Why do you doubt the Ontological Argument?

[Ghosty]

An objectively perfect being, cannot fail to exist; therefore it exists.

This presumes that an objectively perfect being is actual, and not imagined. I can imagine an ice-cream cone that has the property of necessary existence, an eternal ice-cream cone, an ice-cream cone that caused the Big Bang, that caused me to exist, but that doesn’t make it real. Even though I’m positing something that is necessary for my own existence, something that “necessarily exists”, it doesn’t mean that this thing is a reality even if I imagine it to have the property of “must exist”.

Likewise with anything that we could deem “perfect” doesn’t necessarily exist really, unless we can demonstrate that such a thing necessarily exists. “Objectively perfect” is not the same as “really necessary”, and that’s the key problem with this argument.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MindOverMatter]

This presumes that an objectively perfect being is actual, and not imagined. I can imagine an ice-cream cone that has the property of necessary existence, an eternal ice-cream cone, an ice-cream cone that caused the Big Bang, that caused me to exist, but that doesn’t make it real. Even though I’m positing something that is necessary for my own existence, something that “necessarily exists”, it doesn’t mean that this thing is a reality even if I imagine it to have the property of “must exist”.

Likewise with anything that we could deem “perfect” doesn’t necessarily exist really, unless we can demonstrate that such a thing necessarily exists. “Objectively perfect” is not the same as “really necessary”, and that’s the key problem with this argument.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MindOverMatter]

This presumes that an objectively perfect being is actual, and not imagined. I can imagine an ice-cream cone that has the property of necessary existence,

People keep putting out arguements like this, and it shows what i meant about people understanding what a perfect being entails.
It is impossible for an ice cream cone to have the property of neccesary existence, for there can always be something greater then an ice kone. The attribution of perfection to an ice cream cone is merely subjective. In fact anything that is a number or has a physcal dimension cannot possible be by definition the greatest being or a perfect being. For one can always add something to it. Therefore the greatest being is by definition the ground of all dimensional beings, and is that which gives the existence of dimensional beings, and at the same time transcends all dimensional beings.

None of what you said takes away from the fact that a perfect being cannot fail to exist.
The statement is self evidently true. If the statement is true, then a perfect being exists.

You seem to think that i am randomly putting words together.
First of all, i never defined what a perfect being is in terms of physical attributive discription. I merely described perfection as that which is complete in all things. A perfection is something that lacks in nothing. Numbers cannot be attributed to perfection because numbers are less then perfect. There is no difference between existence and perfection, for perfection cannot lack in existence by definition of perfectly being. A perfect being trancends contingent realities. Thus it has no potetial in its being. It simply exists. And because it exists perfectly, it cannot fail to exist at any time. It is eternal

This being is what the Christian understands as God; so far as God is by definition the greatest possible being.

 

[Ghosty]

People keep putting out arguements like this, and it shows what i meant about people understanding what a perfect being entails.
It is impossible for an ice cream cone to have the property of neccesary existence, for there is something greater then an ice kone. In fact anything that is a number or has a physcal dimension cannot possible be by definition the greatest being or a perfect being. For one can always add something to it. Therefore the greatest being is by definition the ground of all dimensional beings, and is that which gives the existence of dimensional beings, and at the same time transcends all dimensional beings.

You seem to think that i am randomly putting words together.
First of all, i never defined what a perfect being is in terms of physical attributive discription. I merely described perfection as that which is complete in all things. A perfection is something that lacks in nothing. Numbers cannot be attributed to perfection because numbers are less then perfect. There is no difference between existence and perfection, for perfection cannot lack in existence by definition of perfectly being. A perfect being trancends contingent realities. Thus it has no potetial in its being. It simply exists. And because it exists perfectly, it cannot fail to exist at any time. It is eternal

This being is what the Christian understands as God; so far as God is by definition the greatest possible being.

What your describing is not the same as the Ontological Argument, which is what I was addressing, and what I assumed you were supporting.

The argument that there must be a non-contingent being that is the root of all being is a sound one, and the one I find most convincing. It’s quite different than the argument that is the topic of this thread, however.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JDaniel]

Could it not be that people merely fail to grasp the meaning of what the greatest being entails. Something can be self evident, and yet, at the same time, somebody might fail to understand the meaning or result of something being true and therefore fail to grasp what is self evident.

The word perfection entails the lacking of nothing, most of all existence. The greatest being, is a perfect being, for it lacks no greatness; it has all the glory.
And so, an Objectively-Perfect-Being, by definition, cannot fail to exist. Therefore it exists.

Whats wrong with that?

Mind:

I have a problem with your statements: I can’t find anything wrong in them! “Perfect being” excludes by definition the possibilities of extant contraries within the being. If contraries existed, the being would not be perfect.

God bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

Let’s see . . .

According to A.W. Tozer, there are eighteen discernable attributes (determinates) from revelation. I think there are a couple more. Without the order of them being significant, let’s select one: omnipotence.

What can be said about omnipotence that would render it any less than it means?

OK, now the next one: omniscience.

What can be said about omniscience that would render it any less than it means?

And, the next: omnipresence.

What can be said about omnipresence that would render it any less than it means?

Next: omni-benevolence.

What can be said about omni-benevolence that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-wisdom.

What can be said about all-wise that would render it any less than it means?

Next: infinitude.

What can be said about infinitude that would render it any less than it means?

Next: sovereignty.

What can be said about sovereignty that would render it any less than it means?

Next: holiness.

What can be said about holiness that would render it any less than it means?

Next: trinity.

What can be said about trinity that would render it any less than it means?

Next: faithfulness.

What can be said about faithfulness that would render it any less than it means?

Next: self-existence.

What can be said about self-existence that would render it any less than it means?

Next: self-sufficiency.

What can be said about self-sufficiency that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-just.

What can be said about all-just that would render it any less than it means?

Next: immutability.

What can be said about immutability that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-merciful.

What can be said about all-merciful that would render it any less than it means?

Next: eternal.

What can be said about eternal that would render it any less than it means?

Next: graciousness.

What can be said about graciousness that would render it any less than it means?

Next: impassable.

What can be said about impassable that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-knowing.

What can be said about all-knowing that would render it any less than it means?

Next: simple.

What can be said about simple that would render it any less than it means?

Next: immaterial.

What can be said about immaterial that would render it any less than it means?

Next: loving.

What can be said about loving that would render it any less than it means?

Next: freedom.

What can be said about freedom that would render it any less than it means?

Next: jealousy.

What can be said about jealousy that would render it any less than it means?

Finally, what contraries exist among these attributes?

These are the attributes normally known of God by revelation. Once known, one has no excuse any more of not understanding what it means to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[1holycatholic]

This presumes that an objectively perfect being is actual, and not imagined. I can imagine an ice-cream cone that has the property of necessary existence, an eternal ice-cream cone, an ice-cream cone that caused the Big Bang, that caused me to exist, but that doesn’t make it real. Even though I’m positing something that is necessary for my own existence, something that “necessarily exists”, it doesn’t mean that this thing is a reality even if I imagine it to have the property of “must exist”.

Likewise with anything that we could deem “perfect” doesn’t necessarily exist really, unless we can demonstrate that such a thing necessarily exists. “Objectively perfect” is not the same as “really necessary”, and that’s the key problem with this argument.

Peace and God bless!

Your ice cream cone reminds me of Guanillo’s island. The OA doesn’t apply to anything other than there greatest conceivable being.

 

[Ghosty]

Your ice cream cone reminds me of Guanillo’s island. The OA doesn’t apply to anything other than there greatest conceivable being.

Right, but even then it’s still just a mental conception. There is absolutely nothing that necessitates the “greatest conceivable being” being actual rather than imagined, and that’s the point of my illustration.

Peace and God bless!

 

[1holycatholic]

Right, but even then it’s still just a mental conception. There is absolutely nothing that necessitates the “greatest conceivable being” being actual rather than imagined, and that’s the point of my illustration.

Peace and God bless!

Is existence greater (or not) than non-existence?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Is existence greater (or not) than non-existence?

I brilliant question with undeniable implications for those who reject OA on the grounds of conceptualisation.
IF Existence is greater then non-existence, then it follows neccesarily that…I will let somebody else fill in the rest!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Let’s see . . .

According to A.W. Tozer, there are eighteen discernable attributes (determinates) from revelation. I think there are a couple more. Without the order of them being significant, let’s select one: omnipotence.

What can be said about omnipotence that would render it any less than it means?

OK, now the next one: omniscience.

What can be said about omniscience that would render it any less than it means?

And, the next: omnipresence.

What can be said about omnipresence that would render it any less than it means?

Next: omni-benevolence.

What can be said about omni-benevolence that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-wisdom.

What can be said about all-wise that would render it any less than it means?

Next: infinitude.

What can be said about infinitude that would render it any less than it means?

Next: sovereignty.

What can be said about sovereignty that would render it any less than it means?

Next: holiness.

What can be said about holiness that would render it any less than it means?

Next: trinity.

What can be said about trinity that would render it any less than it means?

Next: faithfulness.

What can be said about faithfulness that would render it any less than it means?

Next: self-existence.

What can be said about self-existence that would render it any less than it means?

Next: self-sufficiency.

What can be said about self-sufficiency that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-just.

What can be said about all-just that would render it any less than it means?

Next: immutability.

What can be said about immutability that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-merciful.

What can be said about all-merciful that would render it any less than it means?

Next: eternal.

What can be said about eternal that would render it any less than it means?

Next: graciousness.

What can be said about graciousness that would render it any less than it means?

Next: impassable.

What can be said about impassable that would render it any less than it means?

Next: all-knowing.

What can be said about all-knowing that would render it any less than it means?

Next: simple.

What can be said about simple that would render it any less than it means?

Next: immaterial.

What can be said about immaterial that would render it any less than it means?

Next: loving.

What can be said about loving that would render it any less than it means?

Next: freedom.

What can be said about freedom that would render it any less than it means?

Next: jealousy.

What can be said about jealousy that would render it any less than it means?

Finally, what contraries exist among these attributes?

These are the attributes normally known of God by revelation. Once known, one has no excuse any more of not understanding what it means to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

Wow! Thanks:thumbsup: . But whats up with jealousy? Thats not an attribute of God.

 

[JDaniel]

In an earlier post, I listed the standard determinates (attributes) belonging to God, as derived from scriptures. I asked two questions: (1) what could be said about the specific attribute that would reduce it from its position of superlativity, and, (2) which attribute, or attributes, is/are contrary to any other attribute, or, attributes, and why?

A persistent argument in several of the threads has been whether or not any of the attributes could really be understood (by us) to be its superlative, because “superlativity” is so confusing and definitionally different amongst us. And, second, that if God possessed all of these attributes at one time, would there exist (in Him) any conflicting attributes that would cancel “greatness”.

It is my contention (although I could be wrong) that the simplicity of each attribute insists on its superlativity. Ignoring, for our purposes herein only, such things as poverty, war, torture, abortions, and other man-made insanities, I would like to discover which of the enumerated attributes fails the test of un-muddied comprehension, on the one hand, then, on the other hand, which of the attributes is in conflict with what other attribute, or even with itself.

I contend that if no serious defect(s) can be found in any of them (excluding purely semantic chicanery) the OA stands the perfect chance of being validly and certainly grounded and inerrant. If that’s the case, then, clearly God exists as the arguments that the OA can be false are completely removed.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

Wow! Thanks:thumbsup: . But whats up with jealousy? Thats not an attribute of God.

It is considered to be an attribute from its many instances in scripture, such as,

“. . . for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” Exodus 34:14

“Jealousy” doesn’t have to have the bad connotation it seems to enjoy there days. Every one who loves another harbors it. It is a natural offspring of love, so long as it is controlled (by us mortals).

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is considered to be an attribute from its many instances in scripture, such as,

“. . . for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” Exodus 34:14

“Jealousy” doesn’t have to have the bad connotation it seems to enjoy there days. Every one who loves another harbors it. It is a natural offspring of love, so long as it is controlled (by us mortals).

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

An interesting point. But In the past i have always looked upon it as a metaphore describing what Gods actions looked like to the Author. For the Author, God doesn’t like us living with the enemy, to such an extent as to punish us; and this is because God knows that evil will destroy us. The punishment is for our sake. The Author then realises that there is a simerlarity between human relationships, and fueds between lovers and sees it as a useful creative analogy (the lovers fued concept is a recuring idea in scripture; the "bride groom" and the “whore of babylon” for example are expressions concerning are relationship with God). God loves us, and so the author attributes jealously to God, but only to express the intensity of Gods love.

Then again i may be wrong. I have been wrong before.

 

[Ghosty]

Is existence greater (or not) than non-existence?

That’s a matter of debate, but it’s really irrelevant. Even if it’s given that actual existence is greater than merely imagined existence, there’s nothing that necessitates something imagined being actual, even if it would be greater if it were actual.

Basically it boils down to this: you can tell me to imagine the greatest, most perfect thing in the universe, and then say it would only be the greatest if it was actually existing, and I can say “yep, but just because I imagined ‘the greatest thing’ doesn’t mean it must exist”. You’ve shown that something is greater if it exists, as opposed to being merely imagined, but you haven’t proven that it must really exist.

This is why my ice-cream example is pertinent; I’ll admit that an ice-cream cone that exists is better than one that’s imagined, but there’s nothing necessitating the ice-cream cone being real.

Here’s another flaw in the argument: something that actually exists is greater than something that is merely imagined, and I’m imagining this object as having the property of necessary existence, but this is an imagined property, not an actual one. Since actual existence is greater than imagined, the most I can do is imagine certain traits, and since those traits aren’t actual they can’t be used to necessitate any actual existence. My entire mental conception remains in a lower order, and no imagined property can cause this conception to cross the boundary into actuality, just as actuality can only come from actuality (which, incidentally, is a sound proof for the existence of God, since only God can be eternally actual, and things exist but aren’t eternally actual, therefore things are brought into actuality by the only eternally actual thing, which is God; the universe exists, therefore there is a God).

So, in short, the argument shoots itself in the foot by supposing that actual existence is greater than imagined existence, because that automatically means that anything I imagine need not be actual.

Peace and God bless!

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s a matter of debate, but it’s really irrelevant. Even if it’s given that actual existence is greater than merely imagined existence, there’s nothing that necessitates something imagined being actual, even if it would be greater if it were actual.

Basically it boils down to this: you can tell me to imagine the greatest, most perfect thing in the universe, and then say it would only be the greatest if it was actually existing, and I can say “yep, but just because I imagined ‘the greatest thing’ doesn’t mean it must exist”. You’ve shown that something is greater if it exists, as opposed to being merely imagined, but you haven’t proven that it must really exist.

This is why my ice-cream example is pertinent; I’ll admit that an ice-cream cone that exists is better than one that’s imagined, but there’s nothing necessitating the ice-cream cone being real.

Here’s another flaw in the argument: something that actually exists is greater than something that is merely imagined, and I’m imagining this object as having the property of necessary existence, but this is an imagined property, not an actual one. Since actual existence is greater than imagined, the most I can do is imagine certain traits, and since those traits aren’t actual they can’t be used to necessitate any actual existence. My entire mental conception remains in a lower order, and no imagined property can cause this conception to cross the boundary into actuality, just as actuality can only come from actuality (which, incidentally, is a sound proof for the existence of God, since only God can be eternally actual, and things exist but aren’t eternally actual, therefore things are brought into actuality by the only eternally actual thing, which is God; the universe exists, therefore there is a God).

So, in short, the argument shoots itself in the foot by supposing that actual existence is greater than imagined existence, because that automatically means that anything I imagine need not be actual.

Peace and God bless!

Again, the argument is only for the greatest conceivable being, not for anything that can be imagined. Necessary existence is a perfection of the greatest conceivable being.

 

[cpayne]

There’s another thread going on now that is similar to this one. If you all don’t mind, I’d like to post something I wrote over there I think might apply to the discussion here, too:

Fair enough. But look at it this way:

What the OA does first of all is define what we’re arguing about when we argue about God’s existence. The best definition we have is “Supreme Being” or “Greatest Conceivable Being.”

The OA then argues that necessary existence would be an attribute of the GCB. If the GCB does not possess necessary existence, it would not be the GCB.

**This doesn’t prove that God exists. But what it does show **is that if God exists now, God has to exist, necessarily.

On the other hand, if God does not exist now, God could not come into existence in the future. If so, God would not be a necessarily existing being, but contingent, and so again would not be the GCB.

Either God exists now or not. This would entail that either God exists now, necessarily, or cannot exist at all, ever (because God does not exist and cannot come into existence).

This is what I think the OA actually does: it makes it either that God exists now necessarily or CANNOT exist. The option of agnosticism which you mentioned is still open, but limited; it would just mean that the agnostic does not have an argument for God’s existence being impossible, but thinks that such an argument could arise sometime.

If, on the other hand, God’s existence is not impossible, then by this argument it would be entailed.

So I guess I was arguing that even if the OA doesn’t do what Anselm thought it did, it does have a good logical function related to arguments about God’s existence.

Corrections and suggestions for improvement welcome.

 

[Ghosty]

Again, the argument is only for the greatest conceivable being, not for anything that can be imagined. Necessary existence is a perfection of the greatest conceivable being.

The Greatest Conceivable Being is still, by definition, imagined and not actual. It’s real, but only real in the mind; it doesn’t necessarily have its own actual reality, and therefore “necessary existence” remains an imagined trait of an imaginary being, not something that turns an imagined being into an actual being.

Peace and God bless!

 

[cpayne]

Is existence greater (or not) than non-existence?

Ever since Kant, the answer has been: Probably not. But most people who argue for the Ontological Argument change the question slightly: “Is the quality of NECESSARY existence greater than non-existence, or greater than simply existing?” The anwer to this is: “Probably.” So the debate over the OA continues.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Ever since Kant, the answer has been: Probably not.

How can any reasonable person dare even concieve of questioning the notion that Being is greater then non-being?!!

It seems pretty obvious to me, as obvious as the notion that i exist; so i must be missing something?