The Stanford Encyclopedia's view on Ontological Argument

[Ben_Sinner]

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

This section doesn’t seem too favorable of the ontological argument.

I even remember one poster on here saying “all ontological arguments are false” and using this link as a resource for evidence.

I have not read it all, but I’m sure someone on here has.

Is the SE really implying that all ontological arguments are false?

And what if it is? What is the Catholic rebuttal of this section?

 

[Rhubarb]

No. The SEP is an enyclopedia. It’s purpose is not to make an argument but list the various arguments that philosophers have made on a given subject. This includes arguments for, and arguments against.

If a SEP article has more critique than not, it’s because the body of work on the subject is largely critique. More over, nobody should expect their argument to be taken seriously I’d they slap down an encyclopedia entry and say “nuh-uh! See?” Every critique in that article is open to critique itself. That’s how philosophy works.

 

[Richca]

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

This section doesn’t seem too favorable of the ontological argument.

I even remember one poster on here saying “all ontological arguments are false” and using this link as a resource for evidence.

I have not read it all, but I’m sure someone on here has.

Is the SE really implying that all ontological arguments are false?

And what if it is? What is the Catholic rebuttal of this section?

Well, if the SE was implying that all ontological arguments are false, St Thomas Aquinas would not agree with that in the least. The five proofs for the existence of God with which St Thomas begins his Summa Theologica are founded on metaphysical principles, the denial of which, at least for St Thomas, would be conceptually incoherent.

The very first paragraph of the SE article is wrong. The first proof of St Thomas for the existence of God is based on motion or change, that is, a phenomenon that is manifestly observable in the world. The second proof is based on efficient causes that is also manifestly observable. In fact, all the proofs can be said to be based on observation of the world because the world outside our heads is where we get our knowledge of things. I noticed that the article bypasses St Thomas pretty much. The Church teaches that the existence of God can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason. And St Paul says " From the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20).

The simple fact of the matter is that no one has demonstrated that the five proofs for the existence of God of St Thomas are false. The author of the SE article is either expressing his own opinion or the opinions of some philosophers which from the looks of the article appear to be mostly modern philosophers beginning with Rene Descartes. Modern philosophies are for the most part in error concerning philosophical truth or at least some or a great many philosophical truths. Our best guide for philosophical truth that is in conformity with divine revelation is St Thomas Aquinas. Divine revelation is the highest truth and a philosophy that is not in conformity with divine revelation is simply false. I would not take the SE article to seriously as it is the opinions of certain men or women or the author of the SE article itself and it is not the teaching of St Thomas.

 

[Peter_Plato]

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

This section doesn’t seem too favorable of the ontological argument.

Doesn’t seem very unfavourable, either.

It was written by Australian philosopher Graham Oppy, who is well-respected for his careful analysis of topics he addresses.

I even remember one poster on here saying “all ontological arguments are false” and using this link as a resource for evidence.

Well, that poster was mistaken. Oppy outlines the various forms of the argument and the objections raised to each. That is just being thorough. Nowhere does he make any statement to the effect that the argument has been falsified. I would suggest he remains, at least in this article, very respectful of the fact that the argument has puzzled many of the great intellects of philosophy, which should give anyone who claims the argument is blatantly false some pause before making such an untempered statement. The following notation made by Oppy about Bertrand Russell probably best sums up the position of Oppy in the Stanford article:

However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.

I have not read it all, but I’m sure someone on here has.

Is the SE really implying that all ontological arguments are false?

No where does he do that.

And what if it is? What is the Catholic rebuttal of this section?

No need for a Catholic rebuttal since many Catholic philosophers are likely as skeptical about the argument as any others. There is nothing particularly “Catholic” about the argument that requires defense.

Personally, I think it is pretty difficult to plausibly argue that a necessary being is merely possible. Logically, that means either a necessary being exists by definition or the whole concept is intrinsically incoherent. Unfortunately, the concept is not obviously incoherent, which is why the argument is difficult to dismiss out of hand.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, if the SE was implying that all ontological arguments are false, St Thomas Aquinas would not agree with that in the least. The five proofs for the existence of God with which St Thomas begins his Summa Theologica are founded on metaphysical principles, the denial of which, at least for St Thomas, would be conceptually incoherent.

Not quite correct.

The first paragraph states…

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

Ontological arguments are those which can be deduced from the analytic or necessary axioms of logic or reason.

Thomas’ Five ways were cosmological arguments, not ontological. They derive from metaphysical premises with regard to the nature of reality or the cosmos.

Thomas’ “metaphysical principles” are proposed from the nature of reality, not from logically necessary analytical principles. For Thomas, the nature of reality is thus, therefore we can conclude…

Ontological arguments begin from what is logically necessary and deduce what follows. The mere concept (such as necessary being) implies a reality. This is not what Thomas was up to. He argues from an undeniable reality (motion or change) to what must be the case (Uncaused Cause.)

Completely different enterprise.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Aquinas rejected the ontological argument as circular reasoning. It presumes to know an aspect of God (a Being of whom no being greater can be conceived) before proving that God exists. According to Aquinas we must by other means prove that God exists and only afterward move to the description of his attributes.

David Hume, essentially an atheist, said that one might as well not imagine as to imagine a being of which no being greater can be conceived. If one chooses not to imagine such a being, the concept can hardly have any weight of conviction.

I don’t say Hume’s argument is convincing to a theist, but it might be convincing to an atheist, who is the person Anselm hoped to reach by his argument.

 

[Bahman]

Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This section doesn’t seem too favorable of the ontological argument.

I even remember one poster on here saying “all ontological arguments are false” and using this link as a resource for evidence.

I have not read it all, but I’m sure someone on here has.

Is the SE really implying that all ontological arguments are false?

And what if it is? What is the Catholic rebuttal of this section?

Yes. All ontological arguments are wrong if we understand what existence is. Existence by definition is the fundamental mode of experience. The experience is one of the main attribute of consciousness. Consciousness is then the most fundamental aspect of cosmos and it is primary. What is primary cannot be created or districted. This simply means that we are who we are in absence or presence of any experience. Hence all ontological argument are wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, Ia, 2, I, ad 2.

“Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes. All ontological arguments are wrong if we understand what existence is. Existence by definition is the fundamental mode of experience. The experience is one of the main attribute of consciousness. Consciousness is then the most fundamental aspect of cosmos and it is primary. What is primary cannot be created or districted. This simply means that we are who we are in absence or presence of any experience. Hence all ontological argument are wrong.

Does that include your ontologcal argument (above) which claims to deduce from the analytical definition of “existence” as “the fundamental mode of experience” and “consciousness” as the “most fundamental aspect of the cosmos” that all ontological arguments are wrong – as if anyone (except perhaps God) could possibly have certain knowledge with regard to either claim.

Basically, what you have proposed – probably without knowing it – is an ontological argument for why all ontological arguments are wrong.

Nice! :clapping:

 

[Bahman]

Does that include your ontologcal argument (above) which claims to deduce from the analytical definition of “existence” as “the fundamental mode of experience” and “consciousness” as the “most fundamental aspect of the cosmos” that all ontological arguments are wrong – as if anyone (except perhaps God) could possibly have certain knowledge with regard to either claim.

Basically, what you have proposed – probably without knowing it – is an ontological argument for why all ontological arguments are wrong.

Nice! :clapping:

You didn’t pay any attention to main part of my argument. Existence is not matter at all since it only a mode of experience, we could experience or not and that doesn’t change what we really are. We as conscious being do not exist, we are simply beings. Ontological arguments however do depend on existence hence they are all wrong since things, what we experience, could exist or not. In simple word what is matter is to be and not to exist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We as conscious being do not exist, we are simply beings.

We “do not exist,” but we are “simply beings.”

How could we be “beings” if we do not exist?

Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?

It may help you sort out that little beauty.

Don’t even get me started on “what is matter is to be and not to exist.”

 

[Bahman]

We “do not exist,” but we are “simply beings.”

How could we be “beings” if we do not exist?

Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?

It may help you sort out that little beauty.

You again didn’t pay any attention to the definition of existence. Existence is only the fundamental mode of experience. Who you are does not have anything to do with your existence which is merely an experience (please pay attention to definition of existence).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ontological arguments however do depend on existence…

The idea of ontological arguments is they propose that the existence of something can be deduced from the mere idea or concept of it. The ontological status (being) can be inferred as necessary from mere analytical content.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…your existence … is merely an experience (please pay attention to definition of existence).

Why do we have any reason at all for thinking this to be true?

Other than, of course, that you arbitrarily define it to be so by YOUR declaration of the “definition of existence,” which I have honestly never, ever, seen before?

So you can define things into and out of existence by mere declarations concerning how they are to be defined?

Cool :jrbirdman:

This is way beyond what ontological arguments propose. At least they depend upon commonly held concepts instead of uniquely defined terms.

Unfortunately that still doesn’t bolster your argument that ontological arguments are false because surely if commonly understood concepts do not imply existence, why do we have any reason for thinking unprecedented idiosyncratic definitions or “mere experiences” do?

 

[Bahman]

The idea of ontological arguments is they propose that the existence of something can be deduced from the mere idea or concept of it.

You cannot possibly do that when any idea or concept depend on the meaning of existence. As I mentioned before existence is the fundamental mode of experience. Other mode of experience, like forms and motion sit upon existence. Concepts and ideas are forms hence they cannot be used to provide a way to prove the existence of something.

The ontological status (being) can be inferred as necessary from mere analytical content.

This is not possible since existence provides a substrate allowing that analytical content to exist.

 

[Bahman]

Why do we have any reason at all for thinking this to be true?

I already provide my framework which I think it is consistent otherwise you pick point an error.

Other than, of course, that you arbitrarily define it to be so by YOUR declaration of the “definition of existence,” which I have honestly never, ever, seen before?

It is very simple to understand that my definition is correct. Consider that you are looking at flower. The experience that you have contains the following modes, flower exist, it has a form and it gives you the impression of beauty. The existence of flower is the fundamental mode of experience since you can simply imagine a flower as a abstract thing which means that the form and sense of beauty are not necessary.

So you can define things into and out of existence by mere declarations concerning how they are to be defined?

Cool :jrbirdman:

No, it is matter of using a bit of abstraction to see how reality is, including the definition of existence.

This is way beyond what ontological arguments propose. At least they depend upon commonly held concepts instead of uniquely defined terms.

Well. I don’t understand what do you like to convey here. Could you please elaborate?

Unfortunately that still doesn’t bolster your argument that ontological arguments are false because surely if commonly understood concepts do not imply existence, why do we have any reason for thinking unprecedented idiosyncratic definitions or “mere experiences” do?

What is people definition of existence? People unfortunately don’t have any. Please read the following.

 

[Richca]

Not quite correct.

The first paragraph states…

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

This section doesn’t seem too favorable of the ontological argument.

I even remember one poster on here saying “all ontological arguments are false” and using this link as a resource for evidence.

I have not read it all, but I’m sure someone on here has.

Is the SE really implying that all ontological arguments are false?

And what if it is? What is the Catholic rebuttal of this section?

Hi Ben,

On balance the Stanford article seems pretty dismissive of ontological arguments but eventually concedes this:

Even if the forgoing analyses are correct, it is important to note that no argument has been given for the conclusion that no ontological argument can be successful. Even if all of the kinds of arguments produced to date are pretty clearly unsuccessful—i.e., not such as ought to give non-theists reason to accept the conclusion that God exists—it remains an open question whether there is some other kind of hitherto undiscovered ontological argument which does succeed. (Perhaps it is worth adding here that there is fairly widespread consensus, even amongst theists, that no known ontological arguments for the existence of God are persuasive. Most categories of ontological argument have some actual defenders; but none has a large following.)

I think it is correct to say that none of OA’s have a large following. However, this is in no small part due to poor scholarship across the centuries ever since Anselm wrote his Proslogion. For example, Charles Hartshorne has proved very clearly that the Proslogion contained two forms of the argument, the first and weaker form in Prosl. II and a second stronger argument in Prosl. III. This was not discovered until the 20th century. Critics still beat up on the first argument and triumphantly claim they have destroyed Anselm, while they totally ignore the second argument.

So I would not trust Graham Oppy’s treatment of the subject.

I note also that he is very dismissive of Hartshorne. I doubt that he has read Anselm’s Discovery. If he had, he wouldn’t say modal ontological arguments are “allegedly derived from Proslogion 3.” Hartshorne has conclusively shown that there is a modal argument in Prosl. 3.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

I would recommend that you begin with Anselm if you want to make a serious study of this. Keep in mind that this work is a prayer and meditation as well as a philosophical argument.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

For years I thought the first argument was flawed, but now I am not so sure. See James Cutsinger’s fine article here: cutsinger.net/pdf/thinking_the_unthinkable.pdf