Prof. Bonevac, what do you say to the objection that "greatness" isn't a well-formed concept to begin with? Things can be great in many different ways. Perhaps this is another version of the objection that maybe we don't have an idea of God to begin with.
I cannot conceive of a necessary being not existing. God, by definition, is a necessary being while creatures (such as islands) are contingent beings. The question then becomes whether a necessary being is necessary for contingent beings. To put it another way: does the existence of contingent beings necessarily imply a necessary being? Yes, since something must exist necessarily as it is a logical absurdity that something can be self-created. A self-existent being does not participate in existence (as that would make it contingent) but is identical with its own existence and the ground of contingent existence. Because it is self- existent it is eternal and thus transcends time. Because time is the measure of change and the necessary being transcends time, He does not change.
"I cannot conceive of a necessary being not existing. God, by definition, is a necessary being" Congratulations you defined God into existence, i.e. you simply begged the question.
Think of that, _than which nothing greater can be conceived_ it has the predicate of "existing" as well as the predicate "it's thought as existing", right? Now think of exactly this same concept including the predicate "it's thought as existing" but without the predicate "existing". Can you tell the difference? I think what this means is that our thoughts have no connection with ontology whatsoever. We cannot by thinking leave the realm of thought. We can only speculate (i.e. make models) about ontology.
Crickey! So if I have understood this, which I doubt - God is 'existence' itself - Being. Whereas, 'being' is dependent upon relationships 'to' existence - Being. So, if I think of a perfect Island which consists of all the qualities of perfection, nevertheless, it's 'being' is wholly dependent on 'Being'. Of which nothing greater can be thought. I'm not sure how the reality of existence is proof of the reality of a God. Is existence a 'thing' that posses the predicate of 'perfection'?
Reality of existence is only proof of god if existence and god mean the same thing - seeing as there is no other entity more fitting of the title of 'god', nor any set of things more worthy of being called divine than literal 'Being' or 'the totality of all things', the fact that we exist or that anything exists at all, it doesn't seem that far fetched that the 'god' word that Anselm was trying to ascribe properties to, is a symbol that aims to direct the mind to the concept of reality in its most abstract form, the one we deal with everyday, our reality - you know, the one we know exists necessarily by virtue of our experience of it
So now we must take it that existence as it applies to god is different than when applied to anything else. Like Gaunilo, I would respond: my perfect island has all/any of those special meanings for existence as for the god. In the end, the ontological argument boils down to: "If god exists, then god exists"
What about the perfect island, that also has to exist? so an island that has necessary existence. So if you say, it (the perfect island with existence) doesn't exist, you're not really thinking about it, as it has to exist, in reality you're thinking about a perfect island that doesn't have necessary existence, so not the Island i meant. So you can just tag on necessary existence to every imaginable concept, so that it has to exist according to anselm
Am I the only one who finds it a bit sad how Gaunilo effectively manages to destroy Anselm's fallacious argument, yet Anselm's ontological argument is still used by believers today and no one knows Gaunilo's name? just more confirmation of the old adage: religion is sickness
I dont mean to be so offtopic but does anybody know a way to get back into an instagram account?? I was dumb forgot the account password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me!
@Khalid Ray I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out now. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D2 | Fall | เครื่องร้อน พร้อมลุย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JO2_bLow_1Y/mqdefault.jpg)
A: There are no unicorns. B: aaaah but the very fact that you know what a unicorn is means that they do exist, you fool!
Prof. Bonevac, what do you say to the objection that "greatness" isn't a well-formed concept to begin with? Things can be great in many different ways. Perhaps this is another version of the objection that maybe we don't have an idea of God to begin with.
I cannot conceive of a necessary being not existing. God, by definition, is a necessary being while creatures (such as islands) are contingent beings. The question then becomes whether a necessary being is necessary for contingent beings. To put it another way: does the existence of contingent beings necessarily imply a necessary being? Yes, since something must exist necessarily as it is a logical absurdity that something can be self-created. A self-existent being does not participate in existence (as that would make it contingent) but is identical with its own existence and the ground of contingent existence. Because it is self- existent it is eternal and thus transcends time. Because time is the measure of change and the necessary being transcends time, He does not change.
"I cannot conceive of a necessary being not existing. God, by definition, is a necessary being"
Congratulations you defined God into existence, i.e. you simply begged the question.
You miss the atheist's paradox-similar to the sceptic's paradox.
Think of that, _than which nothing greater can be conceived_ it has the predicate of "existing" as well as the predicate "it's thought as existing", right?
Now think of exactly this same concept including the predicate "it's thought as existing" but without the predicate "existing". Can you tell the difference?
I think what this means is that our thoughts have no connection with ontology whatsoever. We cannot by thinking leave the realm of thought. We can only speculate (i.e. make models) about ontology.
Crickey! So if I have understood this, which I doubt - God is 'existence' itself - Being. Whereas, 'being' is dependent upon relationships 'to' existence - Being. So, if I think of a perfect Island which consists of all the qualities of perfection, nevertheless, it's 'being' is wholly dependent on 'Being'. Of which nothing greater can be thought.
I'm not sure how the reality of existence is proof of the reality of a God. Is existence a 'thing' that posses the predicate of 'perfection'?
Reality of existence is only proof of god if existence and god mean the same thing - seeing as there is no other entity more fitting of the title of 'god', nor any set of things more worthy of being called divine than literal 'Being' or 'the totality of all things', the fact that we exist or that anything exists at all, it doesn't seem that far fetched that the 'god' word that Anselm was trying to ascribe properties to, is a symbol that aims to direct the mind to the concept of reality in its most abstract form, the one we deal with everyday, our reality - you know, the one we know exists necessarily by virtue of our experience of it
So now we must take it that existence as it applies to god is different than when applied to anything else.
Like Gaunilo, I would respond: my perfect island has all/any of those special meanings for existence as for the god.
In the end, the ontological argument boils down to: "If god exists, then god exists"
What about the perfect island, that also has to exist?
so an island that has necessary existence. So if you say, it (the perfect island with existence) doesn't exist, you're not really thinking about it, as it has to exist, in reality you're thinking about a perfect island that doesn't have necessary existence, so not the Island i meant.
So you can just tag on necessary existence to every imaginable concept, so that it has to exist according to anselm
Am I the only one who finds it a bit sad how Gaunilo effectively manages to destroy Anselm's fallacious argument, yet Anselm's ontological argument is still used by believers today and no one knows Gaunilo's name? just more confirmation of the old adage: religion is sickness
I dont mean to be so offtopic but does anybody know a way to get back into an instagram account??
I was dumb forgot the account password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me!
@Cason Ryder instablaster :)
@Khalid Ray I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out now.
Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Khalid Ray it did the trick and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy:D
Thanks so much, you saved my ass!
@Cason Ryder glad I could help :)