BY ROBERT
How about the ontological argument…Adam…Jesse
1.) There is a greatest being thinkable
2.) This Greatest Being Thinkable is God
3.) This thought exists in the mind.
4.) Being that this Greatest Being Thinkable would not be as such, which is inconceivable, if it existed in the mind alone, since that which exists outside of the mind is greater, then it can not exist in the mind alone but also in reality.
5. ) Thus, God must exist in reality as well as the mind.
To buttress this argument of St. Anselm, let us take each part of the argument and analyze it. But, before we do this it is important to understand that this is a deductive/a priori. However, we will look at inductive/.a posteriori aspects of each point.
1.) Although some may argue there needn’t be a greatest ‘anything’ thinkable on the basis that what is greatest in one mind is different for all, this does not discount the fact that there is a greatest being thinkable, since if there were not, at least conceptually and on an abstract level, then no one would understand what these words mean
2.) This is in two parts.
a.) Criticism one: The Greatest Being Thinkable needn’t be God, for some could view it as the universe or the four forces, or (fill in the blank).--However, the problem with this rebuttal is that all of these things that one may view as being the Greatest Being Thinkable must consider whether it would be even still better that this thing were a conscious being. In that, consciousness, knowledge and the like improve a thing’s status, then such appeals are unfounded. So such a being must be what we think of as God.
b.) Criticism two: What of the idea that ‘God’ as most see the term in reference to is probably like some Freudian shadow of some unrequited love from a father or mother, to where, the term refers to a reflection or metaphor for something else. In other words, God is a word that symbolizes not something in its own right, but a form of mental transference.—If this were the case, then all cases where individuals had better relationships with their parents, siblings, etc. would prove a decline in God ideas, but it does not.
3.) Criticism: The idea of God may not be an idea conceived of in the individual’s mind, but a social convention of a particular culture.--But, if this were the case, then the evolution of the idea of God would be ‘choppy’ sociologically. This is not the case, since all cultures, whether formally or informally, have God talk and ideas about a God ‘crop’ up.
4.) Criticism: What is in the mind needn’t exist in reality. There are many scraps of mental fodder that aid one in thinking, but are not representative of actually existing things.—This is true, but what is it that divides reality from merely mental categories and structures? Clearly not just the fact that it is non-physical. We assume that many structures (time, space, reason, etc…) exist in reality. The reason is is that these mental structures are not just experienced by the experiencer, but by other experiencers, or all experiencers. With this in mind, the mental structure of a Greatest Being Thinkable as being something that is conceived by all, although not conspicuously, lends ontological legitimacy to its existence in the real world.[/b]
