The Ontological Arguments

[adamlsp]

Hi, to whoever reads this. I am going to present Plantinga’s Ontological Argument.

1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
2. Possibly a maximally great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

The argument has not a flaw but the second premise can be questioned on the grounds of what the reader deems the definition of possibility to be. Subsequently if no common ground can be found on the definition of possibility, it will be good to attribute the probability of the existance of God to equal 1/2 with a 10% variance in either direction depending on whether evidence is found to suport eithe side. In this case Pascal’s Wager may be applied using gambler’s logic.

S5 is an axiom from S5 modal logic which states that is something is possibly necessarily true then it is necessarily true. If this axiom does not click in your mind further research into modal logic is suggested. This axiom is widely accepted though not universally.

The definition od a maximally great being is given is premise one. Another way of stating the attributes of this being are omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. The definitions of these words are simple enough, however I suspect the definitions of the characteristic behind them may give us some trouble if not universally agreed upon. Knowledge, power, goodness, and presence are seen qualities which in their fullness are described in their omnimax forms. An analogy recalls a water glass. Completely filled is the glass in it’s most possibly perfect state. Any emptiness within the glass resulting from partial filling is a deficiency. And the variable water line when not filled is the level of the attribute within the one who contains it. The definition of good is Aristotle’s. What is good hits its target, fullfills its purpose, does what it is supposed to do. A good pencil writes well, has a nice grip, does not break easily, etc. When using objects to describe being we most consider that our analogies will be limited and not answer all propositions to perfection. The definition of power and knowledge can readily be looked up. Presence is to be in a particular location at a particular time. Omnipresence then is to be present at all locations at al times. If you have trouble conceiving a being with such a property use your imagination.

I think that’s it. Respond at will.

Adam

My favorite saints are Jude, Raphael, and Valentine. May they do for you what they do best.

 

[Hitetlen]

Let’s start with premise #1, to be sure that we don’t go too fast.

1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

I have a few questions first: Indeed the words omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good seem to be self-evident, but they are not self-evident at all.

Omniscient: presumably means that someone possessing this attribute knows everything that can be known. That is this being can decide about any proposition whether it is true, false or undecidable. Does omniscience incorporate the future, which simply has not happened yet? There are questions that cannot be answered simultaneously, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle forbids it.

Omnipotent: this is hairy. What does it mean? Can this being perform acts that are logically impossible? Can this being perform acts which contradict the currently known laws of nature?

Omnibenevolent: to whom? Since different beings have different needs and desires, which contradict to each other, therefore it is logically impossible to satify all of them at the same time. So the question arises: benevolent to whom? Himself? Others?

Another question: existence. Existence is different for physical beings and for abstract concepts. Does this being exist as a physical object? Or does the proponent assume some kind of a non-physical existence, which is somehow “real”? On what ground? We have experience with only physical existence and mental abstractions which do not exist in any physical form…

Necessary existence: what does this mean? Does it mean that the denial of this being’s existence leads to a logical contradiction?

Another question: Whose definition is this “greatness”? Different beings can define “greatness” differently. An intelligent warrior species may have a different idea just what greatness is. Maybe their concept of greatness incorporates a feature “maximally boodthirsty”. Likewise an intelligent herbivore species values “maximal cowardice” above all.

One of my problems is that the selected “attributes” are not general at all, not only are they highly anthropomorphic, but beyond that they are simply “borrowed” from the alleged attributes the Chistian God is supposed to have.

These are not all my questions, but only the ones which pop into my mind for the first premise. Whoever wishes to reply to them, I will be happy to read their answer.

 

[precious_roy]

Wow, I actually agree with Hitetlen for once. Who would have thought…

Despite the comment about the uncertainty principle (one interpretation of it is that there is no MEASURABLE certainty, which doesnt mean that it does not exist) he is correct. This is an inductive proof which supposes a set of axioms that has been chosen haphazardly (IMHO).

The biggest argument that I see with it, as Hit. pointed out, is the ‘by definition a maximally great being exists.’ Who is to say that existance is better than non existance? I would very much like to hear an argument for or against that.

 

[Hitetlen]

precious_roy:

Wow, I actually agree with Hitetlen for once. Who would have thought…

That is most reassuring.

As I read your post, another thought came into my mind: namely that neither the concept of “maximum greatness” nor its alleged particulars (omniscience etc.) are utilized anywhere in the further flow of the argument - they are merely repeated. We can substitue them with anything, and the logic of the argument still holds. Let’s try it and substitute “maximally great” with “mediocre” and “omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent” with "blond, blue eyed and fat:

1. By definition a mediocre being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is blond, blue eyed and fat. (Premise)
2. Possibly a mediocre being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a blond, blue eyed, and fat being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a blond, blue eyed and fat being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, a blond, blue eyed and fat being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

Is that deep or what?

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

1. By definition a mediocre being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is blond, blue eyed and fat. (Premise)
2. Possibly a mediocre being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a blond, blue eyed, and fat being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a blond, blue eyed and fat being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, a blond, blue eyed and fat being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

Is that deep or what?

While I don’t personally think this whole approach is very good, your premise 1 is obviously wrong, Hitetlen.

 

[precious_roy]

Even further, unless I am missing something, the first axiom (premise of the argument) asserts the conclusion.

By definition a maximally great being is one that exists…
and
[a maximally great being] … is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

Now, that is a respectable axiom if you want to take that to be true. Nothing wrong with that. But there is no need for the rest of the argument at that point

 

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

While I don’t personally think this whole approach is very good, your premise 1 is obviously wrong, Hitetlen.

It is just a definition, not to be taken too seriously. I could have substituted “maximally great being” with “a perfect geometric shape” and the attributes with “square and circle” and the whole argument would still stand.

 

[Krebsbach]

Hi Adam,

Don’t know much about Plantinga’s version of the OA. Kreeft and Tacelli present it without any comment and have a different summary of its points than yours.

In what way did Plantinga think he was improving on the original?

kordially,

karl

 

[Krebsbach]

Here is K and T’s presentation of it for comparison:

Definitions:
Maximal excellence: to have omnipotence, onmiscience and moral perfection in some world.

Maximal greatness: to have maximal excellence in every possible world.

Argument:

1. There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.
2. But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possbile world.
3. Therefore X is maximmaly great only if X has omnipotence, omniscience adn moral perfection in every possbile world.
4. In W, the proposition “There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being” would be impossible–that is, necessarily false.
5. But what is impossible does not vary from world to world.
6. Therefore the propostion “There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being” is necessarily false in this actual world too.
7. Therefore, there must actually exist in this workd, and in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect being.

 

[Krebsbach]

Plantinga’s version, like Anselm’s, begins with a notion of God informed by religious faith. We learn in Catechism class that God must be the greatest in terms of any imaginable attribute appliecable to God (good, knowing, etc). It all adds up to maxiamal greatness.

He then argues that necessary existence is entailed by maximal greatness.

It probably works, but I’m not sure how it improves the original argument.

 

[Krebsbach]

Roy said above:

The biggest argument that I see with it, as Hit. pointed out, is the ‘by definition a maximally great being exists.’ Who is to say that existance is better than non existance? I would very much like to hear an argument for or against that.

It seems very counter-intuitive to maintain otherwise. Besides, if someting only exists in the mind and not in reality, it has no independent existence and no freedom to act. It seems very reasonable to say that the latter state of being is superior.

kordially,

karl

 

[Krebsbach]

The lingering objection to the initial formulation of the OA based on the superiority of existence in acuality as well as in the mind is that thinking it must be so doesn’t necessarily make it so in reality. IOW, it is not thought possible to build necessary relationships between ideas and reality. Stated differently, it is not thought possible to start from a necessary proposition in the abstract and then require any particular actualization of that in reality.

This objection, however, was elimininated by Hartshorne and probably Malcolm in the last century. They found that God, while He is not necessarily actualized in any particular way, he is necessarily actual on some way. God is necessarily somehow actual.

To my knowledge, this formulation of the OA has never been refuted. See Hartshorne’s Anselm’s Discovery and Logic of Perfection for the details.

 

[asteroid]

adamlsp:

Hi, to whoever reads this. I am going to present Plantinga’s Ontological Argument.

1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
2. Possibly a maximally great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

What is “S5”?

Without that information the leap from 3 to 4 is not good.

3 says “Possibly, it is necessarily true…”

4 says “Therefore, it IS necessarily true…”

To jump from “Possibly” to “Without a Doubt, Definitely” is quite a leap. It would be like me saying “Possibly, there are aliens on Pluto, therefore there are aliens on Pluto”. Which would be very silly.

So, please tell me what is “S5”, and does this S5 allow us to make the leap from “possibly” to “definitely”?

 

[adamlsp]

asteroid:

What is “S5”?

Without that information the leap from 3 to 4 is not good.

3 says “Possibly, it is necessarily true…”

4 says “Therefore, it IS necessarily true…”

To jump from “Possibly” to “Without a Doubt, Definitely” is quite a leap. It would be like me saying “Possibly, there are aliens on Pluto, therefore there are aliens on Pluto”. Which would be very silly.

So, please tell me what is “S5”, and does this S5 allow us to make the leap from “possibly” to “definitely”?

I give a brief definition of the S5 axiom of S5 modal logic. Then I state that if one does not understand, one should further their research into S5 modal logic. Reading Karl’s posts just above should help you understand because those arguments work ffrom the same idea. Your example does not apply to this. If you read all of my first post it may help. Possibly necessarily true = necessarily true. Aliens on pluto are not possibly necessarily true merely possibly true. This is the key distiction. If you would like to know why this maximal being is possibly necessarily true we could expand upon it.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

That is most reassuring.

As I read your post, another thought came into my mind: namely that neither the concept of “maximum greatness” nor its alleged particulars (omniscience etc.) are utilized anywhere in the further flow of the argument - they are merely repeated. We can substitue them with anything, and the logic of the argument still holds. Let’s try it and substitute “maximally great” with “mediocre” and “omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent” with "blond, blue eyed and fat:

1. By definition a mediocre being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is blond, blue eyed and fat. (Premise)
2. Possibly a mediocre being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a blond, blue eyed, and fat being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a blond, blue eyed and fat being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, a blond, blue eyed and fat being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

Is that deep or what?

I think you are missing the point that a mediocre being does not necessarily exist. Your argument would only hold if you had decided to redefine all of terms and apply them to a being that neccessarily exists. This is precisely why the “aliens on pluto” argument does not work. These beings do not necessarily exist. What defines necessary existence is the fact that this being is the absolute greatest and that implies existence. Because being like the other attributes is a water glass. No water in the glass implies non-existence, full glass implies the greatest possible existence. Since the quality is existence and non-existence simply means not to have any of this quality. If you think non-existence is better that is your perogative. And in that case you wouldn’t want God to exist, even if he did, because it would be better and most perfect if he did not.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Krebsbach:

Hi Adam,

Don’t know much about Plantinga’s version of the OA. Kreeft and Tacelli present it without any comment and have a different summary of its points than yours.

In what way did Plantinga think he was improving on the original?

kordially,

karl

Karl, The original ontological argument has many flaws. Plantinga is just using modal logic to renew the old argument. As I understand it, modal logic is highly respected and widely accepted thus it makes good use in this proof. I suspect this same argument can be argued in different ways so the difeerence in point summary is negligable. If you’d like to give their version please do. It could only help.

I really enjoy your version of the ontological argument as well. I don’t know if you realize that Alvin Plantinga, Norman Malcolm, and Charles Hartshorne are responsible for the renewal of interest in ontological argument in the 20th century. I do enjoy their version as much as Plantinga’s and am glad you posted it. Thank you. Please don’t stop posting if you think you could help more.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Omniscient: presumably means that someone possessing this attribute knows everything that can be known. That is this being can decide about any proposition whether it is true, false or undecidable. Does omniscience incorporate the future, which simply has not happened yet? There are questions that cannot be answered simultaneously, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle forbids it.

Omnipotent: this is hairy. What does it mean? Can this being perform acts that are logically impossible? Can this being perform acts which contradict the currently known laws of nature?

Omnibenevolent: to whom? Since different beings have different needs and desires, which contradict to each other, therefore it is logically impossible to satify all of them at the same time. So the question arises: benevolent to whom? Himself? Others?

Another question: existence. Existence is different for physical beings and for abstract concepts. Does this being exist as a physical object? Or does the proponent assume some kind of a non-physical existence, which is somehow “real”? On what ground? We have experience with only physical existence and mental abstractions which do not exist in any physical form…

Necessary existence: what does this mean? Does it mean that the denial of this being’s existence leads to a logical contradiction?

Another question: Whose definition is this “greatness”? Different beings can define “greatness” differently. An intelligent warrior species may have a different idea just what greatness is. Maybe their concept of greatness incorporates a feature “maximally boodthirsty”. Likewise an intelligent herbivore species values “maximal cowardice” above all.

One of my problems is that the selected “attributes” are not general at all, not only are they highly anthropomorphic, but beyond that they are simply “borrowed” from the alleged attributes the Chistian God is supposed to have.

You are right. I see how the definitions could be variable so let me clarify. Omniscience does include the future. This is connected to omnipresence in a way. The uncertainty principle is mathematics in science and is fundamentally limited by our observations. I am surprised you would attempt to use science against proof of the supernatural.

Omnipotence is to have all power that could possibly be had. God will do what is in his nature and not contrary to it. Thus if logic is in the nature of God he will not contradict it. “Laws” of nature can be lifted by miracles and the such because God created these laws. God may be able to defy logic if logic is not in his nature but merely a thing he created. If he created it he can control it. If logic always was it is in the nature of God and thus will not contradict it.

Omnibenevolence is the propert of being perfectly and absolutely good. In my post back on your “Why is disbelief a sin?” thread I explain it how I understand, which may be refined into a better defintion. You are right about the satifaction of desires. However benevolence does imply God is a great cosmic genie. Benevolence is to be kind and charitable. Loving.

Non-physical existence. God did obtain a physical body when he became human as Jesus but we can leave this out of the proof because it has no effect. Non-physical existence can be experienced since we all have souls but you do not belive this. This again seems scientific or at least empirical. Just because you haven’t seen something does not imply that you can then infer it does not exist.

Yes, that is correct. Denying the existence of God is logically contradictory. The proof being these very argument that we present. Reasons for this is that being is a “completeness” and necessary existence is greater in being that non-necessary. Non-necessary existence implies a variable which may not be needed by definition. Necessary existence implies an constant which will not change into non-existence, ever because it is constantly existent.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

We’ve already discussed this. “Greatness” really means “completeness.” Cowardice is a deficiency of the virtue of fortitude and is thus incomplete. Bloodthirst is a deficiency of many things, namely love. If you believe that what human beings are supposed to do is what the majority of human beings do do then I could see your problem understanding this. We believe reason exists and that objectivity is possible in a sense. If everything was subjective to every individual society would be impossible. Society did not just decide to choose a subjective approach of a few individuals and throw out the rest. Ethics are inside humans and is not “right” for one culture or another. If there was no light in the universe there would be no creatures with eyes. Likewise if there was no meaning in the universe there would be no creatures with the ability to determine meaning. How would we know it was dark if there was no such thing as light? This is better than the water glass analogy. Darkness is not its own thing but merely the absense of light.

The selected attributes are attibutes of being itself presence, knowledge, power, goodness. There are more these are just deemed most important. Maybe the level of their importance is culturallly derived but the attributes themselves are aspects of being. Being is different fro culture to culture but these aspects are still present. Nietzsche, who had blatant hatred for Christianity, does not deny the importance of any of these qualities in being except that of goodness. Maybe you do not respect Friedrich’s philosophical outlook but if you do maybe it can help you see these qualities are characteristic of being. Goodness can be discussed further if you wish.

This was very lengthy and I apologize if it appears incoherent at any point. Please try to understand this mishmash.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I think you are missing the point that a mediocre being does not necessarily exist.

I could rephrase my arguement in a different way, to incorporate the “greatest” which you rely upon, and at the same time make it totally generic:

1. By definition a perfectly great being is one that has attributes A1 and A2. (Premise)
2. Possibly a perfectly great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a being with attributes of A1 and A2 exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a being with attributes A1 and A2 exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, a perfectly great being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

Now what is the signifance of this? Regardless of what those A1 and A2 attributes are the flow of arguments is the same. One does not have to actually specify those attributes, they are not needed explicitly. Furthermore, as I argued in my original reply, they are arbitrary and subjective.

So the attributes can be anything, even contradictory. And now we arrive to the result that a being with self-contradictory attributes exists, which is simply nonsense.

I also have a problem with a second premise: “Possibly a perfectly great being exists.” That is totally unsubstantiated. Maybe we can imagine a “perfectly great being”, but it cannot actually exist.

Just like those beautiful woodcuts of M. C. Escher, which look like possible buildings and landscapes, and are actually impossible. (You can find them in Google, if you type in M. C. Escher and use the search for images.) I escpecially recommend the “Waterfall”, “Ascending - descending” and “Relativity”.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I could rephrase my arguement in a different way, to incorporate the “greatest” which you rely upon, and at the same time make it totally generic:

1. By definition a perfectly great being is one that has attributes A1 and A2. (Premise)
2. Possibly a perfectly great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a being with attributes of A1 and A2 exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a being with attributes A1 and A2 exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, a perfectly great being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

Now what is the signifance of this? Regardless of what those A1 and A2 attributes are the flow of arguments is the same. One does not have to actually specify those attributes, they are not needed explicitly. Furthermore, as I argued in my original reply, they are arbitrary and subjective.

So the attributes can be anything, even contradictory. And now we arrive to the result that a being with self-contradictory attributes exists, which is simply nonsense.

I also have a problem with a second premise: “Possibly a perfectly great being exists.” That is totally unsubstantiated. Maybe we can imagine a “perfectly great being”, but it cannot actually exist.

Just like those beautiful woodcuts of M. C. Escher, which look like possible buildings and landscapes, and are actually impossible. (You can find them in Google, if you type in M. C. Escher and use the search for images.) I escpecially recommend the “Waterfall”, “Ascending - descending” and “Relativity”.

Your counter-argument is alright up until 3. In step 1 you do not explicity state that this being requires necessary existence.

The attributes are not arbitrary but are unnecessary in the argument. You cannot place with A1 and A2 anything at all but a “completion” must be used. Such as complete this or complete that. Self-contradictory elements may not be placed within, there is a limit to the set of characteristics in the domain that may be placed within our word equation substituted for your variables. You are correct in stating that I need not list these for this argument. They are there merely to clarify what the being is but are not necessary to prove its existence. The attributes are not subjective. You have not shown how they could be. Though a brief spin off into an argument of the realm of subject- and objectivity may required to prove my point. Let me know if you desire this.

You say this being cannot actually exist? This is unfounded and unprovable. You have no way of knowing this. This is also beside the point because it is possibility that you were questioning not actuality. And if it can be conceived it is possible. Or if its aspects are not contradictory it is possible.
Take whichever makes the most sense to you.

The optical illussions also are fruitless in investigating. They rely on observation which is fundamentally flawed. These paintings are interesting and they trick us because we focus on a particular part of the painting rather than the entire picture. Bringing into focus the entire picture we can see, while not changing our “focus” or “perspective,” that these drawings are simply nonsensicle.

Thinking itself may be fundamentally flawed and subjective but in that case we have no reason to discourse here toward a common goal. We also cannot see the entire picture of what we are trying to grasp but the more we see the clearer it becomes. Then again the more we know the more peices to the puzzle we obtain. If your a good puzzle solver this helps you, if not not you are left in a veritable pile of disarray.

Adam