The being than which no greater can be conceived exists. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists —can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.
Critiques of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm. Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason . Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a real predicate. However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years. Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What do you think of this logical argument, is existence a real predicate? Can necessary logical existence in the mind imply necessary logical existence in reality? @NotSeksoEmpirico@flybottle@anon28145038
I don’t know much and my post won’t be satisfactory lol, but I think of an ordered set and different orders of infinity when dealing with ontological arguments or for this argument. Can you draw a set of all sets? No, because you can just circle that one and make a new one…
At least that’s where my stupid mind is going so far starting out…
Do we exist? Depends on what you mean by the definition of the word. I think reality does exist but it could be turtles all the way down or some small essense of something; a small something. That’s what physicists usually mean, while philosophers think of absolute nothing, which may or may not exist, and may be something itself – nothing.
“Can necessary logical existence in the mind imply necesary logical existence in reality?”
That’s a good question and a deep one too. I tend to think not. I’m not sure what ‘necessary’ means here, but if I imagine a giant pink elephant in outer space floating around carrying planets on it’s back, I either think it’s totally ludicrious and impossible and not what we would expect or see or encounter in this type of universe.
Is it necessary? No. Is it impossible? Probably not if there was a super advanced intelligence or outside factor/force out there creating it.
Is it impossible to solve poincare conjecture? No. It’s been solved. But there’s a whole field of math and philosophy called computability theory and shows what is, what isn’t possible like the halting problem.
There’s some things we may not know the answer to and are impossible or somewhat impossible. I don’t know.
Maybe physics isn’t satisfactory here and we would need a new kind of physics on what is possible, what is not.
If we’re talking about God, then yes, I think if we can imagine it then it exists but only metaphysically (maybe). Is God m theory or just AI? What created the AI?
I still want to know why the universe exists, what blew life into those math equations and why do we have mass despite reading about the higgs field particle.
I hope that helps or helps me in some way. Probably not lol.
I’ll start with a confession: I find the ontological argument the second most triggering philosophical argument after Descartes’ malicious demon thought experiment. I spent way too many hours thinking about it when I was first hospitalised. In fact I find it so triggering I’d like to wait until tomorrow when I’m calmer to explain my “unusual” position on it. My “usual” or rational position is deeply conventional, and I don’t see what I could possibly say that real philosophers (including neo-thomists revivalists) haven’t already said. I guess I agree with Duns Scotus that should God exist (which of course he doesn’t doubt) his existence could only be proven a posteriori. Samuel Johnson made the same point with greater elegance when he stated that we only know of God what he chooses to reveal about himself. Likewise, on recovering his childhood faith C.S. Lewis, (in this case leaning towards the traditional scholastic view about the identity between essence and existence) simply cried “God is God”.
Your post made me think about Gaunilo’s objection: He invited his reader to conceive an island “more excellent” than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm’s proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent.
Another parody is the devil corollary: it proposes that a being than which nothing worse can be conceived exists in the understanding (sometimes the term lesser is used in place of worse). Using Anselm’s logical form, the parody argues that if it exists in the understanding, a worse being would be one that exists in reality; thus, such a being exists.
Yes. We use the same logic in mathematics to prove some things outside of our actual perception of reality which are only theoretical; if it is mathematically provable, it must exist in reality, regardless of whether or not we can perceive it.