The point of the Ontological Argument

[Pieman333272]

I have a hypothetical question. Suppose every argument for God were obliterated philosophically or scientifically except the ontological argument, and God didn’t have any necessity to answer any questions except “does God exist”. What then, is the point of the ontological argument? Isn’t it proving a useless, trivial “fact”?

 

[Dranu]

I am not quite sure that proving that the infinite being exists in reality (being itself) is by any means ‘trivial’. I guess I don’t see how you would come to such a conclusion.

 

[danserr]

I have a hypothetical question. Suppose every argument for God were obliterated philosophically or scientifically except the ontological argument, and God didn’t have any necessity to answer any questions except “does God exist”. What then, is the point of the ontological argument? Isn’t it proving a useless, trivial “fact”?

If you mean if we could prove that diesm was true and God existed solely as a clockmaker who has no interest in the world and never will touch it again, then yes, I agree that such a God would be meaningless.

But this would be a different sort of God. By the Christian “God” we mean a greatest conceivable being, including moral perfection. A morally perfect God would be pretty important then since such a God would be interested in humanity. And it is this sort of God the ontological argument argues for.