Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 18, 2003 16:35:50 GMT -5
Ive reconstructed this proof from memory, and as such it probably lacks some of its origional strenght, but either way will suffice for this purpose. It isnt a perticularly stong argument, but it is certainly a starting point for discussion. I thought it might be fun to tear it appart and have discussion that is focused on one topic. It is easy to get off on tangents and talk about ideas and arguments that arent directly related to the one at hand, so maybe find a weakness or counter argument related to this proof and ill try and muster a response to the counter arguments, and then we can continue with that line of debate. .. or whatever its a free internet.. I suppose you can say whatever you like. Either way.. enjoy 1) God can be defined as something than which none greater can be thought. 2)"Something than which none greater can be thought" cannot exist in the mind alone 3)For if "something than which none greater can be thought" existed soley in the mind, it could be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater than existing soley in the mind. 4)If then, "something than which none greater can be thought existed soley in the mind, then this very same "something than which none greater can be thought" is that which something greater can be thought. 5) 4 is logically impossible 6)That than which nothing greater can be thought exists in both the mind and reality 7) Therefore God exists outside the mind. *Ive left the author of this proof out so as to keep those "googlizers" honest... besides that takes the fun out of it.. not to mention that Im sure many of you have seen this before*
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 18, 2003 17:02:14 GMT -5
Alright, Anselm, I'll play.
I'm thinking of an island on earth, an island so perfect that none can be greater. An island that did not exist, is far from perfect, and even if it were close, existence would be preferable, so this perfect island could not not-exist, and thus must.
So tell me, is my perfect island where your god lives?
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 18, 2003 19:03:10 GMT -5
Before I respond to Valvilis, I want to clarify my intent once again. I don't by any means think this is a game that is to be "won" by either side. If I did I would certainly choose to put something better than St. Anselm's proof out here. I chose it due to its entirely logic-based construction, thinking that it might be fun to tear apart. I most certainly do not think that this argument will win the day, it's old enough to have proven that it cannot. Secondly, Valvilis, cocky comments such as the one you used to finnish your counterargument arent appropriate and as I stated earlier really dont help contribute to an objective and productive discussion. Their only function is to invoke negative emotions and boost your ego. Unless you would prefer I just go away, lets keep the condescending remarks to a minimum. k? thanks. Now, I was hoping for a more origional counter argument, but since the proof itself is borrowed we cant help but let it pass . My response is this: Physical perfection is logically impossible. Take a circle for example. In the mind one can theorize a perfect circle, but when it comes to actually creating that physical object, the laws of chaos and entropy keep such an object confined within the mind. The perfect island, as a physical entity is the same. The idea of God, however doesn not need to be physical. So, a God, of immaterial essence can be perfect in the mind and reality because "He" is not subject to the laws of physics such as chaos and entropy. Therefore, using a physical object to be analagous to a proof of an immaterial God is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Rama958 on Nov 18, 2003 19:51:48 GMT -5
I'm not really sure how to respond. I realize this is all in good fun but...people don't actually use this in real debates/discussions do they? Aside from a "what if" kinda thing? If you want something than which nothing greater can be thought, then just name it statistics. Or nature. Or chaos. Or gimpy the one-eyed leprechaun. Premise 3 is pretty easy to shoot down. First, the assertion that existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind is a rather humerous assumption. First, define greater (Value is subjective to the viewer, beauty in th eye of the beholder, etc.) and then tell me exactly why the imagined good is somehow 'less great'? Perfection isn't impossible, it just depends on what you define as perfect. You want to dig a well that's perfectly round? How round do you want it? Down to each brick it's lined with? Down to each molecule? How is perfect supposed to be anything other than what can be found in nature? Your assertion that a 'perfect circle' cannot be found in nature is flawed. It again depends on your definition of perfect and how close you want it to be. If you examined the shadow of our moon caused by the sun (example only), then yes, if you were looking far enough away then it would appear to be a perfect circle. Just like the rest of reality, it's all subjective. It depends on where you stand. To touch back on the "nothing greater" stuff, I'm finding myself more irritated by this concept the longer I ponder it. This proof at its core isn't really an argument for the existence of any kind of deity, it's just an argument that something more than what we can think of exists. It's pretty silly. Could be used to 'logically prove' the existance of God, Krishna, The Allpowerful Seventh Day Leprechaun Adventist, etc. By the way, since we're playing with logic here I'll point out that you CAN NOT DISMISS THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS WITH GOD BY SAYING HE IS IMMATERIAL. Everything that exists consists of matter, I'm pretty sure I remember at least that much from fifth grade. Even our "thoughts of that which none can be greater" consist of little bits of electricity flying around inside our brains. The idea of God MUST be physical because EVERYTHING is physical. Otherwise you aren't using logic, you're using faith. And as I hope we all know, faith is the exact, direct, and polar opposite of logic. Where one exists the other will not. Unless you can come up with a better argument for the immaterial quality of God than "It'd be impossible for him to exist otherwise" then you're not going to gain any ground in a logical and rational discussion. Possible ways to convince me God is immaterial: 1: Prove that either god exists or show some sign of his presence and effect on the world (After all, you can't see the wind but you can see the trees move) 2: Provide an example of some other thing in our reality that is immaterial 3: There really isn't any 3 that I can think of, but 2 looks so lonely I've gotta get back to my papers though. I've gotta say, I'm pleasantly surprised by the existance of this thread. Why the shit didn't someone from the theist camp to do it earlier?
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 18, 2003 22:19:00 GMT -5
Cygnus,
If you're really a philosophy major, you know that no debate, even among the greatest minds has gone without at least the most minor jab or quip. You weren't putting forward a 100% serious argument, so it seemed appropriate that my answer was not 100% serious either. Don't worry about me, I can play anywhere on the continium, but bear in mind, if you seek a scholarly demeanor on my part, the same will be expected out of you, such as not using dumbed down arguments that have been known for quite some time to not hold their salt. Don't take this theism stuff so seriously, as soon as you do, you'll end up being an atheist.
Now, back to the actual argument, your contention was that god is not limited to the framework of physical reality, yet you contend that your premises indicate he would "exist" in the real world. I guess I'm interested in the way that something can "exist" as neither simply an idea nor as a physical entity.
As a side note, the "perfect" island would not be subject to entropy, but that's not the direction I want the argument to go.
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Nov 18, 2003 22:27:58 GMT -5
first, im perplexed by how something immaterial can exist in the physical world. you are trying to prove that your God exists in the physical world and is thus physical.
second, physical perfection is not logically impossible. an object can be physically perfect. the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, those, one could create, for example, a perfect circle or a diamond with perfectly crystalline structure.
third, i think i missed your proof of how your God is not affected by the laws of physics, and as such, we can also assume that V's island is also not subject to those laws
|
|
|
Post by Rama349 on Nov 18, 2003 22:59:37 GMT -5
Don't take this theism stuff so seriously, as soon as you do, you'll end up being an atheist. Congratulations to Valvilis, author of my new favorite email sig file.
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 19, 2003 1:24:42 GMT -5
I'm not really sure how to respond. I realize this is all in good fun but...people don't actually use this in real debates/discussions do they? Aside from a "what if" kinda thing? Some people do, although it doesnt get anywhere conclusive in terms of ultimate truth. Again, I put it out for the purpose of exercising our minds, and no other motive. Of course, depending on the direction of the discussion new issues thoughts or ideas might surface. If you want something than which nothing greater can be thought, then just name it statistics. Or nature. Or chaos. Or gimpy the one-eyed leprechaun. Hmm. I think I need more clarification as to what you mean by each of these. They are all distinctly different. Statistics do exist outside of the mind, Nature exists outside of the mind, and Chaos exists outside of the mind. I dont see how the one-eyed leprachaun is relevant, though.. I suppose it is possible for one to exist outside of the mind too. That is totally beside the point because the proof is based on a thing which is "the greatest thing" meaning greatest thing over all other things and therefore would exclude.. well... everything else. So if either statistics, chaos, nature or a gimpy one-eyed leprachaun is "the greatest thing" you can concieve of then what logically follows from the proof is that one of those is god. Of course I am sure we can come up with something greater than those things. Premise 3 is pretty easy to shoot down. First, the assertion that existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind is a rather humerous assumption. First, define greater (Value is subjective to the viewer, beauty in th eye of the beholder, etc.) and then tell me exactly why the imagined good is somehow 'less great'? I didnt say better I said greater. One can think of having $1 and not actually have one. Therefore having $0. If one thinks of having $1 and actually has $1 then s/he has, something greater than $0. As far as value being subjective, I believe that the above shows what is meant in the proof. Greatness can be placed on a spectrum of values. The higher the value would be synonymous with greater value. This proof does not rely on any subjective notions of value such as beauty, but rather..through infinite characteristics. Infinity possesses greater value than anything else on a given spectrum. Perfection isn't impossible, it just depends on what you define as perfect. You want to dig a well that's perfectly round? How round do you want it? Down to each brick it's lined with? Down to each molecule? How is perfect supposed to be anything other than what can be found in nature? Your assertion that a 'perfect circle' cannot be found in nature is flawed. It again depends on your definition of perfect and how close you want it to be. If you examined the shadow of our moon caused by the sun (example only), then yes, if you were looking far enough away then it would appear to be a perfect circle. Just like the rest of reality, it's all subjective. It depends on where you stand. Perfection is quite objective although it often has connotative meanings which dont fit its definition. One can call something perfect such as the appearance of a circular shadow, or a well to a satisfactory proximity of perfection.. this does not make something perfect in its true sense. Perfection is based on infinity, so lets say we have a perfect sphere (so we can go into the physical realm that the island is in) in order for it to be perfect, every particle that makes up that sphere would have to be in a specific place (eg every particle on the outtermost layer would have to be equally distant from the exact center of the sphere) The position of these particles would come down to a level of fractional measurement that continues for infinity. With the laws of entropy and chaos also at work within this theoretical sphere we are forced to keep it within the mind. It cannot exist outside of the mind in its perfect form because the movement of the particles, entropy and chaos would prevent it from being perfect. I can say that the sunset was perfect, or that the song was played perfectly, but that is nothing more than a misuse of words. To touch back on the "nothing greater" stuff, I'm finding myself more irritated by this concept the longer I ponder it. This proof at its core isn't really an argument for the existence of any kind of deity, it's just an argument that something more than what we can think of exists. It's pretty silly. Could be used to 'logically prove' the existance of God, Krishna, The Allpowerful Seventh Day Leprechaun Adventist, etc. The first premise is that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought. Of course if you were to define a watermelon as that which nothing greater can be thought, and someone accepted that definition of a watermelon as concievable, then the logical argument would follow. Nobody is forcing that concept of God to be accepted. If you cannot concieve of God being "that than which none greater can be thought" then the argument holds no water. By the way, since we're playing with logic here I'll point out that you CAN NOT DISMISS THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS WITH GOD BY SAYING HE IS IMMATERIAL. Everything that exists consists of matter... Even our "thoughts of that which none can be greater" consist of little bits of electricity flying around inside our brains. The idea of God MUST be physical because EVERYTHING is physical.... Possible ways to convince me God is immaterial: 1: Prove that either god exists or show some sign of his presence and effect on the world (After all, you can't see the wind but you can see the trees move) 2: Provide an example of some other thing in our reality that is immaterial A vacuum is not filled with time or space. and is an example of something immaterial that exists in reality. It is quite logical that if God was not physical that the laws of physics would not apply to Him. For the sake of argument I will submit that God is not physical, then let us look at the essence of the argument once again. The perfect island counterexample is something of purely physical nature, and therefore its impossible for it to be perfect in any way. God, who could not be physically perfect for the same reasons, could however be the "greatest thing" in other ways such as knowledge or power and whatnot. While I do not believe that God is physical in his nature, yet exists outside the mind, if he were, the island counterpoint would be dismissable for the above reason. ( if I need to articulate this more I can)
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 19, 2003 1:25:58 GMT -5
The forums wouldnt let me post this all at once...*shrugs* Now, back to the actual argument, your contention was that god is not limited to the framework of physical reality, yet you contend that your premises indicate he would "exist" in the real world. I guess I'm interested in the way that something can "exist" as neither simply an idea nor as a physical entity. This has somewhat been addressed above As a side note, the "perfect" island would not be subject to entropy, but that's not the direction I want the argument to go. You cannot concieve of a island that is not subject to entropy or chaos, nor could it exist. It is utterly illogical to do so. That is similar to saying you can concieve of 2+3=6. Maybe at first you think you can, but if you evaluate that thought it would come up incomplete. you are trying to prove that your God exists in the physical world and is thus physical I said Exists outside of the mind. No claim was made as to the locale of this existence second, physical perfection is not logically impossible. an object can be physically perfect. the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, those, one could create, for example, a perfect circle or a diamond with perfectly crystalline structure It is logically impossible because perfection implies infinity. Your perfect crystaline structure is composed of particles held together by intermolecular forces of fluctuating strength and proportions. A crystal to be physically perfect it would need to exist outside of time(as to not be affected by micromolecular decay), and each molecule would have to be in a position identical to its counterparts to an infinite fraction of the measurement used. If this perfect crystal has moving molecules.. i would assume it gives off heat or energy in some form. It would have to do so uniformly thoughout.. and again to within infinite fractions relative to each other identical molecule. Infinite fractions can never be met to coincide with one another. Logically, by definition. third, i think i missed your proof of how your God is not affected by the laws of physics, and as such, we can also assume that V's island is also not subject to those laws God wasnt affected by the laws of physics because he is hypothetically imaterial. V's island must be subject to the laws of physics because it is of physical nature. The definition of an island clearly states such. IF V's island is not subject to the laws of physics than it must necessarily not be an island for included in the complete definition of an island is that it is physical and therefore subject to physics.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 19, 2003 3:45:46 GMT -5
Cyg,
This was my concern. You're not really holding up to the standards that you've asked of us. Don't just dismiss an argument, explain yourself.
"You cannot concieve of a island that is not subject to entropy or chaos, nor could it exist. It is utterly illogical to do so. That is similar to saying you can concieve of 2+3=6. Maybe at first you think you can, but if you evaluate that thought it would come up incomplete." That is a philosophical cop-out. Either perfection includes the inability to be effected by entropy and chaos or it does not, this is independant of what the term "perfect" is being applied to. Besides, you're opening your argument to its biggest hole, one I had avoided because this was supposed to be a philosophical exercise - no one can conceive of any form of perfection, be it god, island, or other. It would take a perfect mind to do so, and that, I have seen enough here to be comfortable in claiming, you do not have. I can much more readily conceive of an island uneffected by entropy (which is actually quite easy to conceive, should the island exist in an open system) and randomness than you could ever conceive of the idea of an intangible, omnisentient, omnipotent "being" that exists outside of both the mind and space/time. You're argumnets are slipping and I'd argue your integrity is going with it. You're the first troll we've had that bothered to try to make valid arguments (the actual merits of those arguments aside), don't let us down by falling into the same cognitive traps as your predecessors.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 19, 2003 4:26:46 GMT -5
Cyg,
I was just inspired to have yet more doubts about your theory.
1) Can there be a perfect god? A perfect god could make itself anything it wanted, included less than perfect, a state it could not return from. Can the god you conclude from your premises make himself less than perfect. Don't answer, "He could but he wouldn't." If doing so would lose his perfection, and arguably his existence, than that is actually something it COULD NOT do, as a perfect being would not only exist, but would do so infinitely.
2) The other attributes of this god are questionable as well. How fast is this god? Is it the fastest? It has to be, he is perfection itself. But speed does not have a starting and finishing point, it is a ray rather than a line. There is stop and from there it increases to the inifnite. Is god infinitely fast? Does that even mean anything? Is this going to make the prospect of thinking of such a being all that much more impossible? Intelligence is the same - a ray, just knowing everything in the universe, like some sort of cosmic encyclopedia is not the end all of intelligence. Is god infinitely smart? Does that increase his ability to conceive of a yet more perfect being? Surely as intelligence approaches the transfinite, the ability to conceive a more perfect being becomes available - proving that the first was not perfect to begin with, and in this particular case, rendering the now-smarter god non-existent to begin with.
Ideas such as conceiving the infinite or the perfect are beyond even the inifinite and perfect mind as you can see. Even god could not conceive of god, and thus I'm quite sure that rules you out as well.
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Nov 19, 2003 8:38:20 GMT -5
The problem with premise number one is that there is no justification for defining "god" as such. You can insert any word (that lacks a current definition) and thus it would exist outside reality according to the argument. This means that "glopnorb" and "zique" would have to be equally existent as "god" simply by inserting each word in each appropriate place. Premise one renders the word "god" meaningless.
Premises two and three do not actually say much of anything. Nothing is given to demonstrate why that something cannot exist just in the mind, and the reason given in #3 fails on the grounds that, just because one can think something exists in reality (just what is reality, or the mind, anyway?), does not make it so. Furthermore, what is meant by "greater" and why is existence in reality considered greater than the mind? I might conceive of a watermelon far tastier than any on the planet, which is greater even if it does not exist in reality (though an existent watermelon is far more practical). My thought of the taste is beyond any taste in reality, and thus greater in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Nov 19, 2003 9:23:17 GMT -5
here's another proof along the same lines
1. Humans are inherently inperfect and flawed.
2. Everything created by Humans is therefore also inherently imperfect and flawed.
3. The definition of God was created by Humans.
4. The definition is thus flawed.
5. Therefore, one can not prove the existence of a perfect God with a flawed definition
There is the whole possibility that there is an extra-dimensional being that likes having fun playing around with earth, it would neither be infinite nor perfect, but would just be at a level of complexity that is beyond human comprehension. Since 6 of the 10 dimensions folded up into a singularity at the point of the Big Bang, this being would be then barred from entering the 3rd dimension and further playing with earth. Just because you worshir it does not, by any means, make it perfect by default
|
|
|
Post by Rama365 on Nov 19, 2003 10:51:15 GMT -5
;D I love you guys.
About the dimensions thing though, anyone know what Nova is? It's a PBS show that takes some look at science or whatever and does a mini-documentary on it. A while back they did one on string theory (It's all downloadable online, all the hours of it, if someone wants a link I'll dig it up.) and I coulda sworn it proposed there were 11 dimensions. Now, this would only be one more than the 10 you've stated, so I'm assuming you aren't using string theory for that statement but something else, which confuses me because I'd only heard of there traditionally being four dimensions, with the only other possibility of course being 11. Details? And by the by, I fail to see how something's molecules being completely frozen makes it perfect. It should also be noted that theoretically you could just bring whatever it is you're trying to perfect to absolute zero, which would halt all molecular movement, yes? It's been a long time since I had a physics class, so someone please update me. I'll return the favor by uh...teaching you Japanese or something. Repeat after me: "Ore no chin-chin was ichiban chisaii da yo!"
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 19, 2003 15:21:26 GMT -5
Either perfection includes the inability to be effected by entropy and chaos or it does not, this is independant of what the term "perfect" is being applied to That is not a logical statement. Physical perfection is something that can only be applied to things of physical nature. Perfection of a non physical nature would include such things that you can relate to such as a perfect argument or perfectly performed calculation. It is very clear that the term that "perfect" is modifying is essential in understanding the nature of what is meant by "perfect". Physical perfection is inconcievable because it is illogical. As i said before you cannot concieve of 2+3=6 because it does not follow from logic. This is similarly applied to concieving of physical pefection of an object of an island. It is inconcievable because it does not follow from logic that such a thing could exist. Regardless of whether that island is in a closed or open system, it is still illogical to concieve of simply because if it is in a closed system there would be chaos entropy and what have you to keep it from being perfect and if it is in a open system, It could not be on this earth because you cannot have an open system within a closed system, and therefore you wouldnt be able to know that your perfect island does not exist, thereby making the argument invalid. Now, im not physics guru, and if my understanding of open system and closed system are off, then by all means this argument could pass as the murderer of st. anselms. Besides, you're opening your argument to its biggest hole, one I had avoided because this was supposed to be a philosophical exercise - no one can conceive of any form of perfection, be it god, island, or other. It would take a perfect mind to do so, and that, I have seen enough here to be comfortable in claiming, you do not have While I think we can all admit that there are different levels of cognitive ability that vary from person to person, the concept of many types of perfection is not contrary to logic and therefore within the grasp of most of us. I will admit however that i believe you are correct in sofar as there are some types of perfection that are beyond out ability to understand. To me this raises questions regarding the origins of such thoughts, but i dont think any substantive conclusions can be inferred from that. Can there be a perfect god? A perfect god could make itself anything it wanted, included less than perfect, a state it could not return from. Can the god you conclude from your premises make himself less than perfect. Don't answer, "He could but he wouldn't." If doing so would lose his perfection, and arguably his existence, than that is actually something it COULD NOT do, as a perfect being would not only exist, but would do so infinitely. I really like that Valvilis. I dont think I have an adequate counter argument to that one. Im not sure if I would be willing to accept that a perfect God actually can make himself less than perfect, as you said, if he could then he would no longer be infinite. So the question which I would like to think about and evaluate is what mechanisms of change are considered perfect, though, as you have pointed to perfection isnt necessarily something that can be grasped by our minds. The perfection aspect was introduced through your island counterpoint. The initial argument never propounded that god was perfect, merely the greatest thing we can concieve.So if there is a perfect aspect which one cannot concieve then it wouldnt need to be included in the proof. I appolgize if any theological leanings I may have on the nature of God have tainted the initial argument. They arent needed, as far as I understand, to show the flaw in the island counterpoint. The problem with premise number one is that there is no justification for defining "god" as such. You can insert any word (that lacks a current definition) and thus it would exist outside reality according to the argument. This means that "glopnorb" and "zique" would have to be equally existent as "god" simply by inserting each word in each appropriate place. Premise one renders the word "god" meaningless. I couldnt agree more that there is no justification for defining God as such. Regardless of what ever word you insert the word has no meaning until you give it meaning, so if you insert the word "glopnorb" then that is the meaning you are attributing to it. The proof doesnt really need to define god or any word in its place. It could simply demonstrate that "that than which none greater can be thought" exists outside of the mind. Of course if I were to say that that thing didnt have to be the God that we all have a predisposed definition of .. I doubt anyone would disagree with the logic of the argument. I think the proof's biggest hang up is two fold. 1) it does take up the task of defining God. All that one needs to do to argue against the proof is to say that that concept of God is not accurate or that they do not have such a concept of God. And 2) the proof is based entirely on logic when we have to be able to apply any sound argument into a tangible world outside of the mind. Premises two and three do not actually say much of anything. Nothing is given to demonstrate why that something cannot exist just in the mind, and the reason given in #3 fails on the grounds that, just because one can think something exists in reality (just what is reality, or the mind, anyway?), does not make it so. That is absolutely correct, it is by combining premise #4 that premises 2 and 3 come out to be contradictory. It is called a reductio ad absurdum. The point is that IF it did exist only in the mind then it would no longer be the greatest thing that can be thought and therefore a contradiction to itself. So it must necessarily exist in botht he mind and outside of the mind. It takes more than imagining something that doesnt exist to prove this logic false. That is because the idea of greatness is added to the argument. Being the greatest thing excludes all other things that are not equally as great. The argument limits your thought to focus on only the greatest thing and not other things of lesser greatness. Furthermore, what is meant by "greater" and why is existence in reality considered greater than the mind? I might conceive of a watermelon far tastier than any on the planet, which is greater even if it does not exist in reality (though an existent watermelon is far more practical). My thought of the taste is beyond any taste in reality, and thus greater in that sense. Greater as we discussed before, can be viewed in an objective and even quantitative sense. You can concieve of a dollar and have zero, or concieve of a dollar and have one. Having 1 is greater than 0. But as far as your watermelon, unless that watermelon is that one thing which no other thing greater can be concieved, and can be concieved logically. then it does not apply to St. Anselm's proof. 1. Humans are inherently inperfect and flawed. 2. Everything created by Humans is therefore also inherently imperfect and flawed. 3. The definition of God was created by Humans. 4. The definition is thus flawed. 5. Therefore, one can not prove the existence of a perfect God with a flawed definition This proof contridicts its own validity. we could change God to humans. The argument would then read "therefore one can not prove the validity of humans as inherently imperfect and flawed" not only that but premise #2 also affirms the invalidity of the proof. for if a human made the proof then it too must be flawed.
|
|