From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Anselm's Ontolgical Proof (reprise)
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:07:09 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA29317; Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:37:26 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA11415; Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:37:18 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0098; Thu, 05 Nov 92 22:36:48 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

My apologies to those who get this twice. The server I am working with does
not distribute mail properly. And this time there are less typos ;-)

In article <Bx4177.25w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes:

>Did you say it has only conditional existence?  Then you didn't imagine
>hard enough when you started. Try again. Imagine the very same object,
>with all the very same properties, with just one exception: this version
>of the object exists in all possible universes. Obviously, this *new,
>improved* version of the object is *greater* than the one you imagined at
>first, which shows that you failed to imagine "that, than which no greater
>can be conceived" on your first try.
>
Why is it greater? It can be a nice feature to exist only now and then. Or not
at all. Like imagining a perfect evil.

>Have you imagined this *new, improved* object yet? Good. Now, answer the
>question again: does it *necessarily* exist, or does it *conditionally*
>exist?
It did not exist in the first place. I *imagined* it. Being imagined is no
form of existence. Even when assuming that, it would cease to exist when I stop
imagining it, right? So it is at best conditionally existing.
A funny side note is: you accuse someone of not imagining hard enough. Does
this mean that it exists only when he imagines hard enough? (Insert big grin).

>
>By definition, it *necessarily* exists, and since you imagined it, you
>have just proved in your own mind that God exists.
>
Why is It god?


To recapitulate Anselm: I can conceive a perfect being.
Let's replace conceive through imagine. Even then, I doubt this
sentence. On the other hand, I *can* imagine something which cannot exist
at all. I can imagine something that is utterly inconsistent, for instance.

Further, what is meant with perfect? Does it embrace all things? Or
does it mean the original perfect = 'thoroughly made'?
Further, in the religious context, how am I - a being that is supposedly not
perfect - to conceive a perfect one without contradiction in terms?


Secondly, being necessarily existing is more perfect than existing
conditionally.
Highly dubious. Define perfect. And prove that it is well defined.

Thirdly, thus the perfect being exists.
WRONG. When I apply the second proposition to the first one I get:
I imagine a thing and in order to be consistent I *IMAGINE* that it
exists.
I_Imagine(a AND a_exists)   is not the same as       I_Imagine(a) AND a_exists.
I apply the second to something that 'exists' in my imagination.
That means: it exists necessarily in my imagination and in my imagination only.
And is does so only when I care about consistent imaginations.

This flaw is so obvious that I wonder how Anselm's word game could last that
long. The third sentence serves only one purpose: it proves that the lax use of
perfect leads to nice pitfalls.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20779 talk.abortion:46953