Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

[Age]

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.

BUT WHY 'suppose' some 'thing' that is just an IMPOSSIBILITY anyway?

This means that something (it must be coherent) might exist and the chance of its existence is P.

When you make something like, the word, 'God' 'coherent', then we can START to take a LOOK AT 'this'.

Also, the "chance" of some 'things' existence has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING AT ALL on whether that 'thing' ACTUALLY EXISTS or NOT.

P depends on many factors including the size of the universe.

LOL WHY, EXACTLY?

This chance however becomes larger in a larger universe and becomes 1 in an infinite universe.

WHY does the chance of something that could NOT even exist anyway, supposedly and allegedly become larger in a, LOL, "larger universe"?

LOOK, thee Universe IS 'infinite'. Full stop. This has ALREADY been PROVEN IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Now, what does the symbol '1' here ACTUALLY MEAN?

In other words, what does the saying, "The chance of something's existence is 1 in an infinite universe", ACTUALLY MEAN?

Therefore, any imaginable things exist in an infinite universe. The whole is however is unbound therefore P=1 again.

The way you "reason" "bahman" is ABSOLUTELY FAULTY.

Now, WHY does ANY 'imaginable thing' HAVE TO exist in thee One and ONLY infinite Universe?

OBVIOUSLY, one could imagine a 'finite universe', for example, SO HOW could this 'thing' exist in an 'infinite Universe'?

[bahman]

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.

I have good ideas of what the word God refers to.

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

I agree. But I have a proof for that.

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

Of course, it does.

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'?

The greatest in a property means that there exists a maximal value for that property. Greatest in all respects means greatest in all possible properties.

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

That is not my whole argument. You need to think a little harder to fill the gaps between what I said. Here is my argument:

P1) God is defined as the greatest in all respects (by greatest I mean that there exist an upper limit for each respect)
P2) Reality is boundless (this is discussed here)
P3) Boundless means that everything is possible (proof is given in below)
C1) This means that the maximal property does not exist (from P2 and P3)
C2) Therefore God does not exist (from P1 and C1)

Proof for P3: 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.

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.

That is not my definition. It is Anselm's definition. And again you don't prove the definition.

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.

P2 is discussed here.

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

It means that God has a set of properties and He is maximal in all the properties.

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

Why the universe is the greatest?

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.

It is valid and sound.

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.)

Reality is real was a response to you who said that reality is a conception or perception.

[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.

BUT WHY 'suppose' some 'thing' that is just an IMPOSSIBILITY anyway?

To understand.

This means that something (it must be coherent) might exist and the chance of its existence is P.

When you make something like, the word, 'God' 'coherent', then we can START to take a LOOK AT 'this'.

Also, the "chance" of some 'things' existence has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING AT ALL on whether that 'thing' ACTUALLY EXISTS or NOT.

Size matter as chance matter. No universe no thing.

P depends on many factors including the size of the universe.

LOL WHY, EXACTLY?

Well, because life for example needs a set of conditions to takes place. The change for meeting this condition is larger in the larger universe. Therefore, the chance for having a life is larger.

This chance however becomes larger in a larger universe and becomes 1 in an infinite universe.

WHY does the chance of something that could NOT even exist anyway, supposedly and allegedly become larger in a, LOL, "larger universe"?

This is off-topic.

LOOK, thee Universe IS 'infinite'. Full stop. This has ALREADY been PROVEN IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Now, what does the symbol '1' here ACTUALLY MEAN?

In other words, what does the saying, "The chance of something's existence is 1 in an infinite universe", ACTUALLY MEAN?

When the change for the existence of something is '1' it means that the thing exists for sure.

Therefore, any imaginable things exist in an infinite universe. The whole is however is unbound therefore P=1 again.

The way you "reason" "bahman" is ABSOLUTELY FAULTY.

Now, WHY does ANY 'imaginable thing' HAVE TO exist in thee One and ONLY infinite Universe?

OBVIOUSLY, one could imagine a 'finite universe', for example, SO HOW could this 'thing' exist in an 'infinite Universe'?

It is not faulty. How could you possibly deduce that what I am saying is faulty when you have questions about what I am saying?

[Terrapin Station]

You certainly didn't back up your opinion by an argument.

No further argumentation should be needed. It should be obvious with a couple moments reflection, especially in light of the example I gave, that conceiving of anything doesn't imply anything other than the fact that we're conceiving whatever it is, as a conception.

This chance however becomes larger in a larger universe and becomes 1 in an infinite universe.

This is a non-sequitur, which I've explained to you already, and you've never bothered to address the objection. That's probably because you haven't understood the objection, but you can't just ignore it if you don't understand it.

[bahman]

You certainly didn't back up your opinion by an argument.

No further argumentation should be needed. It should be obvious with a couple moments reflection, especially in light of the example I gave, that conceiving of anything doesn't imply anything other than the fact that we're conceiving whatever it is, as a conception.

This chance however becomes larger in a larger universe and becomes 1 in an infinite universe.

This is a non-sequitur, which I've explained to you already, and you've never bothered to address the objection. That's probably because you haven't understood the objection, but you can't just ignore it if you don't understand it.

So size doesn't matter. What if the size of the universe is very small or even zero. Could you have life for example in such a universe?

[Terrapin Station]

You certainly didn't back up your opinion by an argument.

No further argumentation should be needed. It should be obvious with a couple moments reflection, especially in light of the example I gave, that conceiving of anything doesn't imply anything other than the fact that we're conceiving whatever it is, as a conception.

This chance however becomes larger in a larger universe and becomes 1 in an infinite universe.

This is a non-sequitur, which I've explained to you already, and you've never bothered to address the objection. That's probably because you haven't understood the objection, but you can't just ignore it if you don't understand it.

So size doesn't matter. What if the size of the universe is very small or even zero. Could you have life for example in such a universe?

What does this have to do with my comments above? Again,you said re the probability of any arbitrary thing obtaining depends on the universe's size or whether it's boundless/infinite. I've explained that it doesn't depend on that, and you've yet to even try addressing the objection.

The universe could consist solely of a uniform "soup" of neutrons, say, regardless of its size or whether it's finite or infinite. If that's the case, then the only thing that can exist is neutrons in a uniform soup. You'd need to argue why this couldn't be the case.

[bahman]

No further argumentation should be needed. It should be obvious with a couple moments reflection, especially in light of the example I gave, that conceiving of anything doesn't imply anything other than the fact that we're conceiving whatever it is, as a conception.


This is a non-sequitur, which I've explained to you already, and you've never bothered to address the objection. That's probably because you haven't understood the objection, but you can't just ignore it if you don't understand it.

So size doesn't matter. What if the size of the universe is very small or even zero. Could you have life for example in such a universe?

What does this have to do with my comments above? Again, what you said re the probability of any arbitrary thing obtaining depends on the universe's size or whether it's boundless/infinite. I've explained that it doesn't depend on that, and you've yet to even try addressing the objection.

Yes, I am trying to answer your objection. I am trying to explain to you that having something S with proeprty P is very small in a small universe. P is zero in zero size universe. As an example that we can work on, what is the chance of having life in a small universe as big as the solar system? Please note that to have life you need to have some conditions satisfied, earth for example should be at a specific distance from the sun, has the capacity to have an atmosphere, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, I am trying to answer your objection. I am trying to explain to you that having something S with proeprty P is very small in a small universe. P is zero in zero size universe. As an example that we can work on, what is the chance of having life in a small universe as big as the solar system? Please note that to have life you need to have some conditions satisfied, earth for example should be at a specific distance from the sun, has the capacity to have an atmosphere, etc.

Re the latter part of that, right--it doesn't at all solely depend on the size or whether it's finite or infinite. A universe that's a uniform soup of neutrons has 0% chance of developing life, regardless of how big it is or whether it's infinite.

[bahman]

Yes, I am trying to answer your objection. I am trying to explain to you that having something S with proeprty P is very small in a small universe. P is zero in zero size universe. As an example that we can work on, what is the chance of having life in a small universe as big as the solar system? Please note that to have life you need to have some conditions satisfied, earth for example should be at a specific distance from the sun, has the capacity to have an atmosphere, etc.

Re the latter part of that, right--it doesn't at all solely depend on the size or whether it's finite or infinite. A universe that's a uniform soup of neutrons has 0% chance of developing life, regardless of how big it is or whether it's infinite.

Yes, but we are not living the universe you mentioned. Again, could you please answer my question? What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, I am trying to answer your objection. I am trying to explain to you that having something S with proeprty P is very small in a small universe. P is zero in zero size universe. As an example that we can work on, what is the chance of having life in a small universe as big as the solar system? Please note that to have life you need to have some conditions satisfied, earth for example should be at a specific distance from the sun, has the capacity to have an atmosphere, etc.

Re the latter part of that, right--it doesn't at all solely depend on the size or whether it's finite or infinite. A universe that's a uniform soup of neutrons has 0% chance of developing life, regardless of how big it is or whether it's infinite.

Yes, but we are not living the universe you mentioned. Again, could you please answer my question? What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system?

On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it.

Any answer to a question like "What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system" is no better than throwing dice for the answer would be.

[bahman]

Re the latter part of that, right--it doesn't at all solely depend on the size or whether it's finite or infinite. A universe that's a uniform soup of neutrons has 0% chance of developing life, regardless of how big it is or whether it's infinite.

Yes, but we are not living the universe you mentioned. Again, could you please answer my question? What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system?

On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it.

Any answer to a question like "What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system" is no better than throwing dice for the answer would be.

Great. So could we agree that the existence of life in such a universe is probabilistic? Let's call the chance P that you get one side of your dice?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, but we are not living the universe you mentioned. Again, could you please answer my question? What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system?

On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it.

Any answer to a question like "What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system" is no better than throwing dice for the answer would be.

Great. So could we agree that the existence of life in such a universe is probabilistic? Let's call the chance P that you get one side of your dice?

I'm fine saying it's probabilistic where we have no idea what the probability would be, sure. (and under the caveat that the universe in question is something like the solar system as it contingently is at present)

[bahman]

On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it.

Any answer to a question like "What is the chance of having life in a universe which is as big as the solar system" is no better than throwing dice for the answer would be.

Great. So could we agree that the existence of life in such a universe is probabilistic? Let's call the chance P that you get one side of your dice?

I'm fine saying it's probabilistic where we have no idea what the probability would be, sure.

It could be as simple as rolling a dice and expecting to have the right side where the right side corresponds to having life.

[Terrapin Station]

Great. So could we agree that the existence of life in such a universe is probabilistic? Let's call the chance P that you get one side of your dice?

I'm fine saying it's probabilistic where we have no idea what the probability would be, sure.

It could be as simple as rolling a dice and expecting to have the right side where the right side corresponds to having life.

I mean, that's just saying there's some probability, sure. That's going to be the case.

[bahman]

I'm fine saying it's probabilistic where we have no idea what the probability would be, sure.

It could be as simple as rolling a dice and expecting to have the right side where the right side corresponds to having life.

I mean, that's just saying there's some probability, sure. That's going to be the case.

Great. Now assume that the size of the universe is twice of the solar system. What is the chance of having the life now? How do you estimate the chance by using your dice? I mean do you roll the dice twice? You have more opportunity therefore it is reasonable that the chance for the bigger universe is related to rolling your dice twice.