Crude Variant of the Ontological Argument

[Qoeleth]

Here is my new, simpler version of the ontological argument:

• God is the best thing that exists. i.e. whatever is the best thing that exists, it can rightfully be called God.
• This best thing that exists must exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

Despite its simplicity, it seems to hold up, both as sound and valid.

 

[ASimon]

Here is my new, simpler version of the ontological argument:

• God is the best thing that exists. i.e. whatever is the best thing that exists, it can rightfully be called God.
• This best thing that exists must exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

Despite its simplicity, it seems to hold up, both as sound and valid.

If the best thing that exists is chocolate ice cream, and that makes chocolate ice cream ‘God,’ I guess that’s fine.

 

[Qoeleth]

If the best thing that exists is chocolate ice cream, and that makes chocolate ice cream ‘God,’ I guess that’s fine.

Ah- therein lies the genius of the argument- if you think chocolate ice-cream is really the best thing that exists, then you could appropriately apply the word ‘God’ to chocolate ice-cream. And, if chocolate ice-cream really is the best thing that exists, then it surely really would be God.

But for all you know, there could well be something that exists which is better the chocolate ice-cream (or any other flavour you can think of!)- so God remains not only existent, but also necessarily transcendental.

 

[ASimon]

Ah- therein lies the genius of the argument- if you think chocolate ice-cream is really the best thing that exists, than you could appropriately apply the word ‘God’ to chocolate ice-cream.

Yep - and I just did.

But for all you know, there could well be something that exists which is better the chocolate ice-cream (or any other flavour you can think of!)- so God remains not only existent, but also necessarily transcendental.

Sure, but for you, the intellectual ceiling is limited only by your imagination. And even I can play that game. You may wish to postulate “God” as some incorporeal being, operating beyond space and time, to whom the human race is eternally beholden. Fine. I’ll see your “God,” and I’ll raise you what is, in principle, “God+” (say, God PLUS some chocolate ice cream).

Since we could conceivably go on one-upping each other until one of us drops dead, it seems only practical to restrict ourselves to known reality. From known reality, you can pick your own Best Thing, and call that God. And that will be fine. Probably fine. I mean, don’t go picking something stupid.

 

[Hypatia]

Anselm’s argument is about the self-evidence and absolute priority of that-which-knowledge-cannot-exceed over any knowledge of things.

You regressed back to Guanilo’s discussion of greatest existent things, which Anselm rightly dismissed as absurd. You make “God” into a subjective and arbitrary term as well, since the word “best” signifies nothing more than whichever thing my desire tends toward at the moment (i.e., an idol). Your argument seems to be little more than “everyone has an idol”. Admittedly, it is hard to argue with that.

 

[Qoeleth]

Yep - and I just did.

Sure, but for you, the intellectual ceiling is limited only by your imagination. And even I can play that game. You may wish to postulate “God” as some incorporeal being, operating beyond space and time, to whom the human race is eternally beholden. Fine. I’ll see your “God,” and I’ll raise you what is, in principle, “God+” (say, God PLUS some chocolate ice cream).

Since we could conceivably go on one-upping each other until one of us drops dead, it seems only practical to restrict ourselves to known reality. From known reality, you can pick your own Best Thing, and call that God. And that will be fine. Probably fine. I mean, don’t go picking something stupid.

My argument does not aim to prove that the “incorporeal being, operating beyond time and space” exists. Maybe the best thing that exist is something more modest than that, maybe it is something bigger. Of course, we don’t know for sure. And imagining it does not make it exist. But there must be the Best Thing somewhere. And that, by definition, is God.

P.S. I would not be at all surprised if the Best Thing turned out to be certain man whose initials are “J.C.”

 

[Qoeleth]

Anselm’s argument is about the self-evidence and absolute priority of that-which-knowledge-cannot-exceed over any knowledge of things.

You regressed back to Guanilo’s discussion of greatest existent things, which Anselm rightly dismissed as absurd. You make “God” into a subjective and arbitrary term as well, since the word “best” signifies nothing more than whichever thing my desire tends toward at the moment (i.e., an idol). Your argument seems to be little more than “everyone has an idol”. Admittedly, it is hard to argue with that.

Do you disagree that God may be correctly defined as the greatest existent thing? Which part do you disagree with- the “greatest” or the “existent” part?

Do you disagree with the idea of objective ‘bestness’ of God? Whether ‘bestness’ is understood objectively or subjectively, there still must be some “Best Existent Thing”. And surely, that is God.

 

[Hypatia]

Do you disagree that God may be correctly defined as the greatest existent thing? Which part do you disagree with- the “greatest” or the “existent” part?

Do you disagree with the idea of objective ‘bestness’ of God? Whether ‘bestness’ is understood objectively or subjectively, there still must be some “Best Existent Thing”. And surely, that is God.

It doesn’t really matter what you call it. The name is simply a shorthand for the definition. You could call it “chocolate ice cream”, as was first suggested and it wouldn’t change the basic structure… or that you were trying to talk about some “greatest thing”.

As I understand you, you are arguing that there is some thing, you think it is great (“the best thing that exists”, even), and you want to call it “God”. Since it is a thing, it clearly exists, and since you call it “God”, “God” exists.

As I understand Anselm, he is trying to call my attention to the self-evident and immediately grasped pre-condition for any knowledge or existence, the denial of which would be tantamount to saying there is Nothing, and which would render the sayer a “fool” (because the fool says in their heart, “Being is Nothing”).

I am curious what relation you see between your argument and Anselm’s (or Descartes’, or whomever you have in mind).

 

[ASimon]

My argument does not aim to prove that the “incorporeal being, operating beyond time and space” exists. Maybe the best thing that exist is something more modest than that, maybe it is something bigger. Of course, we don’t know for sure. And imagining it does not make it exist. But there must be the Best Thing somewhere. And that, by definition, is God.

Fair enough. So now what?

 

[Poseidon]

The flying spaghetti monster is the noodliest thing that exists.
The noodliest thing to exist must exist.
Therefore, the FSM exists.


Your argument doesn’t hold, because essentially you’re saying “God exists, therefore he exists.”

 

[Qoeleth]

It doesn’t really matter what you call it. The name is simply a shorthand for the definition. You could call it “chocolate ice cream”, as was first suggested and it wouldn’t change the basic structure… or that you were trying to talk about some “greatest thing”.

**As I understand you, you are arguing that there is some thing, you think it is great (“the best thing that exists”, even), and you want to call it “God”. Since it is a thing, it clearly exists, and since you call it “God”, “God” exists.**As I understand Anselm, he is trying to call my attention to the self-evident and immediately grasped pre-condition for any knowledge or existence, the denial of which would be tantamount to saying there is Nothing, and which would render the sayer a “fool” (because the fool says in their heart, “Being is Nothing”).

I am curious what relation you see between your argument and Anselm’s (or Descartes’, or whomever you have in mind).

You have summed it up well.

I think you might have slightly misunderstood Anselm’s ontological argument, as states in the Proslogion, or maybe you are thinking of another argument he made. Anselm define God as “that (being) than which nothing greater can be conceived”- in other words something of which it is impossible think of anything greater. My definition is somehwat similar more simple- God is “the greatest thing that exists.” To me, this seems to be a satisfactory definition- one to which (as far as I can see) no theist could possibly object.

 

[Qoeleth]

The flying spaghetti monster is the noodliest thing that exists.
The noodliest thing to exist must exist.
Therefore, the FSM exists.


Your argument doesn’t hold, because essentially you’re saying “God exists, therefore he exists.”

I think there possibly is misunderstanding the subject and predicate in the first sentence. I will try to make it clearer:
The greatest thing that exists (this ‘thing’ functions the subject of the sentence) ‘is’ (i.e. ‘may rightly be called/attributed the predicate of being’’) ‘God’.

I am not saying: God (in the sense of a transcendental creator) as subject, has the predicate, of being the greatest thing that exists.

My definition does not specify whether God is transcendental or a creator, or anything like that, merely that, by definition, the greatest thing that exists should be called ‘God.’

 

[Qoeleth]

Fair enough. So now what?

Good point. I don’t really know…It seems like I’ve proved that ‘God’ exists though.

 

[ASimon]

Good point. I don’t really know…It seems like I’ve proved that ‘God’ exists though.

Only in the sense that you’ve constructed a logically valid syllogism. I’ll concede that there is a Best Thing out there, and if you’re happy calling that thing ‘God,’ so be it. Maybe I’ll build the syllogism and call the Best Thing something like ‘Trent.’ Or ‘Pickles’ - ‘Pickles’ works too.

All that’s left for us is to find out what the Best Thing actually is, and we’ll be one step closer to having our ‘Pickles.’

 

[Qoeleth]

Only in the sense that you’ve constructed a logically valid syllogism. I’ll concede that there is a Best Thing out there, and if you’re happy calling that thing ‘God,’ so be it. Maybe I’ll build the syllogism and call the Best Thing something like ‘Trent.’ Or ‘Pickles’ - ‘Pickles’ works too.

All that’s left for us is to find out what the Best Thing actually is, and we’ll be one step closer to having our ‘Pickles.’

True. But since the word ‘God’ is used conventionally to designate the ‘Best Thing’, why not stick to ‘God’? It would be needlessly confusing to call it ‘Pickles’.

 

[Hypatia]

I think you might have slightly misunderstood Anselm’s ontological argument, as states in the Proslogion, or maybe you are thinking of another argument he made. Anselm define God as “that (being) than which nothing greater can be conceived”- in other words something of which it is impossible think of anything greater. My definition is somehwat similar more simple- God is “the greatest thing that exists.” To me, this seems to be a satisfactory definition- one to which (as far as I can see) no theist could possibly object.

It is pretty clear from the reply to Guanilo that Anselm’s initial definition is of no thing, at least in any ordinary sense. As far as Anselm is concerned, if the definition had had a thing as its object it never would have worked (and it is why Guanilo’s attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is deemed a failure by Anselm). Anselm’s initial account is of the Untranscendable Horizon or that-which-knowledge-cannot-exceed.

As Thomas Aquinas also notes, Anselm is pointing to the self-evident character of God (though he rejects Anselm; God is only self-evident to God, according to Thomas). Anselm’s is not a 3 step syllogism under the power of discursive reason: otherwise doubt would in fact be possible; otherwise one would not be a “fool” to deny it.

On strictly theological grounds, I think it would be important to insist that God is neither a thing, nor a term in a string of comparatives.

 

[Eleve]

True. But since the word ‘God’ is used conventionally to designate the ‘Best Thing’, why not stick to ‘God’? It would be needlessly confusing to call it ‘Pickles’.

Because calling it “God” could still be confusing. Suppose the best thing that exists really is just a bowl of chocolate ice cream. If I start calling that “God,” people are probably going to think that I’m talking about the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things invisible and invisible, and so on. But really I just mean a bowl of tasty ice cream.

 

[Qoeleth]

Because calling it “God” could still be confusing. Suppose the best thing that exists really is just a bowl of chocolate ice cream. If I start calling that “God,” people are probably going to think that I’m talking about the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things invisible and invisible, and so on. But really I just mean a bowl of tasty ice cream.

Well, if the best thing that exists really is a bowl of ice-cream, surely it would deserve to be called ‘God.’

 

[Qoeleth]

It is pretty clear from the reply to Guanilo that Anselm’s initial definition is of no thing, at least in any ordinary sense. As far as Anselm is concerned, if the definition had had a thing as its object it never would have worked (and it is why Guanilo’s attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is deemed a failure by Anselm). Anselm’s initial account is of the Untranscendable Horizon or that-which-knowledge-cannot-exceed.

As Thomas Aquinas also notes, Anselm is pointing to the self-evident character of God (though he rejects Anselm; God is only self-evident to God, according to Thomas). Anselm’s is not a 3 step syllogism under the power of discursive reason: otherwise doubt would in fact be possible; otherwise one would not be a “fool” to deny it.

On strictly theological grounds, I think it would be important to insist that God is neither a thing, nor a term in a string of comparatives.

Yes, I am very familiar with Anselm’s argument, Guanilo’s refutation, and Anselm’s reply to the refutation.

My argument is only superficially analogous to Anselm.

I myself have argued elsewhere that God is not a ‘thing’, and therefore neither existent nor non-existent. But, for the purpose of this argument, I am assuming God is a ‘thing/being’- in fact, the ‘Best Thing/Being’.

Yes, I grant you this is a theologically stupid definition. But yet, a ‘traditional’ Theist won’t, in good conscience, be able to refute that God is ‘the Best’ or 'a Being.

 

[Poseidon]

I think there possibly is misunderstanding the subject and predicate in the first sentence. I will try to make it clearer:
The greatest thing that exists (this ‘thing’ functions the subject of the sentence) ‘is’ (i.e. ‘may rightly be called/attributed the predicate of being’’) ‘God’.

I am not saying: God (in the sense of a transcendental creator) as subject, has the predicate, of being the greatest thing that exists.

My definition does not specify whether God is transcendental or a creator, or anything like that, merely that, by definition, the greatest thing that exists should be called ‘God.’

So this argument is just semantic. Okay, I thought you were trying to use it to prove that the Christian god exists.