What is the Yea Forums consensus on his Ontological Argument?

>He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.
lol wut

Based. Kant correctly BTFOd arguments for God, but God is real anyway.

You're a bit late to the party. I mean, something like 400 years late.
What about you get out of the Middle Ages and jump right into modernity? We have great metaphysicians, too. I heard, string theorists try to prove a lot of stuff which is by definition unprovable, nowadays. Oh, and some pseuds make a lot of money with arguments against the existance of god (which is as stupid as trying to proof its/his/her/whatever existance); but nevermind, the times they are a-changing.

>to be maximally great you must exist; an existing pencil is greater than a non-existing god
>if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it follows that such a being must exist, as a non-existant maximally great being is an oxymoron
>therefore, atheists have to maintain not that god does not exist, but that it is impossible for god to exist

bad philosophy and bad theology
he was a great writer though

It's one of the most retarded arguments for anything I've ever heard. I have never once encountered a person convinced by that.
Even Thomas Aquinas said it was fucking stupid because a simple man cannot possibly conceive the perfect being.

Depends on what version.

clever but obviously just meaningless sophistry

absolutely crummy and laughed at by both theists and atheists. If you are convinced by it you could conceivably be convinced to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

Godel, the most important logician of the 20th century, also formulated an ontological argument, and it's very similar to Anselm's.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Attached: airtight argument for believing in God.png (470x1080, 28K)

I think trying to prove the existence of God is missing the mark, as God is above the concept of existence. He is above every concept, that's how he is defined. He is "that which nothing greater can be conceived". This is what is meant when we say "God is one". He is "one" in the sense that he is indivisible and singular of himself; he's not "one" in the counting sense. In truth, God isn't a "great being", he is greatness *itself* and being *itself*. So the question of whether God exists fundamentally misconstrues what people are referring to when they talk about God. This is why, despite language regarding God being around for aeon, and heaps of writing above how we can refer to His attributes, the question of "proving" His "existence" was always seen as rubbish. As language became more mechanical, less philosophical, and less poetic in the 20th century, atheism flourished -- not because people became too intelligent for the concept, but because people forgot the sophistication of language required in order to discuss "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". The entirety of religion is simply an anagogical, metaphorical, and poetic tradition of referring to the Great, the Glorious, the Most High, the Righteous, the Truth. It is a way of speaking of and with that Thing upon which of all these positives rest.

Even the Jews thought this question was silly. When God was asked by Moses who He was (his name, his fundamental referral of existence), God states "I am that am". His existence cannot be proven because He is both existence and proof itself -- He is beyond name.

I think a good way to understand God as an atheist would be to consider prayer. In prayer, a man tries to understand to the best of his ability the One True Good. He tries to call upon Him, to have Him in mind. "Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed by Thy Name". He proceeds to make sense of how this Greatness relates to and supports his life: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven." When this is done, he then communicates with this Being, by explicating what he desires, and "hears" from God the proper place or correction of this desire. By continual prayer, by continually bringing to mind the glory of God, man is better able to serve Him (to be good, to be true, to be righteous, etc)

the logic already fails at 2. how can i know if an argument exists if i dont know what it is

Consider the analogous situation of a non-constructive proof in mathematics.

>x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
off to a rough start

Attached: 1497200657592.png (540x480, 204K)

>you could conceivably be convinced to buy the Brooklyn Bridge
I'm an Crane fanboy so I would buy the brooklyn bridge given the chance

dumbest thing i've ever read is this the power of academic circles?

There is no good argument for god at present. The only reason I’m not an atheist is meditation, but that’s not evidence. Belief in god is ultimately personal until we find a way to observe metaphysics

>until we find a way to [interact physically with the nonphysical]

Attached: 1442766003559.jpg (803x688, 104K)