Philosophy: The Ontological Argument

[cpayne]

This thread is more in the nature of a poll. However, if you want to add comments, feel free. (As if you needed encouragement.)

(1) Which version of the ontological argument do you prefer or think is better? Examples: Anselm, Descartes, Plantinga, Norman Malcom, etc.
(2) Do you think any of the versions are valid?

 

[Benedictus]

(1) Which version of the ontological argument do you prefer or think is better? Examples: Anselm, Descartes, Plantinga, Norman Malcom, etc.
(2) Do you think any of the versions are valid?

(1) I’m only familiar with the ontological arguments of Anselm and Descartes, so I can only comment on those two. It seems to me that the two are roughly equivalent.

(2) No, not really.

I’ve always liked these proofs in the sense that they’re interesting thought experiments, but I’ve never found them particularily convincing (even before I started having inclinations towards agnosticism). At first glance the argument is bizarre. Upon further reflection, it’s quite interesting and requires some thought to refute. In the end, it’s not convincing.

The famous counter-example to the proof is to replace “God” with “an island”. Defenders counter that, unlike the island, the definition of God includes existence. Opponents would counter that defenders are essentially cheating when they try to include existence in the definition of God.

In the end, the value of the argument is nil. Even if you were to overcome the various objections, it is not a convincing argument. The argument simply seems wrong. Still, it’s an intersting thought experiment.

 

[Mirdath]

Like Benedictus, I’ve only read Anselm’s and Descartes’ (they’re pretty much identical, though I prefer Anselm’s for the whole ‘the fool hath said in his heart’ bit… that’s art). They’re beautiful logical constructions, but they’re built with holes big enough to drive through.

First and foremost, supremacy does not necessarily imply existence. I can imagine a perfect burrito, the Platonic ideal of Burrito, the Ur-Burrito from which all lesser burritos have sprung, but that doesn’t mean it’s out there. Plato’s Heaven is purely imaginary.

Secondly, existence is not necessarily greater than non-existence. This ties in to the first hole, but it’s worth noting separately. Of course, the usual response is ‘so why haven’t you killed yourself yet?’.

Thirdly, just because we can imagine something doesn’t make it real or even potentially real. Remember that burrito?

 

[cor]

This thread is more in the nature of a poll. However, if you want to add comments, feel free. (As if you needed encouragement.)

(1) Which version of the ontological argument do you prefer or think is better? Examples: Anselm, Descartes, Plantinga, Norman Malcom, etc.
(2) Do you think any of the versions are valid?

They are all valid (the conclusion follows from the premises); the question is whether they are sound (being not only valid but also the premises being true)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

I prefer Plantinga’s argument and I think it is a sound argument. However, I don’t think it proves the existence of one God. It proves the existence of a God, perhaps accompanied by others.

 

[cpayne]

They are all valid (the conclusion follows from the premises); the question is whether they are sound (being not only valid but also the premises being true)

QUOTE]

I should have made this clearer. Thanks.