My discussion of the Ontological Argument

[FrankSchnabel]

IOW, there is a greatest being, but it probably falls somewhat short of theists’ infinite standards.

I would put it this way. If the only data we had were the OA, we would have to conclude the GCB (God) exists necessarily. As to his other attributes, it is possible they may fall short of what the expectations fo traditional Christian theism.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

(After the Pope stormed away, hands in air, the beautiful giant alien Grillioncoatl shouted, “But I know how to make pretty planets!”)

Huh??

Would you agree that God is possibly impossible (a priori), in the same sense it was, at one time, tentatively possible (yet possibly impossible) that there was life as we know it on the extrasolar planet Gliese 581 c?

When someone first encounters the OA (rightly understood), he is confronted with only two choices, God exists necessarily or the very idea is impossible. So, yes, at that point one has to think that God is possibly impossible (ie the very idea of God doesn’t make sense–akin to saying round squares exist).

Let me ax you dis kvestion: Do you agree that those are your only two options? If you agree, that is more than half the battle.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Cell,

A while back you axed me what arguments logical positivists bring to the table when they argue that “God is the GCB” is meaningless nonsense.

First off, they come armed–handicapped, really–with the notion that necessity in propositions merely reflects our use of words, the arbitrary conventions of language. The upshot is that they believe that it is necessarily true that there are no necessary propositions. So, from the get-go “God exists” is rejected.

gotta run. will finish this thot later.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hey Cell,

Nope. What is open to interpretation is only how God is actualized. That He is necessarily actualized somehow or other is established by the OA.

Unfortunatly i have not had time to read what this thread is about and i am sorry for that, but i am glad that it has something to do with the Ontological arguement. Since this thread already exists, I will not bother opening a new one; but instead I will add my distingtivness to your own. (Quoted from the Borg)

Sorry for the lengthy posts.

Bad Days For The Ontological Arguement

People say that the ontological arguments in all their forms, are logically dead. But the problem is, i can’t seem to see why. I read Brian Davis, and through him, I have heard other objections to the Ontological proof of God. I don’t see why they amount to good objections, but personally i would at least agree that the arguement in question is not enough to prove the Christian God in his entirity. If the ontological argument proves anything, it only proves one of the fundamental aspects of the Christian God. I believe that the argument can prove that there is in fact an “objective perfection”.

However I’m not confident about the arguments because of all the bad press its Got, and I would not be surprised or unhappy if there is a flaw. And here in lies the problem. Not one intelligent being has yet disproved the argument to my satisfaction. I’m here to defend the argument, but I do not see it as an argument that one needs to rely upon to prove the existence of God. To disprove it, I think would mean very little in respect of “God philosophy”, because I believe there are many inductive arguments that are sufficient. I really would like somebody to make it crystal clear to me that it is a fallacy on a flying broomstick.

***My Ontological Arguements ***

1. It is impossible for an “objective perfection” to not exist; therefore and objective perfection exists.
2. If it is even logically possible for an objective perfection to exist, then it must exist due to the illogical impossibility of it not existing.

Please read very carefully why I think these arguments are correct before posting a hasty reply.

Now, the first refutation I was given on this forum was that I was producing “Circular arguments” posing as a-prior. However I don’t think that this is a Just-charge; since the proof of the argument is in the fact that “perfection” is as such that it lacks “nothing”. Therefore it cannot lack existence. It is as necessarily true as the proposition that “Single-people have no partners”. But in the case of perfection, it is impossible to remove existence from the reality of perfection. For if it did not exist, then it would not be perfect; which is a contradiction in terms. Therefore you cannot conceive of the concept of perfection and then suppose that it does not exist, for then you would not really have a concept of perfection. But we do have a concept of perfection; and it is therefore a contradiction in terms to affirm the conceptual truth of perfection, but then suppose that it need not be objectively true.

I think Saint Anslem was correct; although he stated his proof in slightly different terms.

The only argument that I can see rendering this proof flawed is one that could some how make the concept of perfection a fallacious concept. But as soon as you agree that it is a logical concept, as in, an Objectively perfect being could possibly exists; then I believe that I have stated good reasons for thinking in know uncertain terms that an objective perfection does in fact exist, for the simple fact that perfection has no potentiality. It is a necessary being; it cannot be caused, for it explains it self, and would be lacking in something if it was reliant upon something else. Perfection can only ever be a foundation of being. On a quick note; the perfection that I am talking about, mustn’t be confused with subjective notions of perfection, such as, “This chicken burger is perfect.”
This is not true perfection, but is instead an offspring of creative language. One Of Anslem’s first opponents (I forget his name) made that mistake by suggesting that a perfect island must exist. But an Island is contingent upon other things to exist, so cannot be in-it-self perfect in the same way that I suggest it to perfection to be.

“The problem of contingency as a proof for God”

This brings us to my contingency argument; because I think it relates to proving the existence of perfection through the inductive observation of beings. And it goes like this………………………
If there are contingent beings (things which did not have to exist or had a beginning) in existence; then there must be a necessary being upon which contingency is reliant; since since no contingent thing could “possibly”—or better yet—potentially exist if there were not ultimately a “ground of being” at the root of all “possibility”. Things are only possible—as in they can only exist—if something in the first place exists to make it possible. Out of nothing comes nothing. We need a necessary being. But a thing can only be necessary if it is “perfect”, for a perfect thing cannot fail to exist, and therefore is the only logical concept which explains contingent things. Therefore, in the case of contingency, the ground of all being is perfect.

What do you think?

 

[Dameedna]

Now, the first refutation I was given on this forum was that I was producing “Circular arguments” posing as a-prior. However I don’t think that this is a Just-charge; since the proof of the argument is in the fact that “perfection” is as such that it lacks “nothing”. Therefore it cannot lack existence.

The problem, is in the definition of Perfection and the presumption that “perfection” is in fact an existant quality.

To re-iterate - “However I don’t think this is a just-charge:since the proof of the argument is in the fact that abbracadabbra is as such that it lacks nothing. Therefore it cannot lack existance.”

This is what you are really saying.

You have presumed the existance of perfection, given it a quality(when it is truly just a word) and then claimed by it’s very quality it exists.

This…is meaningless.

It is as necessarily true as the proposition that “Single-people have no partners”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Thank you for your reply; it is much welcomed.

abbracadabbra is as such that it lacks nothing. Therefore it cannot lack existance."

Abbracadabbra can lack in existence, becuase it is dependent on you saying it; while perfection, by definition, is not something that is caused. When i say it lacks nothing; i mean that it is reliant upon nothing else to exist.

You have presumed the existance of perfection.

I have not pressumed anything. Perfection is ultimate. By its very definition it cannot fail to exist, for if it could, it would not be perfect; and this is because it is impossible for perfection to not exist (for reasons put plainly in my first post). It exists by its very nature.

There is a term for this, which I do not know, but “single-people” MEANS no partners, so by stating that “single-people have no patners” you are claming the obvious.

By stating that perfection exists, am i not doing the same?

In terms of your argument, you are basically saying, that which exists…exists.

Yes. Becuase Ultimately, Existence cannot fail to exist, because thats what it is by definition; Existence. Thats why there is anything in the first place, rather then nothing.

There is no reason to make your statement, therefore it provides no meaning.

I can see that there is ultimately an Existence that presupposes all existing things. I know that the nature of pure existence is to exist; hence it is said to be a logical absurdity to claim that existence in itself could “possibly” not exist, since it is in the nature of existence to exist. It must exist.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

I agree with Dameedna

There is… !!!
Therefore…
Therefore…

The great leap forward in science came when reasoning was combined with empirical and experimental research:

We find…
Therefore…
Therefore…
It might be that…
Etcetera.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree with Dameedna

There is… !!!
Therefore…
Therefore…

The great leap forward in science came when reasoning was combined with empirical and experimental research:

We find…
Therefore…
Therefore…
It might be that…
Etcetera.

This does not refute any of the arguements put forward.

 

[Dameedna]

Abbracadabbra can lack in existence, becuase it is dependent on you saying it;

No, it depends on it actually existing, just like perfection.

while perfection, by definition, is not something that is caused.

Perfection is a concept, or at least an attribute you give to an existing entity. Perfection cannot exist, without something that it can attatch itself to.

When i say it lacks nothing; i mean that it is reliant upon nothing else to exist.

If nothing else exists, then how can you attach perfection to it?

You are using an “attribute” you have given to god to prove God exists.

I don’t believe the OA works like this. The OA is not saying, “perfection is an attribute of God, therefore God and the attribute exists”. Nor is it saying “perfection exists, therefore God exists”.

Just my 2c’s though.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Of course it does.

Do you use electricity, drinking water, medical care, and so on ?

With all this you are using the fruits of science: reasoning combined with empirical and experimental research.

Who are you to think just reasoning is enough to say anything about reality?

Well then go back to the pre-scientific age, with no electricity, dubious drinking water, and disastrous medical care.

 

[St_Gregory]

Unfortunatly i have not had time to read what this thread is about and i am sorry for that, but i am glad that it has something to do with the Ontological arguement. Since this thread already exists, I will not bother opening a new one; but instead I will add my distingtivness to your own. (Quoted from the Borg)

Sorry for the lengthy posts.

Bad Days For The Ontological Arguement

People say that the ontological arguments in all their forms, are logically dead. But the problem is, i can’t seem to see why. I read Brian Davis, and through him, I have heard other objections to the Ontological proof of God. I don’t see why they amount to good objections, but personally i would at least agree that the arguement in question is not enough to prove the Christian God in his entirity. If the ontological argument proves anything, it only proves one of the fundamental aspects of the Christian God. I believe that the argument can prove that there is in fact an “objective perfection”.

However I’m not confident about the arguments because of all the bad press its Got, and I would not be surprised or unhappy if there is a flaw. And here in lies the problem. Not one intelligent being has yet disproved the argument to my satisfaction. I’m here to defend the argument, but I do not see it as an argument that one needs to rely upon to prove the existence of God. To disprove it, I think would mean very little in respect of “God philosophy”, because I believe there are many inductive arguments that are sufficient. I really would like somebody to make it crystal clear to me that it is a fallacy on a flying broomstick.

***My Ontological Arguements ***

1. It is impossible for an “objective perfection” to not exist; therefore and objective perfection exists.
2. If it is even logically possible for an objective perfection to exist, then it must exist due to the illogical impossibility of it not existing.

Please read very carefully why I think these arguments are correct before posting a hasty reply.

Now, the first refutation I was given on this forum was that I was producing “Circular arguments” posing as a-prior. However I don’t think that this is a Just-charge; since the proof of the argument is in the fact that “perfection” is as such that it lacks “nothing”. Therefore it cannot lack existence. It is as necessarily true as the proposition that “Single-people have no partners”. But in the case of perfection, it is impossible to remove existence from the reality of perfection. For if it did not exist, then it would not be perfect; which is a contradiction in terms. Therefore you cannot conceive of the concept of perfection and then suppose that it does not exist, for then you would not really have a concept of perfection. But we do have a concept of perfection; and it is therefore a contradiction in terms to affirm the conceptual truth of perfection, but then suppose that it need not be objectively true.

I think Saint Anslem was correct; although he stated his proof in slightly different terms.

The only argument that I can see rendering this proof flawed is one that could some how make the concept of perfection a fallacious concept. But as soon as you agree that it is a logical concept, as in, an Objectively perfect being could possibly exists; then I believe that I have stated good reasons for thinking in know uncertain terms that an objective perfection does in fact exist, for the simple fact that perfection has no potentiality. It is a necessary being; it cannot be caused, for it explains it self, and would be lacking in something if it was reliant upon something else. Perfection can only ever be a foundation of being. On a quick note; the perfection that I am talking about, mustn’t be confused with subjective notions of perfection, such as, “This chicken burger is perfect.”
This is not true perfection, but is instead an offspring of creative language. One Of Anslem’s first opponents (I forget his name) made that mistake by suggesting that a perfect island must exist. But an Island is contingent upon other things to exist, so cannot be in-it-self perfect in the same way that I suggest it to perfection to be.

“The problem of contingency as a proof for God”

This brings us to my contingency argument; because I think it relates to proving the existence of perfection through the inductive observation of beings. And it goes like this………………………
If there are contingent beings (things which did not have to exist or had a beginning) in existence; then there must be a necessary being upon which contingency is reliant; since since no contingent thing could “possibly”—or better yet—potentially exist if there were not ultimately a “ground of being” at the root of all “possibility”. Things are only possible—as in they can only exist—if something in the first place exists to make it possible. Out of nothing comes nothing. We need a necessary being. But a thing can only be necessary if it is “perfect”, for a perfect thing cannot fail to exist, and therefore is the only logical concept which explains contingent things. Therefore, in the case of contingency, the ground of all being is perfect.

What do you think?

I think part two of your post was really the cosmological argument.

My main criticism with at least the way you phrased your argument is that God seems to only exist in the world of Ideas and you need to show why this truth should be realised in the real world as well.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

And by the way…
If God doesn’t exist, God, something, this enigma, mystery, then this reality is the same as winning the lottery every day, every hour, every minute…
And science is telling us this. Not implying God. That’s metaphysics. But this… Universe. As it is. In facts. The concensus of tens of thousands of scientists all over the world.

 

[MindOverMatter]

And by the way…
If God doesn’t exist, God, something, this enigma, mystery, then this reality is the same as winning the lottery every day, every hour, every minute…
And science is telling us this. Not implying God. That’s metaphysics. But this… Universe. As it is. In facts. The concensus of tens of thousands of scientists all over the world.

First of all, I am not a proponent of the Ontological Argument (I never use it in serious debates). I just wanted to see why people on this forum felt it was false.

As for science; Strict- Empirical-Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, because it is a study of how the natural world works. Empirical Science cannot by itself reach a transcendent order of being, simply because such beings do not conform to the instruments of scientific investigation. God is strictly a matter of Philosophy. It is wrong to apply a method of critical knowledge - to the Question of God - (Natural Science) that is in-it-self incapable—by its very nature—of probing beyond the confines of “space time and matter”; it is therefore arrogant and short sighted to claim on the grounds of Emprical Science alone, that God does not exist.

Some Atheists may very well think that they have found a friend in Science, but the tide is changing; and not all Atheists fall for the trap of “Scientific supremercy”. My Mother for one (God bless her soul), is fully aware that Science cannot tell us anything about that which lies outside its domain of inquiry. She never uses Science as an excuse for her unbelief; and that is because there is no real excuse.

It is true that Reason alone may not be as powerful as empirical knowledge (I believe a reasonable faith is good enough); However I believe that one can “inductively” infer the necessity of a transcendent order merely by reflecting upon the natural mechanisms of physical reality, and at the same time, recognising certain logical propositions as being true; such as “out of nothing comes nothing”. The universe began to exist (space, time energy and matter), therefore any cause of such a Universe would, out of necessity, have to transcend the natural order of its being (space time and energy); and by doing so we infer the existence of an “Eternal-Super-Nature” from which all things have come into being.

And as for chance. Chance is no explanation at all, because chance refers to **contingent things alone ** (things that begin to exist or do not have to exist), and in order for things to have contingency they must have a “**ground of being **”; there must have been something that has always existed, that is timeless and necessary and therefore did not arise by chance. If a thing arises by chance, it is ultimately because something causes the possibility—the potentiality; but if you apply chance to the ultimate reality of things, then you are basically saying with a straight face that “Out of Nothing, comes Nothing; by chance”, which makes no sense, for there has to be such a thing as something before there can be any such thing as an event coming about by chance. Therefore existence ultimately transcends the nature of chance and the Universe.

No honest or reasonable person of Science seriously considers that chance is the cause of all things! That’s not what Scientists are looking for. Scientists are looking for a theory of everything; in which chance has a very small part to play. Serious “Atheistic-Scientists” are looking for “Necessity in nature”, rather then in a “Transcendent God”, because any critical minded person would know that this would be a surer path to undermining Gods Existence.

The Argument from Chance is Old news! Chance is logically incapable of answering ultimate questions. God is a matter of logic, not science.

 

[celluloid]

Huh??

Just a friendly joke about impossibly high standards

When someone first encounters the OA (rightly understood), he is confronted with only two choices, God exists necessarily or the very idea is impossible. So, yes, at that point one has to think that God is possibly impossible (ie the very idea of God doesn’t make sense–akin to saying round squares exist).

Let me ax you dis kvestion: Do you agree that those are your only two options? If you agree, that is more than half the battle.

Nope. It is this premise that is controversial:
1. The statement “God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB)” is meaningful.

So the options are:
1 God (of some sort) exists and is conceivable.

2 God is impossible because the concept is self-contradictory

3 The concept of God is not self-contradictory (depending on definition) yet it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist

To use the cards analogy again, it’s like trying to tell me the top card of a shuffled deck of cards is possibly a queen of hearts (which seems true, without knowledge) but I have peeked at the card and I can tell you it is neither a queen nor a heart. You can say, with a lack of knowledge, that it possible or conceivable for it to be a queen of hearts, but the reality of the top card makes it possibly impossible.

Suppose, for a moment, that we live in a universe in which God does not exist, and in that universe, ***we know it to be the case ***that God does not exist.

If so, what’s wrong with the OA in that universe? It is the possibility/conceivability premise. It says “conceivable” when we know that God is impossible (in that universe). God can’t exist simply because God does not happen to exist as a matter of fact. I could, in ignorance, “conceive” of Ronald Reagan leading Germany into World War II, but the facts speak otherwise.

Now here in this universe, we don’t have that knowledge either way, so the possibility/conceivability premise is left hanging.

 

[jfhh]

3 The concept of God is not self-contradictory (depending on definition) yet it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist

I haven’t read the other options. But this option is incompatible with S5 modal logic. You would have to use Saul Kripke’s accessibility relation to construct a modal logic which would allow this.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

But then to get things straight:

Reasoning doesn’t bring you reliable, inter-subjective and world-view-neutral knowledge. Reasoning can for instance result in the notion the world is based on an endless array of turtles. And yes by reasoning they can predict the existence of for instance a particle, but it needs tracking it down in the real world before the scientific community start taking it serious.

Science brings reliable but in principle provisional knowledge concerning reality that presents itself as researchable. Science has nothing to do with metaphysics, though scientists always one way or the other are influenced by metaphysical ideas (especially obvious in the statements by for instance Dannett, Dawkins and Gould), what determines what they experience as reality in the first place (Thomas Kuhn). Science meanwhile makes out the whole cultural world we are embedded in, and we probably wouldn’t survive for a week without science.

Science once made it clear that lots of stories in the Bible and in other Holy Texts were mere myths, fairytales or poetry, with these days as left over a significance as literature, symbolism, ethics and meaning. Still science moved on, and religious people overcame their shock and learned by, and guess what is it we see these days? Just take the time to carefully listen to what this man says: counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/spitzer-frame.html

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Cell,

Recall that I said earlier that the real question is not whether God exists but what “God” means. For if we are clear what on what the definition is, upon further investigation we either will conclude God exists necessarily or it is impossible for God to exist because the very idea is nonsense.

Note the way the premise is constructed. “The statement X is meaningful.” Either X is meaningful (makes sense, is logically consistant) or it ain’t. As regards the premise, we have only two options.

X = God is the GCB, so all of our efforts should be directed at determining the meaning of GCB.

The framing of the questions should make it clear that the only sensible positions to investigate are a priori theism or positivism. All other positions are confused.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

But let’s pretend we are naive and haven’t encountered the OA before. What are the usual options?

1. Empirical theism. God exists because of some fact or other. Implicit here is also the conceivable non-existence of God.
2. Empirical atheism. God does not exist because of some fact or other. Implicit here is the conceivable existence of God.
3. Positivism. God necessarily does not exist becasue there is no meaningful idea of God.
4. A priori theism. God exists necessarily because that is the only meaningful way to conceive of God.
5. Agnosticism. God may exist or he may not exist. I just don’t know. Implicit here is the believe that God is conceivable as existing and also as not existing.

But now we encounter the OA . If the definition of God as the GCB make sense, God must be necessarily existing. If the definition doesn’t make sense, God necessarily does not exist. In light of this, options 1,2 and 5 become absurd. You can’t conceive of God as necessarily existing and at the same time think he might not exist. And you can’t hold that God necessarily does not exist and at the same time think he might exist.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

So in light of all this, your no. 3:

The concept of God is not self-contradictory (depending on definition) yet it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist

don’t make no sense.

 

[Dameedna]

But now we encounter the OA . If the definition of God as the GCB make sense, God must be necessarily existing. If the definition doesn’t make sense, God necessarily does not exist. In light of this, options 1,2 and 5 become absurd. You can’t conceive of God as necessarily existing and at the same time think he might not exist. And you can’t hold that God necessarily does not exist and at the same time think he might exist.

But does GCB make sense?