Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Counter Argument to Anselms OA

mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?
4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 8:21:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?

I answered that question below, under defense of premise three. If you have an objection to that defense, then please share it. To put it crudely, yes. I'm saying that, all else equal, a popular being is greater than an unpopular being. Not for popularities sake, but due to the greater level of influence that popularity brings.

4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:45:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/7/2016 8:21:02 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?

I answered that question below, under defense of premise three. If you have an objection to that defense, then please share it. To put it crudely, yes. I'm saying that, all else equal, a popular being is greater than an unpopular being. Not for popularities sake, but due to the greater level of influence that popularity brings.

4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
Right. I understood it but was astounded at the fact that someone would even attempt claiming that popularity is equivalent to an attribute. So, with all due respect, your argument is pointless and has absolutely no merit. Here's why. A person need not understand a maximally great being exists in order for that being to have influence on that person. That's a non sequitur. The person's perception of influence is merely acknowledged with understanding of existence but that doesn't equate to a necessity for the being to have influence. Aware of being influenced doesn't make the being greater. Good try though. If you are currently in academia take the argument to a logician and get the bad news. Nice try though.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:02:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:45:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 8:21:02 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?

I answered that question below, under defense of premise three. If you have an objection to that defense, then please share it. To put it crudely, yes. I'm saying that, all else equal, a popular being is greater than an unpopular being. Not for popularities sake, but due to the greater level of influence that popularity brings.

4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
Right. I understood it but was astounded at the fact that someone would even attempt claiming that popularity is equivalent to an attribute. So, with all due respect, your argument is pointless and has absolutely no merit. Here's why. A person need not understand a maximally great being exists in order for that being to have influence on that person. That's a non sequitur. The person's perception of influence is merely acknowledged with understanding of existence but that doesn't equate to a necessity for the being to have influence. Aware of being influenced doesn't make the being greater. Good try though. If you are currently in academia take the argument to a logician and get the bad news. Nice try though.

It's not a necessity for the being to have influence. I never said it was. Nor did I say popularity is equivalent to an attribute. You can throw red herrings all you want, but frankly, your criticisms apply just as readily to the second premise as they do to the third, which is fine. The second premise is not one I care to defend, but if you reject it, then you reject Anselm's argument anyways, so there's no reason for me to defend it.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 10:10:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 7:02:45 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:45:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 8:21:02 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?

I answered that question below, under defense of premise three. If you have an objection to that defense, then please share it. To put it crudely, yes. I'm saying that, all else equal, a popular being is greater than an unpopular being. Not for popularities sake, but due to the greater level of influence that popularity brings.

4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
Right. I understood it but was astounded at the fact that someone would even attempt claiming that popularity is equivalent to an attribute. So, with all due respect, your argument is pointless and has absolutely no merit. Here's why. A person need not understand a maximally great being exists in order for that being to have influence on that person. That's a non sequitur. The person's perception of influence is merely acknowledged with understanding of existence but that doesn't equate to a necessity for the being to have influence. Aware of being influenced doesn't make the being greater. Good try though. If you are currently in academia take the argument to a logician and get the bad news. Nice try though.

It's not a necessity for the being to have influence. I never said it was. Nor did I say popularity is equivalent to an attribute. You can throw red herrings all you want, but frankly, your criticisms apply just as readily to the second premise as they do to the third, which is fine. The second premise is not one I care to defend, but if you reject it, then you reject Anselm's argument anyways, so there's no reason for me to defend it.
Wrong and your second premise as copied from anselms argument, is a fallacy of equivocation as explained by you. You use a fallacy of equivocation in the word =understood" in regards to Anselms arguments. The argument isn't saying that someone merely intellectually "understands" the being exists. It means that in order to logically extend a being that nothing greater can be conceived, by definition, is greater if it actually exists. You attempt to claim understood as simply a mind dependent "thought". In this sense it is being used as "understood" it actually does exist external to a simple mental affirmation,
You argue as a premise
" A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. "
This is another false premise. A person need not understand a maximally great being exist for that being to have "more" influence. Another non sequitur. Your assuming that you have to acknowledge existence to empower a maximally great being to assert influence. In this case more which makes your assertion the being has already some influence. So by your own justification you are claiming the being has influence over you without understanding it exists. That by definition means a maximally great being would not be limited to how much influence over you simply by you allowing it to via understanding. An example would be this. If you read the bible under the belief a maximally great being inspired the words to be written as it deem fit, the words come from this being, you adopt them into your life, they influence you so you think this equates to more influence coming from the being itself. It doesn't. It comes from your inner idea of understanding it exists. The being doesn't rely on your will to influence you. That by definition would negate all powerful. It equates to a straw man of what the being is limited to simply by human "resistance". Humans resistance could not by definition hinder an all powerful being.
And there aren't any red herrings in my rebuttal. If I misunderstood you equating popularity as an attribute then you simply need to explain why it isn't an additional attribute. It may be a straw man if you can defend it as not being an additional attribute But by definition in order for a being to be greater than it is conceived, there has to be an additional attribute added to the being that increase its "greatness". So you have to logically capture an idea of an attribute that seems to be missing in the being and defend logically why a being that nothing greater can be conceived is actually lacking an attribute and what the attribute is, and why it makes it greater.
Ockham
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 11:46:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I explained my objection to Anselm's ontological argument at length in my recent debate with Maryland_Kid.

"All knowledge comes through experience. A definition does not come out of nowhere, it has to be based on a body of observational knowledge that we have acquired. For example, the definition "man is the rational animal" is legitimate, because it explains countless observations about human nature - the fact that we can speak grammatically, the fact that we can build airplanes, and so on.

"A definition that is not based on observation, like "God is a being than which none greater can be imagined," is illegitimate. If a concept isn't based on evidence, it cannot be knowledge, it can only be empty words or an expression of emotion. My opponent may have some feelings or mental images that he associates with this definition, but that does not establish that it has cognitive value."

http://www.debate.org...
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 10:10:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:02:45 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:45:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 8:21:02 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?

I answered that question below, under defense of premise three. If you have an objection to that defense, then please share it. To put it crudely, yes. I'm saying that, all else equal, a popular being is greater than an unpopular being. Not for popularities sake, but due to the greater level of influence that popularity brings.

4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
Right. I understood it but was astounded at the fact that someone would even attempt claiming that popularity is equivalent to an attribute. So, with all due respect, your argument is pointless and has absolutely no merit. Here's why. A person need not understand a maximally great being exists in order for that being to have influence on that person. That's a non sequitur. The person's perception of influence is merely acknowledged with understanding of existence but that doesn't equate to a necessity for the being to have influence. Aware of being influenced doesn't make the being greater. Good try though. If you are currently in academia take the argument to a logician and get the bad news. Nice try though.

It's not a necessity for the being to have influence. I never said it was. Nor did I say popularity is equivalent to an attribute. You can throw red herrings all you want, but frankly, your criticisms apply just as readily to the second premise as they do to the third, which is fine. The second premise is not one I care to defend, but if you reject it, then you reject Anselm's argument anyways, so there's no reason for me to defend it.
Wrong and your second premise as copied from anselms argument, is a fallacy of equivocation as explained by you. You use a fallacy of equivocation in the word =understood" in regards to Anselms arguments. The argument isn't saying that someone merely intellectually "understands" the being exists. It means that in order to logically extend a being that nothing greater can be conceived, by definition, is greater if it actually exists. You attempt to claim understood as simply a mind dependent "thought". In this sense it is being used as "understood" it actually does exist external to a simple mental affirmation,

Lol, I apologize, as indeed you are correct. I've gotta remember not to respond to things when I'm stoned in the future.

You argue as a premise
" A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. "
This is another false premise. A person need not understand a maximally great being exist for that being to have "more" influence. Another non sequitur. Your assuming that you have to acknowledge existence to empower a maximally great being to assert influence. In this case more which makes your assertion the being has already some influence. So by your own justification you are claiming the being has influence over you without understanding it exists. That by definition means a maximally great being would not be limited to how much influence over you simply by you allowing it to via understanding. An example would be this. If you read the bible under the belief a maximally great being inspired the words to be written as it deem fit, the words come from this being, you adopt them into your life, they influence you so you think this equates to more influence coming from the being itself. It doesn't. It comes from your inner idea of understanding it exists. The being doesn't rely on your will to influence you. That by definition would negate all powerful. It equates to a straw man of what the being is limited to simply by human "resistance". Humans resistance could not by definition hinder an all powerful being.

Certainly an all powerful being could force anybody to do anything. I was thinking more along the lines that an all powerful being who is not known to exist would be more limited in methods of influence than one who is known to exist.

And there aren't any red herrings in my rebuttal. If I misunderstood you equating popularity as an attribute then you simply need to explain why it isn't an additional attribute. It may be a straw man if you can defend it as not being an additional attribute But by definition in order for a being to be greater than it is conceived, there has to be an additional attribute added to the being that increase its "greatness". So you have to logically capture an idea of an attribute that seems to be missing in the being and defend logically why a being that nothing greater can be conceived is actually lacking an attribute and what the attribute is, and why it makes it greater.

Ones' popularity is neither a character trait nor an inherent quality, as far as I'm concerned, so to call it an attribute is a misnomer. I take issue with the bolded part of your reply. I have no idea what leads you to say that. By definition, eminence (fame) is an aspect of greatness, so premise three is true.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:44:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?

Or just say that existence is not a predicate.

Or deny the intelligibility of God as a concept at all.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:10:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:02:45 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:45:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 8:21:02 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:07:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
This simply doesn't follow. A being that which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't become greater simply by more people understanding the being exists. You simply are saying that the being can only exist if everybody on the planet understands it exists.
If more people on the planet read Plato does the substance of his writings become greater?
The assertion of the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived needs an additional attribute to make it even greater. How is popularity an attribute that contributes to it being conceived of being greater?

I answered that question below, under defense of premise three. If you have an objection to that defense, then please share it. To put it crudely, yes. I'm saying that, all else equal, a popular being is greater than an unpopular being. Not for popularities sake, but due to the greater level of influence that popularity brings.

4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?
Right. I understood it but was astounded at the fact that someone would even attempt claiming that popularity is equivalent to an attribute. So, with all due respect, your argument is pointless and has absolutely no merit. Here's why. A person need not understand a maximally great being exists in order for that being to have influence on that person. That's a non sequitur. The person's perception of influence is merely acknowledged with understanding of existence but that doesn't equate to a necessity for the being to have influence. Aware of being influenced doesn't make the being greater. Good try though. If you are currently in academia take the argument to a logician and get the bad news. Nice try though.

It's not a necessity for the being to have influence. I never said it was. Nor did I say popularity is equivalent to an attribute. You can throw red herrings all you want, but frankly, your criticisms apply just as readily to the second premise as they do to the third, which is fine. The second premise is not one I care to defend, but if you reject it, then you reject Anselm's argument anyways, so there's no reason for me to defend it.
Wrong and your second premise as copied from anselms argument, is a fallacy of equivocation as explained by you. You use a fallacy of equivocation in the word =understood" in regards to Anselms arguments. The argument isn't saying that someone merely intellectually "understands" the being exists. It means that in order to logically extend a being that nothing greater can be conceived, by definition, is greater if it actually exists. You attempt to claim understood as simply a mind dependent "thought". In this sense it is being used as "understood" it actually does exist external to a simple mental affirmation,

Lol, I apologize, as indeed you are correct. I've gotta remember not to respond to things when I'm stoned in the future.

You argue as a premise
" A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. "
This is another false premise. A person need not understand a maximally great being exist for that being to have "more" influence. Another non sequitur. Your assuming that you have to acknowledge existence to empower a maximally great being to assert influence. In this case more which makes your assertion the being has already some influence. So by your own justification you are claiming the being has influence over you without understanding it exists. That by definition means a maximally great being would not be limited to how much influence over you simply by you allowing it to via understanding. An example would be this. If you read the bible under the belief a maximally great being inspired the words to be written as it deem fit, the words come from this being, you adopt them into your life, they influence you so you think this equates to more influence coming from the being itself. It doesn't. It comes from your inner idea of understanding it exists. The being doesn't rely on your will to influence you. That by definition would negate all powerful. It equates to a straw man of what the being is limited to simply by human "resistance". Humans resistance could not by definition hinder an all powerful being.

Certainly an all powerful being could force anybody to do anything. I was thinking more along the lines that an all powerful being who is not known to exist would be more limited in methods of influence than one who is known to exist.

And there aren't any red herrings in my rebuttal. If I misunderstood you equating popularity as an attribute then you simply need to explain why it isn't an additional attribute. It may be a straw man if you can defend it as not being an additional attribute But by definition in order for a being to be greater than it is conceived, there has to be an additional attribute added to the being that increase its "greatness". So you have to logically capture an idea of an attribute that seems to be missing in the being and defend logically why a being that nothing greater can be conceived is actually lacking an attribute and what the attribute is, and why it makes it greater.

Ones' popularity is neither a character trait nor an inherent quality, as far as I'm concerned, so to call it an attribute is a misnomer. I take issue with the bolded part of your reply. I have no idea what leads you to say that. By definition, eminence (fame) is an aspect of greatness, so premise three is true.
You actually reason in the same thought the following...
"Fame is neither a character trait or " QUALITY".....then say
"Fame is an aspect or greatness", lmfao
Exactly what kind of aspect?
Fame is an aspect of greatness to a human with an unsatisfied life. The fact you argue it's relevant to increasing greatness is laughable, as is your logic. Your argument is garbage. Deal with it like a man. There's no intelligible logic here at all. The fact I wasted time with a logically inept fool like you is my fault, you are a joke.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 10:42:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 4:44:01 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:54:58 AM, mrsatan wrote:
Princeton explanation of Anselms argument: http://www.princeton.edu...

Counter Argument:

1) God is a being to which no greater being can be conceived.
2) A being which is understood to exist is greater than a being who only exists in the understanding.
3) A being who understood to exist by all is greater than a being who is only understood to exist by some.
4) Not all understand a being, to which no greater being can be conceived, to exist.
5) A being to which no greater being can be conceived does not exist.

Defense
1) Part of Anselms argument.
2) Also part of Anselms argument. To deny either of the first two premises is to deny Anselms argument anyways.
3) A being who is not understood to exist by someone has less influence upon them than it would if it were understood to exist by them. The greatest conceivable being would have the greatest conceivable influence.
4) Atheists are understood to exist and, by definition, they do not understand God to exist.
5) Follows by necessity.

Questions, criticisms, or general thoughts?

Or just say that existence is not a predicate.

Or deny the intelligibility of God as a concept at all.
If someone denied the concept of God as intelligible that person would be deemed an idiot.
The argument against Anselms position is clear. Just say you can conceive of a being whose greatness is conceivably greater than God. Then state the being you conceive.
Most people just can't accept what I call the first come first service attribute. In the history of written humanity it just so happens a human being conceived of and defined explicitly that "a god" is the greatest conceivable being insofar as our current understanding of attributes, what they are, what they might be, and what they possibly could be extended to as far as the extremes of possibility. This argument is in and about humanities languages and what humans have developed. If you want to argue against it you better focus on the language that is within humanity, not within the argument itself. Because that's a dead end until humans come up with attributes that don't currently exist and can be added to "a being".
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:

Ones' popularity is neither a character trait nor an inherent quality, as far as I'm concerned, so to call it an attribute is a misnomer. I take issue with the bolded part of your reply. I have no idea what leads you to say that. By definition, eminence (fame) is an aspect of greatness, so premise three is true.
You actually reason in the same thought the following...
"Fame is neither a character trait or " QUALITY".....then say
"Fame is an aspect or greatness", lmfao
Exactly what kind of aspect?
Fame is an aspect of greatness to a human with an unsatisfied life. The fact you argue it's relevant to increasing greatness is laughable, as is your logic. Your argument is garbage. Deal with it like a man. There's no intelligible logic here at all. The fact I wasted time with a logically inept fool like you is my fault, you are a joke.

..."INHERENT quality". If your going to quote me, please don't omit words from the quote. Throwing a tantrum doesn't do anything to refute what I've said. Until you address my post like an adult, rather than a 10-year old who still suckles from his mama's tit, I'll just assume you don't have a reasoned reply.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 12:52:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:

Ones' popularity is neither a character trait nor an inherent quality, as far as I'm concerned, so to call it an attribute is a misnomer. I take issue with the bolded part of your reply. I have no idea what leads you to say that. By definition, eminence (fame) is an aspect of greatness, so premise three is true.
You actually reason in the same thought the following...
"Fame is neither a character trait or " QUALITY".....then say
"Fame is an aspect or greatness", lmfao
Exactly what kind of aspect?
Fame is an aspect of greatness to a human with an unsatisfied life. The fact you argue it's relevant to increasing greatness is laughable, as is your logic. Your argument is garbage. Deal with it like a man. There's no intelligible logic here at all. The fact I wasted time with a logically inept fool like you is my fault, you are a joke.

..."INHERENT quality". If your going to quote me, please don't omit words from the quote. Throwing a tantrum doesn't do anything to refute what I've said. Until you address my post like an adult, rather than a 10-year old who still suckles from his mama's tit, I'll just assume you don't have a reasoned reply.
Lmao ok genius....Popularity of a being increases its greatness because more people who are aware of the greatest conceivable being makes it more popular, which makes it more great.
The more popular something is the greater it becomes is the mentality of someone who adheres to the idea that hero worship is mature. It isn't. Only a bitter angry adult engages in hero worship so as to not have to focus on their "unrealized" life. Popularity increases that which nothing greater that can be conceived. Yeah, the worlds philosophers have nothing on this argument. Lmfao. You are a joke...still
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 6:03:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 12:52:02 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:

Ones' popularity is neither a character trait nor an inherent quality, as far as I'm concerned, so to call it an attribute is a misnomer. I take issue with the bolded part of your reply. I have no idea what leads you to say that. By definition, eminence (fame) is an aspect of greatness, so premise three is true.
You actually reason in the same thought the following...
"Fame is neither a character trait or " QUALITY".....then say
"Fame is an aspect or greatness", lmfao
Exactly what kind of aspect?
Fame is an aspect of greatness to a human with an unsatisfied life. The fact you argue it's relevant to increasing greatness is laughable, as is your logic. Your argument is garbage. Deal with it like a man. There's no intelligible logic here at all. The fact I wasted time with a logically inept fool like you is my fault, you are a joke.

..."INHERENT quality". If your going to quote me, please don't omit words from the quote. Throwing a tantrum doesn't do anything to refute what I've said. Until you address my post like an adult, rather than a 10-year old who still suckles from his mama's tit, I'll just assume you don't have a reasoned reply.
Lmao ok genius....Popularity of a being increases its greatness because more people who are aware of the greatest conceivable being makes it more popular, which makes it more great.
The more popular something is the greater it becomes is the mentality of someone who adheres to the idea that hero worship is mature. It isn't. Only a bitter angry adult engages in hero worship so as to not have to focus on their "unrealized" life. Popularity increases that which nothing greater that can be conceived. Yeah, the worlds philosophers have nothing on this argument. Lmfao. You are a joke...still

So... Everyone who worships whatever God they think exists is bitter and angry? And you call me the joke, now that's some funny s*** right there.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 9:10:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 6:03:25 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/10/2016 12:52:02 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:



So... Everyone who worships whatever God they think exists is bitter and angry? And you call me the joke, now that's some funny s*** right there.

Non sequitur....yes illogical doofus equals a joke.
Poor mrsatan. Can't handle the smell and stench of your argument being exposed. You're an idiot. Logically inept, and couldn't offer an example of a consistent logical train of thought to save your life.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 10:57:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 9:10:24 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/10/2016 6:03:25 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/10/2016 12:52:02 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:



So... Everyone who worships whatever God they think exists is bitter and angry? And you call me the joke, now that's some funny s*** right there.

Non sequitur....yes illogical doofus equals a joke.
Poor mrsatan. Can't handle the smell and stench of your argument being exposed. You're an idiot. Logically inept, and couldn't offer an example of a consistent logical train of thought to save your life.

Still nothing more than insults to offer. Quite sad, really. It's the common fallback of those who have nothing of substance to say. Sling all the insults you want to, skip. It only serves to highlight your own shortcomings.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 1:53:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Your logic is deeply, deeply mistaken. Anselm's argument doesn't concern itself with 'understanding' it is actually using normal words to describe modal operators. 'Understanding' in this case denotes the possible worlds semantics commonly used in most interpretations of the argument. When they say 'exist in the understanding' they mean 'can possibly exist.' Not 'I can understand this concept.'

in other words, your definitions are flawed fundamentally due to a misguided view of how the argument is supposed to work.
For Mother Russia.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:31:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 1:53:51 AM, Syko wrote:
Your logic is deeply, deeply mistaken. Anselm's argument doesn't concern itself with 'understanding' it is actually using normal words to describe modal operators. 'Understanding' in this case denotes the possible worlds semantics commonly used in most interpretations of the argument. When they say 'exist in the understanding' they mean 'can possibly exist.' Not 'I can understand this concept.'

in other words, your definitions are flawed fundamentally due to a misguided view of how the argument is supposed to work.

Yea, that was already pointed out, and I conceded that I was mistaken. It doesn't really matter, though. Remove the second premise from the argument, and the conclusion still follows from the remaining premises, if they are true.

Both Oxford and Webster include eminence when defining "great". Of course, you're welcome to challenge the inclusion of eminence as defining aspects of greatness. However, as it stands, premise 3 (which would now be premise 2) is true by definition, although I should probably reword it.

I assume the other premises aren't in contention, but please clarify if you think they are.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 3:30:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 10:57:45 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/13/2016 9:10:24 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/10/2016 6:03:25 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/10/2016 12:52:02 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:



So... Everyone who worships whatever God they think exists is bitter and angry? And you call me the joke, now that's some funny s*** right there.

Non sequitur....yes illogical doofus equals a joke.
Poor mrsatan. Can't handle the smell and stench of your argument being exposed. You're an idiot. Logically inept, and couldn't offer an example of a consistent logical train of thought to save your life.

Still nothing more than insults to offer. Quite sad, really. It's the common fallback of those who have nothing of substance to say. Sling all the insults you want to, skip. It only serves to highlight your own shortcomings.
The idea that you equate accurate representation of what your argument reflects in regards as to what you are capable of as being insults shows your inability to actually support your nonsense.
First it was equivocation of the word understood
You moved on from that ridiculous oversight by you equating hero worship as increasing the greatness of the greatest being. You realize if it's the greatest it cannot be greater by anything you wish to argue from, including your immature example of what makes a person great, which is popularity to you, and acting as if it would apply to this being that is the greatest.
Your continued inability to accept your downfall as a pseudo philosopher is entertaining but the fact that you keep ,"seeming to need the last word" , and the last word not contributing to anything makes my closing once again applicable. You are a joke.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 6:28:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 3:30:07 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/13/2016 10:57:45 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/13/2016 9:10:24 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/10/2016 6:03:25 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/10/2016 12:52:02 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/9/2016 11:17:15 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 6/9/2016 10:32:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/8/2016 10:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:



So... Everyone who worships whatever God they think exists is bitter and angry? And you call me the joke, now that's some funny s*** right there.

Non sequitur....yes illogical doofus equals a joke.
Poor mrsatan. Can't handle the smell and stench of your argument being exposed. You're an idiot. Logically inept, and couldn't offer an example of a consistent logical train of thought to save your life.

Still nothing more than insults to offer. Quite sad, really. It's the common fallback of those who have nothing of substance to say. Sling all the insults you want to, skip. It only serves to highlight your own shortcomings.
The idea that you equate accurate representation of what your argument reflects in regards as to what you are capable of as being insults shows your inability to actually support your nonsense.
First it was equivocation of the word understood
You moved on from that ridiculous oversight by you equating hero worship as increasing the greatness of the greatest being. You realize if it's the greatest it cannot be greater by anything you wish to argue from, including your immature example of what makes a person great, which is popularity to you, and acting as if it would apply to this being that is the greatest.
Your continued inability to accept your downfall as a pseudo philosopher is entertaining but the fact that you keep ,"seeming to need the last word" , and the last word not contributing to anything makes my closing once again applicable. You are a joke.

Well holy damn, there's actually some argumentation in there. Frankly, it's just too little too late. Popularity is the word you gave it, which misrepresents what I mean to begin with. Same with hero worship. Do I make errors? Of course. It's part of being human. If you had a decent level of maturity in you, you would recognize that fact. To be honest, I find it hilarious that you even mention maturity, considering your clear incapability to have a civil conversation. So again, learn to converse like an adult, and maybe I'll actually care about what you have to say. Until then, I bid you adieu.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.