Talk:Proslogion

message: :This entry was copied from Talk Page of Proslogium in the process of merger to this page. Lini 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ethics of belief

message: The articles are both about the same discourse written by Anselm of Canterbury, but which title shall we use as the primary title in Wikipedia?  (The other title will become a redirect). I have seen each of the alternative spellings used in reputable sources on Anselm's writings. Google gives 177,000 hits for Proslogion and 19,400 for Proslogium.  I propose merging the text at Proslogium into the text here at Proslogion, and keeping Proslogium as a redirect.  If no objections are brought forward, I would hope to perform the merger on or after 22 July 2006.  Thanks, Lini 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Carl.bunderson 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All text from Proslogium has been merged into this article.  This article could still use some cleanup, citations, and additional information about influence and critical interpretation of Proslogion.  I hope to do some further work in the upcoming days, and also hope that other editors will contribute. The actual process of converting the Proslogium page into a redirect and merging the discussion page content is a project for another day. --Lini 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with Proslogium

message: In the text, Anselm writes: "Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam." Translated in the edition I have as, "I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand." This indicates to me that his objective cannot be to definitively prove the existence of God, regardless of what he did or didn't do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WittyQuote (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is problematic and perhaps anachronistic to speak of the Ontological argument as a "proof" in the modern sense, which is why is so often called the Ontological argument.  I have read somewhere that it is better considered as a demonstration (in the sense used, say, of demonstrations in a chemistry or physics lecture) where it is used (linguistically?) to show that there are ways to define the term God which then allow that term to be used in philosphical/theological discourse.  Or that you cannot use the term "God" without predicating his existence: i.e. you cannot talk of the God who does not exist, in the way you could talk about a mythological creature--because to do so is the same as saying "I don't believe that my mental capacity is finite" (as, I think, Anselm says in his chapter The fool has said in heart there is no God which is a biblical phrase.)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitively prove the existence of God? 

message: The article states this proposition: 
because it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only, the being that nothing greater than can be thought of will both in the mind and in reality
This seems to be missing a verb in the second clause, and so should read: 
because it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only, the being that nothing greater than can be thought of will exist both in the mind and in reality
Shtove (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. FixedRick Jelliffe (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing term?