St. Anselm unwittingly refutes Christianity?

[DNAunion]

Of course like most deductive arguments, people can bicker about this.  Still, it looks pretty darn good and is straightforward.


1. God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

2. Beings greater than the God of the Bible can be conceived.

Therefore, the 'God' of the Bible is not God.



PS:  We can conceive of a being exactly like the God of the Bible, except that this other being does not hold people guilty - and punish them - for things they did not do.   We can conceive of a being exactly like the God of the Bible, except that this other being neve condoned slavery.  We can conceive of a being exactly like the God of the Bible, except that this other being did not give Satan the thumbs up to kill all 10 of Job's children for no reason.  And so on.

[Old Viking]

Good point. I always think of that as Anselm's "Wishes Make It So" argument.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

The core flaw in the argument still remains, though, even if you turn it back around in an effort to disprove Christianity: It's a case of begging the question (presupposing your own premise -- it's closely related to circular reasoning), like all ontological arguments.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt that the biblical god exists, but this argument isn't one of them -- you're much better off nipping this nonsense in the bud by pointing out the fallacy in the original argument.

[N. De Plume]

1. God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

Are you certain we are in agreement on that definition?

[m52nickerson]

The problem is St. Anselm's ontological argument is about the existance of God, which he definds as the greatest possible being.  His argument is not about the God of the bible.

St. Anslem's argument is summed up as...

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

2. The idea of God exists in the mind.

3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
 
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
 
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
 
6. Therefore, God exists.

[DNAunion]

The problem is St. Anselm's ontological argument is about the existance of God, which he definds as the greatest possible being.  His argument is not about the God of the bible.

Um, yeah, so?

If we accept St. Anselm's definition of God that he used as a premise, then we can deductively prove that the 'God' of the Bible is not God.

Let me know which part you don't understand.

PS:  You might want to use a dictionary to learn what the word 'unwittingly' means.

[m52nickerson]

The problem is St. Anselm's ontological argument is about the existance of God, which he definds as the greatest possible being.  His argument is not about the God of the bible.

Um, yeah, so?

If we accept St. Anselm's definition of God that he used as a premise, then we can deductively prove that the 'God' of the Bible is not God.

Let me know which part you don't understand.

PS:  You might want to use a dictionary to learn what the word 'unwittingly' means.

Only if you have to take the bible literally.  Many very religious people do not do this. 

Plus your argument hinges on thinking that a being that does not do some of the things that God does in the bible is greater than one that does.  Part of the belief in the God of Abraham is that whatever he does it is the greatest action, simple because he is God.  That's all part of religious circular thinking. 

[DNAunion]

Plus your argument hinges on thinking that a being that does not do some of the things that God does in the bible is greater than one that does.  Part of the belief in the God of Abraham is that whatever he does it is the greatest action, simple because he is God.  That's all part of religious circular thinking.

In which case you ask them the following: If God commanded you to rape your mother, brother, and daughter, would you do it?

If they answer "no" then they don't believe their own argument.

If they anwer "yes" then you beat them into submission with their gross immorality, that any sane person observing the discussion would see as abhorrent.

Their best answer is not an answer at all, but to claim "God wouldn't command that".  Then you ask them how they know that?  Do they know the mind of God?  Really???  How?  They're in a tough-to-losing position already.  And you also point out that they can't argue that God wouldn't command you to rape family members because it is immoral, since God commanded a man to kill his own son, commanded innocent children be slaughtered (Amalekites), commanded that children be killed just for striking their parent, condoned slavery, and so on -- these too are far outside the character of a morally perfect being, but God did them - so God has "already gone there", so to speak.  There's precedence for that kind of thing.  So if we cannot know beforehand that those "seemingly" immoral things were "actually" good, then we can't know beforehand that God commanding you to rape your children and parents is not "actually" good.

And yes, I realize the above does not end the discussion in victory in the eyes of obstinate believers.   But it is a strong line of reasoning against their claims.

[m52nickerson]

Your confusing morally good with greatness.  When St. Anselm is referring to the greatest possible being he is not speaking about that beings morality.  Morality is subjective and has no ultimate measure.  St. Anselm is speaking about the nature of God, the fact that he is all knowing and all powerful.  Of those you can't conger anything greater.

You also have to understand that for some God is the greatest moral value, so if God asks you to kill someone it becomes morally right to do so.  At no point are the morals of man seen as higher then that of God's.