On ontological argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey3456987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mickey3456987

Guest
In order for ontological argument to work we must defined what is Maximally great being ,but

How can we know what property make being greater? isn’t greatness is just subjective thing?
Morally perfect or evil
Intelligent or impersonal
Powerful or weak

This seem to be right but how can we know that these property is actually better than another?
What standard do we use?
 
Not all philosophers (including Catholic ones) believe the ontological argument to be valid.
 
What if maximal property does not exist? I mean if there is always higher than higher.
 
Mickey3456987 said:
In order for ontological argument to work we must defined what is Maximally great being ,but
Click to expand...
The argument fails. You can’t just define things into reality.

The best variation of this particular kind of ontological argument is the following…
  1. A perfect act of reality cannot cease to exist because it’s existence is perfect and therefore cannot cease being perfect.,
Conclusion: A perfect act of reality exists.

I have created my own deductive arguments, but i’m not completely sure if they all work, or rather it only works if you accept the premises.
  1. Absolutely nothing is the ontological absence of every conceivable thing.
  2. Absolutely nothing cannot be a true state of affairs because there is no truth in absolutely nothing considering the fact that absolutely nothing is the ontological absence of every conceivable thing.
Conclusion: Therefore an intrinsically necessary act of reality exists because absolutely nothing is impossible.

or…
  1. Absolutely nothing is meaningless because the word nothing refers to the absence of logically possible things in reality and not the possibility of nothing in and of itself, and is therefore not, by itself, a meaningful possibility.
Conclusion: Therefore an intrinsically necessary act of reality exists because absolutely nothing is impossible.

or (this is my favourite).

1. There are logical truths

2. Logical truths cannot begin to be true and are therefore eternal truths

3. Logical truths reflect the nature of reality.

4. Therefore logical truths are true because of a nature that does not begin to exist and therefore eternally exists.

Conclusion: Therefore an intrinsically necessary act of reality exists because absolutely nothing is impossible.

From the conclusion we can deduce what an intrinsically necessary act of reality is not (is not changing, is not physical reality, is not a natural cause etc) and by doing so we can learn what it is (is a non-physical intelligent cause, is pure actuality etc)

Here is one more…
  1. Out of absolutely nothing comes nothing.
  2. Absolutely nothing is the absence of all possibilities.
  3. Possibilities exist
  4. A necessary being must exist to account for all possibilities.
  5. Therefore absolutely nothing is not a possibility.
Conclusion: Therefore an intrinsically necessary act of reality exists because absolutely nothing is impossible.

Some of these may not be truly deductive. I am not an academic philosopher.
 
Last edited:
Mickey3456987 said:
In order for ontological argument to work we must defined what is Maximally great being
Click to expand...
No, all that is needed is to agree to the ontological category of “superlatives”.
Good, better, best. Fast, faster, fastest.

Suppose I have a chocolate cake in front of me. Is it the best chocolate cake in existence? Maybe. But only if no better chocolate cake exists anywhere else in the universe.

In order to be a good, a better or “the best” cake it has to exist.

If “The Best” cake in the universe suddenly ceased to exist then, at that moment, the second best cake would inherit the title “Best”. It couldn’t remain the (ontologically) “second best” cake because nowhere in the universe would there be a better chocolate cake.

Sound ontology forces us to accept that if the best and second best chocolate cakes both ceased to exist, then the third best would become the new champion - maximally great cake.

And nowhere above have we needed to describe the cake or it’s ingredients. Maximal greatness doesn’t depend on subjective agreement whether chocolate cakes are better than vanilla cakes.
 
Last edited:
Lots of ways to come to the acceptance of the existence of God. I like Aquinas’. I like CS Lewis argument based on natural law. I like Pascal’s Water. I find the ontological arguments very weak. As Ronald Knox says, all you have to do is not think about God and it fails.
 
EZweber said:
If I understand him correctly (I read the article rather quickly) all he proved was that if you stop anywhere in an infinite series, you can get a larger number than in another infinite series. Infinity, by its very definition, cannot be surprassed.
Click to expand...
There is actually a good argument in what you said here against an infinite series.

If you stop anywhere in an infinite series, it’s regress remains actually infinite, and you can continue to a number greater than an actual infinite, which is a contradiction because the very notion of an infinite series is dependent on the idea that it’s parts altogether comprise an actually infinite number. This is to say that each part of the series is intrinsic to it being an actual infinite. In other-words you should be able to take one part away from the series and it should cease to be infinite, but it doesn’t. Therefore what makes the series infinite cannot be due to how many parts it is comprised of (the very thing that defines it as an actually infinite number in the first place); which is incoherent, making the idea of an actually infinite series meaningless.

Thank you for helping me to become aware of this. God Bless.
 
Last edited:
I have ontological arguments with God all the time…
I start to do something…
God intervenes…
I am prevented from doing it…
God wins the argument…

OR…

I start to do something…
God intervenes…
I overcome God’s prevention…
And I win the argument…

We all know which outcome is to be preferred, yes?

geo
 
I mean, if you are having a verbal discussion…
You are not arguing ontologically, yes?

So that if someone says “Fire doesn’t burn me!”
You can answer verbally: “Oh yes it does, and I am lighting a match right now to prove it.”
OR…
Making an ontological reply…
You can simply hand him a red hot iron…

Point being ontological argumentation is done in silence…

geo
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top