[Hong Wu]

Anselm of Canterbury was a Christian monk who defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Note how philosophical and esoteric that definition is... if we don't agree upon God (or an analogue) as existing, then everything's greatness is only relative to some other thing. This also means that, conceptually, the process of scaling up to larger and larger things never ends because without agreement that an ultimate or original thing exists, we must always return to relative statements.

I think philosophically this makes the concept of God very useful. Without such a thing it is very possible to waste a lot of time. When there is no God, no uncarved block (Tao) that we come from and seek to return to everything is relative and matters only until we compare it to some imagined greater thing. It may not be obvious at first but this can be paralyzing philosophically because we might never move on from relative and subjective contemplation and into more useful and applied philosophy.

[Saeko]

What's wrong with relative statements? There is no biggest or smallest number, but I'd bet you'd still rather get 5 dollars than 3.

Christian monk who defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

God
God + 1
Therefore, God does not exist.

[anasawad]

This was debunked in the 19th or 20th century.

[Hong Wu]

This was debunked in the 19th or 20th century.

Honestly if your English was better I would troll the bejesus out of you. This isn't just a one-line comment with no source, you also don't know which century it comes from.

[Paradigm]

God
God + 1
Therefore, God does not exist.

The point is that if you can think of something greater, that's God. So your "God + 1" is, by definition, God (until you get to God + 2, God + 3, etc. to infinity).

This was debunked in the 19th or 20th century.

Yes, Frege developed predicate logic, which pointed out that existence is not a predicate. Instead of saying that a being has the attribute of existence, we would say that "There exists an X such that Y." However, I have seen a recent revival in Anselm's ideas in the form of modal panentheism, which posits that God is the sum total of all possible universes. This would make sense, since conceiving of something beyond all possible universes would mean positing another possible universe in which that thing existed.

[Senter]

Hong Wu posted: "Anselm of Canterbury was a Christian monk who defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. "

I can think of something "than which nothing greater can be conceived", but I wouldn't call it "God". When most people think of "God" they think of a being/entity of consciousness and intention. My "greatest conception" has and is neither.

[yiostheoy]

I would not start my philosophy with a probe of God or Godhood.

Like Descartes, I start it with myself. This is because I am somewhere inside myself. So it makes more sense to start from that which is closest to me, which is me, and then work my way outwards, as far as my perceptions and instruments allow me to go, until ultimately I arrive at God at the edge of my Universe.

For Aristotle, God was the Prime Mover. Due to his stargazing, Aristotle noticed there were things moving in the sky above during the day and night. The Sun and Moon were the most obvious moving things in the sky, both during the day and night.

Of course now we know that the Sun is "apparent movement" because relative to the Earth the Sun is motionless as the Earth revolves around it. But out telescopes have taught us that our Sun is also in motion around the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, so Aristotle was right, the Sun does move, but it was just by coincidence that he was right.

So here is the list of moving bodies Aristotle noticed with his own eyes out in space:

- Sun
- Moon
- Venus
- Jupiter
- Saturn
- Mars
- Mercury
- comets
- meteors

He therefore reasoned that Something or Someone had to put these objects into motion and this was his Prime Mover.

Aquinas reasoned yet another proof from there, most notable the First Cause. He presented several versions of it, but it boils down to this First Cause -- that all things being mortal and changeable there must have been a First Cause which is Unchangeable.

But before reaching out to these distant objects and distant concepts, searching within ourselves to ascertain our own existence like Descartes did with his "cogito ergo sum" soliloquy is the most natural starting point for me. Then after assuring myself that I do indeed exist, I can use British Empiricism to infer that others around me also exist similar to myself, with similar needs, similar strengths, and similar weaknesses. Empiricism then allows me to observe the skies above and all that is in them.

Without a God, there is no explanation for the first cause, the first movement, the purpose of change, the direction of humanity and creation, or the struggle between good and evil, light and darkness, right and wrong.