Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

[attofishpi]

Ahan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?

non sequiture ..as usual.

It is not. If God has a quality that is maximal and the quality greater than that cannot be achieved then you can achieve. Think of the tree of knowledge.

Moreover, I have an argument for the reality being boundless.

IF???

There are those on the forum ..at least used to be until..well..they abandoned ship (too much US boring politics) that would use a whole pile of formal logic symbols to confirm u r talking from a non sequitur position, unfortunately i am not one of them so i asked Yoda, he said bollocks indeed he spoke.

[bahman]

Okay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?

There are some qualities that are binary. Like flowery. A thing is either flower or not. You cannot have a flower that is more flowery than another flower.

Okay, so some qualities you'd say have an implied quantification, and "goodness" is an example in your view. How, exactly, would you say that "goodness" is quantified?

Are you asking how goodness is quantifiable? I understand your question but I don't understand how it relates to our discussion.

[bahman]

non sequiture ..as usual.

It is not. If God has a quality that is maximal and the quality greater than that cannot be achieved then you can achieve. Think of the tree of knowledge.

Moreover, I have an argument for the reality being boundless.

IF???

There are those on the forum ..at least used to be until..well..they abandoned ship (too much US boring politics) that would use a whole pile of formal logic symbols to confirm u r talking from a non sequitur position, unfortunately i am not one of them so i asked Yoda, he said bollocks indeed he spoke.

What you are talking about? Do you know Yoda?

[Terrapin Station]

There are some qualities that are binary. Like flowery. A thing is either flower or not. You cannot have a flower that is more flowery than another flower.

Okay, so some qualities you'd say have an implied quantification, and "goodness" is an example in your view. How, exactly, would you say that "goodness" is quantified?

Are you asking how goodness is quantifiable? I understand your question but I don't understand how it relates to our discussion.

Well, so what would we be saying re goodness being bounded versus boundless or greater or lesser?

[attofishpi]

It is not. If God has a quality that is maximal and the quality greater than that cannot be achieved then you can achieve. Think of the tree of knowledge.

Moreover, I have an argument for the reality being boundless.

IF???

There are those on the forum ..at least used to be until..well..they abandoned ship (too much US boring politics) that would use a whole pile of formal logic symbols to confirm u r talking from a non sequitur position, unfortunately i am not one of them so i asked Yoda, he said bollocks indeed he spoke.

What you are talking about? Do you know Yoda?

Of course i do, when he was two i couldn't convine him that absinthe and kale mix would stunt his growth and cause his skin to go green instead of blue.

..eventually when he was two hundred, green and short, my newest avatar convined him.

[bahman]

Okay, so some qualities you'd say have an implied quantification, and "goodness" is an example in your view. How, exactly, would you say that "goodness" is quantified?

Are you asking how goodness is quantifiable? I understand your question but I don't understand how it relates to our discussion.

Well, so what would we be saying re goodness being bounded versus boundless or greater or lesser?

A good person is resistant to evil to some extend. A better person can resist evil more. Etc.

[bahman]

IF???

There are those on the forum ..at least used to be until..well..they abandoned ship (too much US boring politics) that would use a whole pile of formal logic symbols to confirm u r talking from a non sequitur position, unfortunately i am not one of them so i asked Yoda, he said bollocks indeed he spoke.

What you are talking about? Do you know Yoda?

Of course i do, when he was two i couldn't convine him that absinthe and kale mix would stunt his growth and cause his skin to go green instead of blue.

..eventually when he was two hundred, green and short, my newest avatar convined him.

Yoda is not the best I know.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you asking how goodness is quantifiable? I understand your question but I don't understand how it relates to our discussion.

Well, so what would we be saying re goodness being bounded versus boundless or greater or lesser?

A good person is resistant to evil to some extend. A better person can resist evil more. Etc.

So you're quantifying 'how much evil they're resisting"?

[bahman]

Well, so what would we be saying re goodness being bounded versus boundless or greater or lesser?

A good person is resistant to evil to some extend. A better person can resist evil more. Etc.

So you're quantifying 'how much evil they're resisting"?

Good has its own meaning too. It is the state of pleasure. You know that you feel better or worst compared to the past.

[Impenitent]

Muhammad Ali is smirking...

-Imp

[Age]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

Besides your, so called, "argument" here being completely invalid AND unsound, Is 'reality' even an actual 'thing', which could be bounded or boundless anyway?

Or, is 'reality' just a conception or a perception?

[Terrapin Station]

The obvious answer why Anselm's argument is wrong, by the way--aside from the inherent subjectivity of "great(ness)," which we can ignore for this--is that conceiving of x in no way implies that x exists. One might agree that a real x is greater than a merely fantasized x, but that doesn't imply that the greater x exists.

Most people would agree, for example, that "the greatest bank balance conceivable" would be a REAL trillion dollars rather than a fantasized trillion dollars, but unfortunately, that in no way helps your bank balance. You're still going to have trouble paying your bills.

[bahman]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

Besides your, so called, "argument" here being completely invalid AND unsound, Is 'reality' even an actual 'thing', which could be bounded or boundless anyway?

Why it is invalid and unsound? Because you think that there is a God and that needs no explanation or argument?

Or, is 'reality' just a conception or a perception?

Reality is real.

[bahman]

The obvious answer why Anselm's argument is wrong, by the way--aside from the inherent subjectivity of "great(ness)," which we can ignore for this--is that conceiving of x in no way implies that x exists. One might agree that a real x is greater than a merely fantasized x, but that doesn't imply that the greater x exists.

You certainly didn't back up your opinion by an argument. Here is my argument: Suppose that the universe is bounded. This means that something (it must be coherent) might exist and the chance of its existence is P. P depends on many factors including the size of the universe. This chance however becomes larger in a larger universe and becomes 1 in an infinite universe. Therefore, any imaginable things exist in an infinite universe. The whole is however is unbound therefore P=1 again.

[Age]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

Besides your, so called, "argument" here being completely invalid AND unsound, Is 'reality' even an actual 'thing', which could be bounded or boundless anyway?

Why it is invalid and unsound?

To start with,

because you have absolutely NO idea at all what the word 'God' refers to ACTUALLY.

'Reality' is NOT an actual 'thing' that could be bounded anyway.

'Greatest in all respects' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what you have written here.

You say that "there is no God", yet you claim that the word 'God' is defined as the greatest in all respects. This would obviously mean that what IS 'the greatest in all respects' IS God. So, what IS 'the greatest in all respects'?

P1. God is defined as the greatest in all respects.
P2. Reality is boundless.
C. Therefore the greatest does not exist.

Your BELIEF and further CONCLUSION. Therefore, there is no God.

P1. God is defined as MANY different things. But just because human beings define words in certain ways this by itself does NOT make YOUR definitions accurate nor true at all. So, BEFORE your argument could be valid and/or sound, you would have to PROVE that God IS actually 'the greatest in all respects'. Could you possibly do this? If no, then P1 is NOT necessarily true at all. But if you could PROVE God is actually 'the greatest in all respects', then please go ahead and do this.

P2. You have yet to PROVE and EXPLAIN how 'reality', itself, is boundless. And BEFORE you could do this you will have to EXPLAIN what 'reality' IS, FIRST. And, if you do not get AGREEMENT in YOUR EXPLANATION, then you have probably NOT explained 'reality' properly, correctly, and FULLY. So, P2 is NOT necessarily true at all.

C. What does the 'greatest in all respects' ACTUALLY MEAN, to 'you'?

To 'me', obviously thee Universe, Itself, is the greatest, 'in that respect'. Therefore, the GREATEST DOES EXIST, to 'me'.

Also, to 'me', in respects to what the Mind can create and achieve this is also the GREATEST, 'in this respect'. Therefore, to 'me', the Mind and the Universe, together, are the True GREATEST, in ALL respects.

Your, so called, "argument" is NOT valid and NOT sound because YOUR premises and conclusions here have NOT YET been PROVEN true, logically, NOR empirically, and therefore they are NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

Because you think that there is a God and that needs no explanation or argument?

Depending on how each of 'you', human beings, God does NOT need ANY explanation NOR argument. God can, and does, speak for Its Self.

Or, is 'reality' just a conception or a perception?

Reality is real.

How could 'real' be bounded?

By the way, saying, " 'reality' is real " is NONSENSICAL. (But english is NOT your first language, so you may NOT have ALREADY KNOWN this.)