The a priori nature of the ontological argument is presented in such a way that it seems that the statement ‘God exists’ is necessarily true and tautologous.
Anselm presented the classic form of the argument which i particularly believe to be a trick:
p1: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
p2: It is greater to exist than not to exist.
p3: If God is the greatest being he must therefore exist.
C: God exists.
We can see that this argument is far from convincing, especially form the view of the atheist. It works from the presmise that exostence is better than non existence; e.g. a real five pund note in my pocket is better than an ‘imaginery’ five pound note in my pocket; therefore Anselm argues that it is better to exist in reality than only in the intellect. Anselm points out that only the ‘fool’ is the atheist as once you have the concept of God as the greatest being (which Anselm claimed he was); he must exist if you are not to contradict yourself.
Descartes also put forward his own ontological argument which is very similar to the classical argument and it is my will that people criticise both of these arguments as i will not concentrate on modern versions of this argument presented by Malcolm or Plantinga.
Descartes stated that:
p1: God is perfection itself.
p2: Existence is a perfection.
p3: For God to be perfection itself he must have every perfection in his essence.
p4: God’s essence is complete perfection and therefore it is in his essence to exist.
C: God exists.
Descarted argues that God’s perfection is just like the concept of the triangle. Once you have the concept of a traingle as a shape with 3 sides and sngles it must exist; similarly once you have the concept of God as perfection he must exist necessarily if you are not to contradict yourself
Feel free to express your views on what in my mind is two fairly weak but clever arguments.
As far as I can see, Anselm’s argument as it is commonly reconstructed has no unsound premisses, and no flaw in the logical construction. I have never really bought in to any of the common counter arguments - they all seem to be clutching at straws a little to me.
Perfect island arguments may serve us by telling us that the argument doesn’t necessitate God’s existence - but we all knew that anyway. Since the first time I heard and discussed these arguments, I have yet to hear of anyone who found them convincing.
The arguments tell us little about god, but still present one of the most curious cases in logic that we have. It is almost a paradox: we know these arguments don’t prove the existence of God, and yet it seems beyond our powers of reason to explain why. Logic is all that we can use to solve problems - so how do we solve a problem that logic created?
I see flaws in this argument all over the place, especially the meaningless Premise 2. What does it mean that it is “greater” to exist than not to exist? It’s not greater in the same sense that the word is used in Premise 1. For that matter, in Premise 1 we are only talking about our imaginations. So God is the greatest thing we can imagine. That we can form a conception, of any magnitude, doesn’t mean anything in the world.
Rationalist argument regularly rely on the confusion of different senses of the same word. The ontological argument makes this same mistake.
Premise 3, while not necessarily the formulation I have always seen, is purely circular. Of course, if he is indeed the greatest being, then he must exist. How is it established that he is a being at all? It bears no relation to the other premises. It is merely a posited definition.
So, God is the greatest … evil, jerk, moron, SOB, for example, among others.
Assertion like this means nothing because it’s saying God is the greatest in all sense, including all opposite and contradicting conception/perspective.
This kind of assertion/declaration of measurement without specific perspective is an easy sign of someone who lacks basic logical perspective.
It’s not even a trick. It’s just series of illogical assertions.
Courtesy of Alvin PLantinga, he’s a cleaned up version of anselm’s argument that deals with some of Faust’s concerns, and shows what brevel was talking about.
God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)
Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)
And here’s a similar, modal argument from Plantinga as well:
Ample criticisms of both arguments are provided as well.
It demonstrates the limitations of our conceptions of being.
Whether or not God exists, the idea of God is the highest thing that a human being can conceive. I suppose that perfect use of one’s reason would be to contemplate God (and think of him as existing) without concern for whether or not he actually exists.
Well, I guess that depends on whether the “greatest theoretical being” is better than the best “actual being” as a topic for discussion and thought. I find the former to be far more interesting.
Perhaps it could even be seen as an argument:
Let us suppose that a rational being is superior to a non-rational being. This is clear since human beings use their reason and are able to produce more food and shelter than needed for survival. If reason (combined with physical prowess) is what allows for this leisure time, while physical prowess without reason leads to a life of brutishness, then it is easily seen that rational beings are superior. Man’s use of reason and his production of an over-abundance of survival goods allows for leisure time. The highest use of man’s rational faculty is the practice of philosophy, as this is “the fruit of the labor” which only a being who is gifted with reason (and who has the spare time in spite of his survival needs) may participate in.
Let us also suppose that God as a singular, indivisible, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is the greatest thing that the use of reason allows us to conceive. Any conceived being that deviates from this blueprint (or attempts to add to it) is superfluous. If the use of reason is a “higher” action than the use of mere physical force or a combination of reason and force, then the highest activity possible would be to use reason to think about the greatest thing: God.
Thus, the purpose (highest possible culmination) of human existence (and the existence of all possible rational beings) is the contemplation of God; whether or not God actually exists.
I realize this argument is dependent on the premises that “pure reason is superior to physical force or a combination of reason and physical force” and “God is the greatest conceivable being that COULD exist.” If one were to accept these two premises, then he would have no better way to use his gift of reason than to contemplate God, even if he were an atheist.
To an extent, atheists participate in this “greatest activity” all the time. They may be doing so by arguing for the unlikelihood of such a being actually existing, but they are still thinking about that being using their reason.
If the highest possible action for humans is to contemplate God (to the best that our reason allows), then even Richard Dawkins participates in this action quite often.
Here’s the real kicker:
If this “greatest possible being” actually does exist, then he would be fully aware of our inability to determine if he actually exists. The only people who would know whether or not he “really” exists would be those whom he chose to reveal himself to. The rest of us would simply be basing our beliefs off of what another person told us to believe. Since God would be fully aware of this, he would understand that the best we can do is to contemplate him. Since even atheists (many of them, at least) agree that God is the greatest conceivable being, they are participating in the activity of “contemplating God” just as much as the believers who have not received direct intervention from God. All of these people, theist and atheist alike, would acknowledge God as the greatest possible being, and would, in effect, be praising him by using their gifts of reason to the fullest extent.
It seems that a being of perfect reason could not require its creations to rely on “faith,” as this would require that they cease using the gift of reason as a compromise for “belief.” Thus, the idea of “faith” must simply be a man-made tool for coercion.
One who believes in God because he was told to have “faith” actually believes less than the person who has accepted the limitations of reason and simply thinks about God to the fullest extent that his mind allows. How could a being of pure reason find favor in one who has come to “believe” in him without using his gift of reason?
So, don’t worry. As long as you’re trying, you’re saved. I guess.
The trick is when someone takes ANY kind of argument, and solves it all the way down to the true uncertainty, and then states, with certainty, that this means there is a god.
No, there is nothing left to add – these “arguments” are just idiot sophistry, totally devoid of rationality. Premises like “It is better to exist than to not exist” (??? ) are laughable nonsense, bear no relation to reason or logic, and should never be found anywhere within a hundred miles of genuine philosophy.
Here’s my problem: Just substitute “a hamburger” for “a being” and “Ronald McDonald’s Supreme Ultimate Divine McBurger” for “God” throughout
(in case you’re wondering, Ronald McDonald’s Supreme Ultimate Divine McBurger is a hamburger greater than any other hamburger you could conceive. I made it up two minutes ago, but don’t worry, apparently it exists in reality).
The only problem with the hamburger argument is that there is no objective criteria for what constitutes as the “ultimate hamburger,” so we cannot really conceive of one in the understanding alone (let alone conceive of one in the understanding AND reality).
A being with the qualities of God, on the other hand, CAN be conceived by any rational being, and no greater sort of being can be conceived.
Think about it:
-All-Powerful
-All-Knowing
-Indivisible
-Omnipresent
etc.
Trying to conceive of a greater being than this is impossible. We have assigned “absolute” adjectives to it which cannot be added to. We cannot assign “best tasting” to the ultimate hamburger as we assign “all-knowing” to God. It is possible to conceive of an all-knowing being without experiencing one. However, the “best taste” is not something so easily conceived because it relies on subjective factors.
The ontological argument is unique in that it can only be used as an argument for the existence of God. Those who wish to “plug in random nouns to show that the ontological argument does not work” are forgetting that the goodness and usefulness of particular objects are subjective to the persons using them. However, the idea of a being with the qualities listed above is not something that can be added to or “made better” by any human thought process.
Whether or not a person believes in God, the being listed above is the greatest being that COULD exist. Thus, it is a worthy object of inquiry for all people; theists, atheists, and agnostics.
Try to assign qualities to the best hamburger that could exist, and ask if anything better could exist on that burger. You will continue adding qualities to this “best burger” until it has all of the qualities of God. God, on the other hand, cannot be “improved” in this manner. One must be short-sighted to assume that the ontological argument is just some “mad lib” for plugging in random nouns.
On the notion that the premise “It is better for a thing to exist than to not exist” is nonsense:
All things that we refer to either exist in whole or in part. All fictitious creatures are thought of as existing when we create stories with them. We cannot write a story about a non-existent minotaur without being accused of sheer nonsense.
We naturally default to the position of thinking that something exists when we think about it. In this respect, existence is much more thought-provoking (and thus better) than non-existence.
Also, the argument remains valid. The question is whether or not the premise is sound. There is no authentic check for the soundness of a premise. This is where real discussion is forced to happen…
Can it? Can it really? Do you have a conception of God? Not the definition of God, which is what confuses the argument, but an actual conception of God?
I don’t think you can. All you have is a pile of definitions which one-by-one you can give, and but as a group do not hang together. And then you get paradoxes, and have to resort to all sorts of legalistic contortions to justify your conception. Is he an unstoppable force or an immovable object? Can he create a problem that he can’t solve? Definitions lead you astray, because they are conceptual; they are our way of making sense of the world outside, and no more.
God is defined as a necessarily existent supreme being,… and therefore he exists. Allow me to introduce you to my necessarily existent supermodel girlfriend, who’s sitting in my necessarily existent Bugatti Veyron. Giving a definition is not the same as understanding. If there is a God, I think by necessity it must be far, far beyond even the faintest context of our experience that we couldn’t conceptualise it. Most people have trouble enough with basic probability, let alone (fairly provincial) advanced physics. Of course, it could have made our brains specifically to be able to do so, etc etc… back to the realms of unsupported hypotheses to back up what you want to believe.
As does “greatest”. It’s a value judgement that means what you want it to mean. “Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone” - can you prove this, or even show what it means? A real $5 bill is “greater” than an imaginary one, maybe, and I suspect that that’s the sleight-of-hand that tricks people… but I can conceive of terrifying enemies who I find in reality are considerably less terrifying. I can conceive of a magnificent birthday party that my friends will throw for me at a specific age, and find in reality it’s a flat and disappointing affair. Trickery. I’ll come back to this later, though.
The reverse ontological argument also goes:
Conceive of the greatest being (follow the ontological argument).
The greatest possible being would create the greatest possible universe for us to live in (as we could conceive of a being who would do it better otherwise).
That creation of everything would be the most impressive feat we could conceive.
The feat would be more impressive if carried out by a non-existent creator than an existent one.
Therefore God does not exist.
Happy now?
Yes! And those who wish to conceive of a “greatest being” do so in line with their values of what “greatest” is.
“Worthy”? Sounds like a subjective valuation to me.
The Village is a film about monsters that turn out not to exist - they’re hoaxes. There are many stories where things turn out not to exist. And this means that the existence of such creatures was all in the mind. When a child is scared at night, we reassure them that ghosts don’t really exist, and they’re disappointed to learn that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Not that he partially exists.
This is confusion, due to words. Let’s clarify terms. There’s existence, which is as you use it - all things that occur in the universe and also as a concept - and Existence, which is outside the head. Dragons and unicorns exist, but don’t Exist. New York Exists and exists. Billions of things in the universe Exist, but don’t exist. There’s a Venn diagram with two circles, E and e; the intersection Ee is what we know/find/agree to exist outside our heads.
The claim the ontological argument makes is that E is greater than e, that Existence is “greater” than existence. Not in a numerical sense, but in a qualitative way. Are Existent physical structures of which we have no comprehension whatsoever greater than dragons and unicorns? I don’t think the question even makes sense.
There is no necessity to the God-concept as it is conceived - it is merely all the known limitations of the human subtracted away from the human. A simple arithmetic.
Needless to say, this in no way means that this imagined being, based on the human and with all the perceived human limitations and weaknesses removed from it, must actually exist or even that it is possible that it could exist. No necessity or possibility follows from the notion at all.
The entire “argument” is so absurd that one feels silly even refuting it.
Most of the problems you bring up about God would be solved by the notion that he is omnipresent, so any limiting adjectives such as “unstoppable force” would be superfluous.
The “greatest hamburger,” in all of its greatness, has a finite amount of taste that can be measured. Unfortunately, the one who deems this the “greatest burger” must have subjective taste buds, since all humans are not alike. However, the conception of an all-powerful, all-knowing, singular, and omnipresent being is the highest thing that anyone can conceive. There is nothing subjective about it. Am I being uncreative by imagining a being who has none of our human limitations and conceiving it to be the greatest being? Perhaps. But this in no way diminishes it as the greatest being that could be conceived.
I’m not saying that the ontological argument is SOUND, but it is logical. Is it fair to define God as a necessary being? Not really. But this argument cannot apply to any other “greatest” thing, since all great and finite things are up for subjective judgment, whereas the greatest conceivable being is necessarily and objectively the same for all rational beings. The “paradoxes” you have created are only real problems if you fail to see how they violate the attributes we have assigned to God:
“Is he an unstoppable force or an immovable object?” This is not a real question once you consider the greatest conceivable being as omnipresent.
“Can he create a problem he can’t solve?” An all-knowing being commits no actions from need, and thus has no problems. It would be impossible for him to create a problem for himself. To say this is a “limiting” factor is just like saying that “problems are enhancements to any being,” which is nonsense.
The “ultimate atheist argument” and all other random nouns or ideas that people tend to substitute for God to show the weakness of the ontological argument all fail because all such things are up for subjective human judgment, whereas the qualities that constitute the greatest conceivable being are objective (as you simply plug in all adjectives that create a being that is not limited in any way). So, the ontological argument is unsound, but not for the reason that “any random noun can be substituted for ‘God’.” The ontological argument is weak because it assumes that the greatest conceivable being must exist as a premise. Or, to clarify, it assumes that it is better for a thing to exist than to not exist.
Whether or not God exists, it remains that He is the greatest thing that one can think about (if one defines greatness as “the lack of limitation.”) Use your time wisely and think about God, and don’t concern yourself with whether or not He actually exists. He is the one who created us with the limitation of our senses, so how could He expect anything else?
I think if man stopped concerning himself with whether or not God exists (as though such a thing could be proved through argument), and merely looked at God as a concept, he would be much happier. Man could participate in the contemplation of the greatest conceivable being without trying to step outside of the boundaries of his perception or “going out on faith” to assure himself that the being actually exists.
If such a being DOES exist, He is fully aware of our limitations and could find nothing but merit with man’s best attempt to contemplate Him.
I believe this is a new and transcendent way of thinking. It is not agnosticism proper, as most agnostics take their position due to a lack of thought on God or atheism, and would probably take a side if persuaded enough. This new view that I am proposing rises above the influence of both sides, views the contemplation of God (without concern of His actual existence) as the highest possible action, and finds the rest of morality necessary for the completion of this ultimate task. Yes, a world view that saves conventional morality and God from the void, and eliminates the corrosive effects of “faith-based religions” in one fell swoop.
But it is wrong to imply that the ontological argument relies upon an ability to concieve God.
That than which nothing greater can be concieved - this clause doesn’t rely upon our ability to concieve the ‘that’. It only relies on the ‘that’ being greater than all the other things that we can concieve.
“1. God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
3. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
4. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)
7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).) 8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)”
There’s nothing subjective about imagination? I disagree completely. Imagine a dog. Is that objectively the same thing I imagine with a dog? Now imagine a God. Is that exactly the same?
All birds eat humans: Robins are birds: Robins eat humans. Perfectly logical, but I wouldn’t alter my treatment of robins based on it. Similarly, I wouldn’t alter my behaviour based on unsound wordplay.
It shows him not to be omnipotent. But this sort of futile wordplay is where such a “conception” leads you.
This is hopeless. You’re back to “by definition the greatest”. And still it’s a subjective value judgement - why should it be best to contemplate the least limited thing? Using your time to think about imaginary things is wasting it. Meanwhile there is a world around you that you could engage with and improve.
Now you’re proselytising; you have no conception of what an infinite intellect could want or find merit in for us.
… an opiate for the masses, distracting people from the problems of the world they live in with daydreams.
A being that has none of our human limitations is the greatest being we can conceive, whether or not it actually exists. I encourage you to try to come up with a “better” being, and I’m certain any additions you make to it will be either redundant or superfluous. Of course, this depends on whether you agree that humans have limitations. I suppose you could disagree with even this point for the sake of being obstinate.
Most would concede that an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and indestructible being is the greatest thing that the mind could conceive, if one defines “greatness” as the overcoming of one’s limitation (which everyone does). It’s silly to accuse me of saying that God is the greatest being “by definition” when I’ve simply taken the qualities of what we typically deem “great,” multiplied them by infinity, and attributed them to one being. This is a thought project that any person can undertake, and no greater being could be conceived by doing so. Go ahead, add to the idea of God.
If the use of reason is something that man enjoys as the “superior” animal of the world, then the highest use of reason would be to think of the greatest thing. The contemplation of God isn’t a distraction. It’s a reward for those who have their shit together and have the capacity to consider it correctly. This does not include people who axiomatically accept the existence of God or use religion as a crutch for their problems. Do not lump the “transcendent contemplative life” with the faith-based life so quickly.
Thinking about God without concern for His existence is the fullest use one can make of his intellect.
I think you’re just upset with me because I’ve shown that the highest use of intellect is the same for atheists and theists alike.
Are you a theist?
Good, go contemplate God because He is the greatest conceivable being for all rational beings.
Are you an atheist?
Good. Go contemplate God because he is the greatest conceivable being for all rational beings.
Yes. I am telling you what to do with your time. If you really want to throw down the gauntlet by saying that “atheists acknowledge no moral authority and thus have no obligation to contemplate God,” then I will be forced to prove, even from an evolutionary standpoint, that the contemplation of God is the highest function of any rational being. (Well, I did something like this earlier in the thread).
I’m pretty sure that the “contemplation of God without concern for whether or not He actually exists” is a pretty new and original idea. I’ve never read this anywhere, and I’ve only come to this idea after trying to diffuse so many corrosive discussions. So many people, like the poster above, become so hostile at the mention of God that they are no better than those who become hostile at the mention of atheism.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
) are laughable nonsense, bear no relation to reason or logic, and should never be found anywhere within a hundred miles of genuine philosophy.
=D>
