4 ms·

> What does it mean for non-logicians? Well, if you buy the premises (which is key!), it shows that it's not irrational to believe in God (as defined by the arg

by shkkmo 7y ago

> What does it mean for non-logicians? Well, if you buy the premises (which is key!), it shows that it's not irrational to believe in God (as defined by the argument). Again, it doesn't prove the existence of God, but it does show that the logic of the argument makes sense. This understates what the proof shows. It shows that if you buy the premises it's not rational to believe God doesn't exist (as defined by the argument).

dvt 7y ago
"Rationality" is not a (meta-)logical property. You're right that the proof shows that, logically speaking, if one buys the premises, God must exist. But more colloquially, it shows that by accepting some premises that are reasonable, one reaches the conclusion that God exists. Ergo, there's an argument a rational person would accept whose conclusion is the necessity of God.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > But more colloquially, it shows that by accepting some premises that are reasonable, one reaches the conclusion that God exists. Ergo, there's an argument a rational person would accept whose conclusion is the necessity of God. I think that is a very weak conclusion, there are an infinite number of proofs for god that are valid so long as you accept their particular premises. It is the specific plausibility of the premises and definitions implied in St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument that make it of interest. What this shows colloquially is that if you are arguing against god, you must either reject this definition of god or one of the other premises. If you don't your argument is self-contradictory.
  - dvt 7y ago
    > I think that is a very weak conclusion ... That's kind of my point. It's not some knock-down argument, but it's a very nuanced result that achieved a few very neat things: 1) Formalized Anselm's "greatest of which can be conceived of" notion. 2) The concept of "accidental" (contingent) and "non-accidental" (necessary) properties had existed since antiquity, but modal logic essentially formalized the idea. 3) Showed that Anselm's argument was indeed valid. Again, this project took around 1000 years. Plantinga did a lot of work in trying to make the premises more palatable, but of course, the argument for the existence of God still rages on. (As I'm sure it will far after we're gone.)
- empath75 7y ago
  Seems to me it’s a reductio ad absurdem argument against the premises.
roenxi 7y ago
The proof shows precisely that a conclusion follows from axioms. That doesn't settle anything though, all it means is that anyone disagreeing with the conclusion must also disagree with one or more of the axioms. Particularly, if someone believes it is irrational to believe in God they would also believe it is irrational to accept all the axioms of the proof. My personal complaint is that "for each positive property, either it or its negation must be positive". Assuming that a property is uniquely positive or negative requires the assumption of a universal moral value system, which in turn really would require require something godlike to set the standards. I accept that there are properties that are sometimes positive and sometimes negative, so I don't agree with the argument.

by shkkmo 7y ago

dvt 7y ago

"Rationality" is not a (meta-)logical property. You're right that the proof shows that, logically speaking, if one buys the premises, God must exist. But more colloquially, it shows that by accepting some premises that are reasonable, one reaches the conclusion that God exists. Ergo, there's an argument a rational person would accept whose conclusion is the necessity of God.

shkkmo 7y ago
> But more colloquially, it shows that by accepting some premises that are reasonable, one reaches the conclusion that God exists. Ergo, there's an argument a rational person would accept whose conclusion is the necessity of God. I think that is a very weak conclusion, there are an infinite number of proofs for god that are valid so long as you accept their particular premises. It is the specific plausibility of the premises and definitions implied in St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument that make it of interest. What this shows colloquially is that if you are arguing against god, you must either reject this definition of god or one of the other premises. If you don't your argument is self-contradictory.
- dvt 7y ago
  > I think that is a very weak conclusion ... That's kind of my point. It's not some knock-down argument, but it's a very nuanced result that achieved a few very neat things: 1) Formalized Anselm's "greatest of which can be conceived of" notion. 2) The concept of "accidental" (contingent) and "non-accidental" (necessary) properties had existed since antiquity, but modal logic essentially formalized the idea. 3) Showed that Anselm's argument was indeed valid. Again, this project took around 1000 years. Plantinga did a lot of work in trying to make the premises more palatable, but of course, the argument for the existence of God still rages on. (As I'm sure it will far after we're gone.)
empath75 7y ago
Seems to me it’s a reductio ad absurdem argument against the premises.

roenxi 7y ago

The proof shows precisely that a conclusion follows from axioms. That doesn't settle anything though, all it means is that anyone disagreeing with the conclusion must also disagree with one or more of the axioms. Particularly, if someone believes it is irrational to believe in God they would also believe it is irrational to accept all the axioms of the proof. My personal complaint is that "for each positive property, either it or its negation must be positive". Assuming that a property is uniquely positive or negative requires the assumption of a universal moral value system, which in turn really would require require something godlike to set the standards. I accept that there are properties that are sometimes positive and sometimes negative, so I don't agree with the argument.