burning flames

One can imagine that there exists something for which nothing greater than that thing can be imagined. Suppose that such a thing exists only in the imagination, and not in reality. This leads to a contradiction, because such an entity, whatever it is, in fact cannot be "something for which nothing greater than that thing can be imagined," because we can imagine an entity having all of the same attributes, but also possessing the attribute of existing in reality, and this entity would be greater than the former entity. Because of this contradiction, the entity in question must exist in reality as well.

Basically what this argument establishes is that, if we can imagine that God (defined as "something for which nothing greater than that thing can be imagined") exists, then God must actually exist. This can all be reformulated in terms of possibilities and actualities--the possible being what can exist in the imagination, whereas the actual is what exists in reality. Here's how the formal argument runs in that case:

Axiom from modal logic: If something is necessarily true in one possible world, it is necessarily true in all possible worlds. (premise 0)

1. It is possible that a being with all perfections exists. (premise 1)
2. Necessary existence is a perfection. (premise 2)
3. Therefore it is possible that a being with all perfections necessarily exists. (C1 by P1 and P2)
4. Therefore a being with all perfections necessarily exists. (by C1 and P0).


The force of Anselm's argument is that, if we are to trust our imaginations as capable of describing possible worlds (which, in general, we do), then the ability to imagine God's existence actually entails God's existence. Looking at the argument this way, basically what we see is that, if God exists at all, he necessarily exists, because necessary existence is built into the definition of God. I find this fascinating--it strikes me as true.

Queen of Swords

By this reasoning, if magical unicorns exist at the end of the rainbow, they necessarily exist, because necessary existence is built into the definition of magical unicorns at the end of the rainbow. I hope you find that fascinating and that it strikes you as equally true.

GenesisNemesis

Who said we were able to imagine God's existence? Just because we're able to imagine something that does not make it true. If I imagine unimaginably beautiful blue unicorns on venus, does that make them true? Whoa. Queen of Swords got to it first.

Ponzi

It's just a fancy example of begging the question. God is defined as something that has to exist, therefore it exists.

I may as well argue that perfection is something that can't exist, therefore god doesn't exist, and my argument is equal to Anselm's.

burning flames

Oh I didnt write any of this by the way. I dont really understand it, I dont think it makes sense. IS it saying just because we can imagine something, means it must be real?

or what?

someone please explain it to me

Queen of Swords

I see, so when you said, "I find this fascinating--it strikes me as true", you were perhaps channeling some christian?

Why don't you ask one of your christian friends? They seem to have more time to waste.

burning flames

I copied and pasted it

burning flames

bing

Queen of Swords

Maybe the admins should make a separate little subforum of General Religious Discussions called the General Religious Copy And Paste forum. You could post to your heart's content in that one.

Ponzi

Right, we know you're not Saint Anselm.

That's basically what it is, but it dresses it up in such a way that you're not likely to immediately disagree with any of its premises before it hits you over the head with its conclusion.