Originally posted by DowardDo you have a preferred reconstruction of this argument? If so, present it and I'll take a crack at it. What's the first premise?
I agree, Anselm's argument gets the cart before the horse. The reason I posted the second proof is that I believe it should have been his first argument versus "God is that than which nothing greater can be imagined." Consider this: If the argument starts with "That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist" then the Proslogian begins with a logical truth instead of ...[text shortened]... ist" he means "reasoned not to exist" and this may be while you have trouble with the statement.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Are we really discussing his second proof? Just checking.
IIa. Anselm's Second Argument
1. Something can be thought to exist that cannot be thought not to exist.
2. This is greater than that which can be thought not to exist.
3. If 'that than which a greater cannot be thought1 can be thought not to exist, then 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' is not the same as 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', which is absurd.
4. Therefore, 'something than which a greater cannot be thought' exists so truly then, that it cannot be even thought not to exist.
IIIa. Anselm's Supporting Argument
St. Anselm supports this second argument in the second half of the third chapter excerpted above:
1. If some intelligence could think of something better than You, the creature would be above its creator and would judge its creator.
2. Everything else there is, except You alone, can be thought of as not existing.
3. You alone, then, of all things most truly exist and therefore of all things possess existence to the highest degree.
IIb. Reconstruction of Anselm's Second Argument
From the above argument and its supporting argument we can distill the following:
1. God is that than which no greater is or is conceivable (from I.l.)«
2. That than which no greater is or is conceivable cannot be conceived not to exist (see argument III below).
3. Whatever cannot be conceived not to exist necessarily exists.
4. Therefore God necessarily exists.
http://www.romancatholicidentity.com/2010/04/saint-anselm-and-ontological-argument.html
Originally posted by twhiteheadit's a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative. you argument is essentially reductio ad absurdum. I never said that failure to prove God's non-existence was proof of his existence, but rather it is impossible to prove non-existence... which is true.
One of the posters already demonstrated that that is false. I to, think God does not exist.
[b]One cannot prove the non-existence of God,
Actually, one can.
or in other words one cannot prove a negative.
You shouldn't just repeat stuff you have heard. Try and think about it for a moment. Of course one can prove a negative.[/b]
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou are right ................but it requires the other person to be truly honest.
"Actually, one can [prove the non-existence of God]."
only if the definition is specific enough and even so only in certain cases. i doubt you can check outside time and space to see if there is any god there.
Very rare when dealing with puffed atheists who worship science and Charles Darwin.
Originally posted by DowardOf course you can prove a negative. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Provide a reference or some logic to back up this claim
it's a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative.
you argument is essentially reductio ad absurdum.
Which is a perfectly valid type of argument.
I never said that failure to prove God's non-existence was proof of his existence, but rather it is impossible to prove non-existence... which is true.
No, it is not true.
You are attempting to use this fallacy:
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/50-argument-by-repetition
Originally posted by Dowardhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof
it's a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative.
A common saying in pseudologic is "You can't prove a negative." That saying is not true. An absence of something can be proved in various ways, e.g., by a reductio ad absurdum or by proving something else that is inconsistent with the presence of that something (a very useful approach known in mathematics as proof by contradiction).
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
Originally posted by DowardUgh. Of course you can prove a negative. One of the laws of logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, is itself a negative (~(P&~P)) and derivable from the empty set of premises using the classic rules of deduction. That means we can also prove that there is at least one provable negative. That means that we can also prove another negative, namely that it's not the case that we cannot prove a negative.
it's a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative. you argument is essentially reductio ad absurdum. I never said that failure to prove God's non-existence was proof of his existence, but rather it is impossible to prove non-existence... which is true.
Originally posted by DowardLogical fallacy eh? You cannot prove a negative! Well in that case I'm all ears, please go ahead and prove this little negative of yours. Here I'll make it easier for you
it's a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative. you argument is essentially reductio ad absurdum. I never said that failure to prove God's non-existence was proof of his existence, but rather it is impossible to prove non-existence... which is true.
I make the claim A = "there *DOES* exist a negative that can be disproved"
I leave it to you to demonstrate ¬A.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTruly. Step (4) is like invoking the Completeness Axiom to argue that a set of real numbers has a least upper bound that is real, but doing so for a set that is not even given to be bounded.
(1) One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived.
(2) We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
(3) If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a "being than which none greater can be conceived".
(4) A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist ...[text shortened]... ing God.[/quote]Is it this argument that you mean?
If so then steps (4) and (5) are horrible.
Originally posted by DowardYes, its a valid definition. No, it isn't the definition of the God he believes in.
its a valid definition, prove it false
And I never said I would prove it false (definitions are by definition, neither true nor false). I said I could possibly prove that an entity matching the given definition did not exist.