My discussion of the Ontological Argument

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Fella,

I think we agree that faith is primary. However, we disagree about the limits of reason and whether an ontological argument is possible.

Regarding Thomas, tis true that he rejected Anslem’s OA. Actually most Scholastics rejected it, Bonaventura being an exception.

But how well did Thomas understand Anselm’s proof? Hartshorne concludes that Thomas doesn’t fully appreciate that the principle enunciated in Prosl. III is the heart of the argument and the true beginning point for understanding it. Rather, he implies in his Summa that we must first, as in Prosl. II, prove that God exists and then, as in Prosl. III, infer that his existence is of the necessary type.

Granted, this is in large part Anselm’s fault because he asserts the defective principle first in Prosl. II. But the true Anselmian principle is not that existence is greater than non-existence. Rather, it is, as is clearly enuciated in Prosl. III. that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence.

But Thomas was a smart guy and should have seen this.

 

[ateista]

Well, guess that’s it then…But wait! I seem to recall some recent conversations about all-inclusiveness and how I thought that concept would address how one being can possess all traits maximally, even those which are polar opposites, mutually exclusive, etc… Please read my earlier posts on this page and the one previous.

Also, “being” does not necessarily imply consciousness, the way I am using the word. So substitute “thing” if you want.

I think this is the post you referred to:

And all traits which depend on subjective assessment are present in the Cosmic Whole. So it really doesn’t matter to our definition that there is no necessary agreement whether an object is really beautiful or not. All objects of art are included in the Cosmic Whole and so are all subjects who are making the judgment of aesthetic value.

And it doesn’t matter that some attributes are contradictory or polar opposites. They are all included in the Cosmic Whole or GCT.

Am I correct? It seems you say that the Universe contains (as opposed to “is”) all the possible “things”.

But that is not true either. The universe does not contain everything as actuality. Neither the past, not the future “exists” as ontological objects. There are possibilities which may or may not become reality.

It still looks like to me that the “greatest possible thing” is at best hazily or weakly defined. If we wish to use this concept in a meaningful manner, it should be defined rigorously, so we both know what this concept is supposed to mean. Otherwise we risk to talk past each other.

You started first with the idea that the GCB “has” (not contains) all the possible attributes (or traits) to a maximal degree. It seems that we agree that this is self-contradictory, since the attributes (or traits) would be mutually exclusive.

Now you say that (if I understand you correctly) that the GCT contains all the things that are possible. We can agree that this is not true either. Potential “stuff” may not become reality.

So what do you suggest would be a good definition of GCT?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I like the OA (correctly understood) because it forces us to clarify what we mean by God. Debates with those without a belief in God, however they justify it, usually assume we have a common understanding of God. We usually don’t. So that makes most debates rather silly, pointless and unproductive, IMO.

Anselm’s discovery is that there really is forced choice. If we have a proper understanding of God, He either exists necessarily or God’s existence is impossible because the very idea of God doesn’t make sense. This clears a lot of ground in the debate.

So a defense of the existence of God shouldn’t begin with posterori arguments because that is an admission that God possibly doesn’t exist. Such arguments play a role, however, in proving God’s transcendent nature. He is a personal creator God. I have the cosmological and design argument particularly in mind here.

 

[ateista]

I like the OA (correctly understood) because it forces us to clarify what we mean by God. Debates with those without a belief in God, however they justify it, usually assume we have a common understanding of God. We usually don’t. So that makes most debates rather silly, pointless and unproductive, IMO.

Anselm’s discovery is that there really is forced choice. If we have a proper understanding of God, He either exists necessarily or God’s existence is impossible because the very idea of God doesn’t make sense. This clears a lot of ground in the debate.

So a defense of the existence of God shouldn’t begin with posterori arguments because that is an admission that God possibly doesn’t exist. Such arguments play a role, however, in proving God’s transcendent nature. He is a personal creator God. I have the cosmological and design argument particularly in mind here.

I am not sure what you mean here. The concept of “necessary” existence is pretty much nonsensical. Something either exists or does not. That is all there is to it. If we postulate that there is something that cannot possibly not exist, then we talk about the Universe. If there is no Universe, then there is nothing. And then who conducts this conversation?

Moreover, without a proper definition of what one wishes to talk about, there can be no meaningful discussion.

As for the existence of a “creator”, whether personal or not, all I can hypothesize that it is possible. If something is treated as a hypothesis, then we must examine the supporting evidence and the evidence against it, and then reach a conclusion…

You said; “…that is an admission that God possibly doesn’t exist…”. Well, any honest hypothesis starts with the admission that the hypothesis might be incorrect. There is nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, if one starts with the assumption that the hypothesis must be accepted as valid, then all conversation must cease, since it was just an ex-cathedra announcement of something.

This thread was about a version of the Ontological Argument. Now you wish to mix into it the cosmological and the design arguments, too. I am simply confused.

 

[Dameedna]

Atiesta, may I suggest something.

The argument is “logically” sound. This is a possibility, according to the rules of logic itself.

I’m an athiest myself. But the argument is logically sound. It is also meaningless to you and I.

Once I got this, I (according to frank) am now a meta-something and a thiest to boot. I believe in God!!!

The greatest concievable being, is possible and must exist by logic.

The only response I have to this is…DUH!!

Cheers Dame

P.S seperate religion from the “greatest concievable being” and you will find it logically correct. It’s also…meaningless.HAHA

 

[Fran65]

…the argument is logically sound. It is also meaningless to you and I.

That is a pity. You can follow logic (I refer to you and ateista) but you cannot appreciate the answer. I guess intellect isn’t sufficient for understanding everything after all.

Think of meaning as taste. You know that food tastes good and is enjoyable - other people tell you, but to you, food is still tasteless and joyless. As I said, a pity.

Don’t lose hope. Many Catholics pray regularly for all of those without faith.

 

[Dameedna]

That is a pity. You can follow logic (I refer to you and ateista) but you cannot appreciate the answer. I guess intellect isn’t sufficient for understanding everything after all.

Ever the patrionizing christian. Ty for joining into this thread and reminding me of why I do not follow your faith.