Does the following Christian philosophy make sense to most atheists?

Question

1. The concept of God is, by definition, the concept of a
being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

2. God certainly exists in the mind: even atheists have this
concept of God.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone.

4. Suppose, for a reductio ad absurdum, that God exists
in the mind alone.

5. Then there would be a concept of a greater being,
namely, a concept of a being just like God but also
existent in reality (by (3)).

6. But there cannot be a concept of a greater being than
God (by (1)).

7. Therefore, our supposition in (4) was false.

8. Therefore, God exists in reality as well as in the
mind.

Answer 1

1. Imagine a perfect dessert. For the sake of argument, we will define 'perfect dessert' as a dessert which no greater can be conceived.



2. A dessert which existed and was in front of you, ready to eat, would naturally be greater than one which was imaginary, at a remote location, or not for your disposal.



3. Suppose, for reductio ad absurdum, that this dessert does not exist.



4. That would mean that there are greater deserts than the perfect one, which is a contradiction. (3) is therefore false.



5. There is a perfect dessert in front of you and it is ready to eat. Yum!

Answer 2

Ah, good ol Anselm's ontological argument. I think it's very clever. However I will now expose a fallacy in this version. (There are better versions out there, such as Plantinga's Modal version)



let me outline the argument:



definition: God is that being than which no greater can be concieved



(1) God exists in the understanding but not reality.



(2) A being otherwise like God but existing also in reality is conceivable [premise]



(3) Existence in reality and in the understanding is greater than existence in the understanding alone. [premise]



(4) A being greater than God is conceivable [(1)(2)(3)]



(5) It is possible to concieve of a being greater than that Being greater than which cannot be conceived [(4), definition]



But (5) is a contradiction, therefore, assumption (1) is false, But:



(6) God exists in the understanding [premise]



(7) God exists in reality





Here's the fallacy in Anselm's argument



step (5) might be read in two different ways. i.e. it is ambiguous



(5') There exists a being which is (actually) such that no greater being can possibly be conceived and it is possible to conceive of a greater being than that.



(5'') It is possible to conceive the following: Something is (actually) greater than that being greater than which cannot be conceived [which latter may be merely possible]



Anselm's principle: If something is defined to be "the F" then a possible thing satisfying the definition is actually an F.



But this is principle is not true.





That's one way of going about things. However, probably the most famous objection to the ontological argument was put forth by Kant. He argues that 'existence' isn't a predicate (property) of things. This is still being debated today.





And I want to note one last thing. See Dr. Why's answer? That is an example of a parody of the ontological argument. There are tons out there, and they are all meant to show that there is something wrong with the argument, because you can prove the existence of a plethora of things using parallel reasoning. The most famous of these parodies was put forth by the monk Ganuilo, and it is commonly referred to as the 'Perfect Island objection'. Using the same reasoning Ganulio tries to prove the existence of the most perfect island.



However, this objection is flawed. And it has to do with what exactly defines the greatest possible island? perhaps number of palm trees? dancing hula girls on the beach? a thousand maybe? well these are all characteristics with no intrinsic maximums. Meaning that if you define the perfect island as having a thousand hula dancers, you can also add one more. would that not be an even greater island? The conslusion being that the analogy is false, because islands don't have intrinsic maximums, however, God does. (the maximally great properties for God is being all-powerful, all good, and all knowing. These have maximal caps.)



However, the objector can accept this fact, and reformulate an objection that, perhaps doesn't prove the GREATEST possible being, but proves a bunch of almost perfect beings, such as demi-gods. This is a BAD conclusion for the monotheist. (if you're a polytheist I suppose its okay)





Nice question btw. The ontological argument has a history and some big names in philosophy have made versions of it. Famous logician and mathematician Gottlob Frege has a version. Alvin Plantinga has a modal version. Rene Descartes accepts it, and has a version. And of course Anselm himself (which is the classic version that you stated)

Answer 3

Muddy, insupportable premises, circular.

1. Conceived by whom?

If you tried comparing 'conceptions' in detail you would find no

consensus, so the 'concept' fails.

2. Yes, but again is it a single 'concept' or a collection of separate

different fantasies under one name.

3. Yes, but that has nothing to do with an idea that doesn't

exist in reality.You can realize some ideas, but if you contemplate

realizing God then you must be the greater, and that is impossible

by 1.

4. Okay.

5.. Back to 1. and 3 fails in this context.

6. Fails because 1. fails.

7. Does not follow.

There have been a lot of attempt's to 'prove' Religions are valid.

They are infallibly sophistry.

Thsi one is one of the sillier that I've encountered.

It can pretend to logic, but fails.

Answer 4

You fail to justify you initial definition of God, in many religious systems a God is simply a personification of some aspect of the Natural Order, and thus doesn't include the requirement that there be nothing greater. The idea of there being nothing greater than a single culture's God is unique to monotheist belief systems and thus inapplicable to theological beliefs as a whole.

Since your sixth step is dependent on your first it cannot be used to refute your fourth, it is quite possible, by ignoring your initial definition of God, to imagine a whole dynasty of Gods, the Mormon faith is based on that very supposition.

This refutes steps 7 and 8, and thus your whole chain of reasoning.

I can see the flaws in your reasoning and I'm not even an atheist, do you actually expect to convince someone who doesn't believe in God to rethink their position with such an argument?

Answer 5

i've got self belief what they are concerning is the undeniable fact that Western morality codes are based on Judeo-Christian coaching such via fact the ten commandments. there have been many cultures with the aid of the international which did no longer proportion even this elementary theory of "do no harm" so there is a few benefit the declare that they are unique. in case you made a greater precise examination of your ideals you may in all probability locate many different aspects of morality which you proportion with Christians and Jews. in spite of this, the guy's declare which you stole Christian morals is the two unhappy and laughable. If, as we've self belief, our morals have been given by employing God with the aid of organic revelation to the human race, they do no longer and in no way did belong fullyyt to Christians. i might say which you have embraced part of that morality, whether you include the resource or no longer. the guy would desire to have been chuffed to locate elementary floor with you rather than insult you. I sense sorry approximately a fellow believer grow to be so impolite and callous to you.

Answer 6

This form of the ontological argument works with the concept of existence, and it can be used to demonstrate the absolute reality of "something" (i.e. existence) outside of the mind. But it does not work with the concept of "God", because there is no logical necessity for the traditionally conceived attributes of God to be more real as a result of being "greater".

Answer 7

1. The concept of NO God, is by definition, the concept of a NON-being than which nothing greater can be conceived. etc. etc.



It just playing with words. I wonder if Saint Anselm really believed in his ontological argument.

Answer 8

Nice circular argument... except:

Your premise no.2 is flawed by the fact that nothing exists in the mind, God or anything else. The mind is purely illusion.

Furthermore - you already stated in 4 that God exists in the mind alone and therefore cannot exist outside of the mind.

Further...furthermore, how do you justify the statement that it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone?



You problem is not with the existence or otherwise of God, but the problem of existence in general.

As a Christian philosophy (if it is such) it is philosophically flawed.

Answer 9

I doubt it makes sense to any atheists, let alone most, because it just doesn't make sense. I assume you are trying to set out a logical argument with premises and a conclusion .I recommend you read 'Logic ' by Wilfred Hodges to help you understand how logic works. In essence you are making the mistake of confusing concept with existence - just because you can think of something doesn't mean it exists, that's one of the wonders of the human mind - we can make things up. God is just one of the many things humans have invented.

Answer 10

This is a modified form of the ontological proof o the existence of god. It does not work.



Yes I nave a 'concept' of god just like I have a concept of Harry Potter. So Harry Potter must exist.



The definition of god for an atheist is by definition that which does not exist.



So in direct answer to your question - No Christian philosophy does not make any sense to me. Indeed it is just nonsense.

Answer 11

2 is a supposition.



You can't logically follow from that type of supposition.



4 is a supposition.



You cannot create a valid argument based on a supposition. Let alone two suppositions.



So, no, it doesn't make sense.

Answer 12

I'm not an atheist but your suppositions are wrong and therefore your question is left flawed. The second supposition is mistakenly assuming a certainity that simply isn't true.

Answer 13

I don't think there is a being that's higher than anyone else. And I DON'T think God exists, in the mind or otherwise.

Answer 14

That is a very clever use of philosophy

With out belief we would have anarchy

no one would have any morals

religion is mostly conditioning to behave

we have 2 motivations the prospect of reward and fear of punishment both in life and beyond the grave

do not worry about god worry what you FEEL

Answer 15

It does to some.. but not all!!

Answer 16

Everyone except stupid people :P

Answer 17

God exist if he doesnt we would all die