Simplified ontological argument for God...does it make sense?

[TomD123]

So I have trouble wrapping my mind around the ontological argument for God’s existence. I have tried to simplifiy it here to see if I am on the right track. Does this argument work? Is it logical? What does this argument hinge on?

Here it is:

1. If x might not exist, there is something greater than x which can be conceived
   i. Might=Conceivably, logically possible, i.e. x does not necessarily exist
   ii. “Can be conceived” = It is possible, my mind can assert/suggest something greater than x
2. Y is that which nothing greater can be conceived (see definition above ii) [note- this assumes y is not an inherent self contradiction and y possibly exists]
3. Y cannot = x. If we suppose this, we would have a logical contradiction.

Therefore-> Y exists by necessity
Conclusion-> If God=y, God exists necessarily

Note- I am not here discussing all things, but only the one thing y which is in its own class of beings. in other words, “something” in the argument above encompasses all things that can exist, not a specific type of thing…I could not replace “something” with a specific like island, pony, spaceship, etc.

I don’t know if it works but thats my understanding of the argument, thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So I have trouble wrapping my mind around the ontological argument for God’s existence. I have tried to simplifiy it here to see if I am on the right track. Does this argument work? Is it logical? What does this argument hinge on?

Here it is:

1. If x might not exist, there is something greater than x which can be conceived
   i. Might=Conceivably, logically possible, i.e. x does not necessarily exist
   ii. “Can be conceived” = It is possible, my mind can assert/suggest something greater than x
2. Y is that which nothing greater can be conceived (see definition above ii) [note- this assumes y is not an inherent self contradiction and y possibly exists]
3. Y cannot = x. If we suppose this, we would have a logical contradiction.

Therefore-> Y exists by necessity
Conclusion-> If God=y, God exists necessarily

Note- I am not here discussing all things, but only the one thing y which is in its own class of beings. in other words, “something” in the argument above encompasses all things that can exist, not a specific type of thing…I could not replace “something” with a specific like island, pony, spaceship, etc.

I don’t know if it works but thats my understanding of the argument, thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Forget it. No one will pay attention to a mind game.

So, how about. The universe exists. It cannot have caused its own existence. Therefore we are forced to conclude that something caused or causes it to exist which exists by its own power and has always existed. This we call God. .

 

[TomD123]

Forget it. No one will pay attention to a mind game.

So, how about. The universe exists. It cannot have caused its own existence. Therefore we are forced to conclude that something caused or causes it to exist which exists by its own power and has always existed. This we call God. .

I agree with your argument…but thats more cosmological. I’m just wondering if the ontological argument has any validity at least in theory if not in use. Its good to have multiple arguments for God…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with your argument…but thats more cosmological. I’m just wondering if the ontological argument has any validity at least in theory if not in use. Its good to have multiple arguments for God…

It is valid for me. But it is the kind of argument boiled down to the level of the ordinary person who is not educated in philosophy. I.E., the unlettered farmer gazes at the stars at night and says, " …only God could do that…, " a woman who has just brought a child into the world says, “…Oh, look at what God has wrought…” Of course they can be denied, as all arguments. Even the tight, philosophical ones, can be denied, and always will be denied. That does not make them invalid.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

So I have trouble wrapping my mind around the ontological argument for God’s existence. I have tried to simplifiy it here to see if I am on the right track. Does this argument work? Is it logical? What does this argument hinge on?

Here it is:

1. If x might not exist, there is something greater than x which can be conceived
   i. Might=Conceivably, logically possible, i.e. x does not necessarily exist
   ii. “Can be conceived” = It is possible, my mind can assert/suggest something greater than x
2. Y is that which nothing greater can be conceived (see definition above ii) [note- this assumes y is not an inherent self contradiction and y possibly exists]
3. Y cannot = x. If we suppose this, we would have a logical contradiction.

Therefore-> Y exists by necessity
Conclusion-> If God=y, God exists necessarily

Note- I am not here discussing all things, but only the one thing y which is in its own class of beings. in other words, “something” in the argument above encompasses all things that can exist, not a specific type of thing…I could not replace “something” with a specific like island, pony, spaceship, etc.

I don’t know if it works but thats my understanding of the argument, thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut!

The flaw in your argument is that God or Y only exists if X doesn’t exist. That’s an inference from the premises of your argument. It doesn’t make a very good Ontological argument. You say if X might not exist then Y. But if X exists then there is no Y. Because you say that Y cannot equal X. You have to make it so that Y is not dependent upon X in that way.