exist in so much as they are on my monitor and I can see them, but I aint gonna see :wavey: on the street !!
I must be missing something here :confused:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.