Why do you doubt the Ontological Argument?

[JDaniel]

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument states,

"that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

What are your doubts with this?

Respectfully,

JD
P.S. This thread is a result of perhaps having too many questions/variables in my other, recent opening proposition.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

• St. Thomas Aquinas

Peace and God bless!

 

[JDaniel]

• St. Thomas Aquinas

Peace and God bless!

I am familiar with St. Thomas’ reasons for his position, and, I suppose he might have been correct - especially after the past months of trying to defend it against the onslaught from the atheists on this forum. It would appear that his statements rang true loud and clear, although I am not absolutely convinced of this.

However, what about for those who believe that God exists? Does the argument present any problems?

God bless,
JD

 

[1holycatholic]

I am familiar with St. Thomas’ reasons for his position, and, I suppose he might have been correct - especially after the past months of trying to defend it against the onslaught from the atheists on this forum. It would appear that his statements rang true loud and clear, although I am not absolutely convinced of this.

However, what about for those who believe that God exists? Does the argument present any problems?

God bless,
JD

I, too, am not absolutely convinced by Aquinas’ argument in this case. At least it is better than the “a greatest conceivable being must be a contradiction (both the shortest and longest…)” argument floating around in another thread. :whacky:

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

The only problem with that quote (in my own personal opinion), it is presented as a definition.

People mess up big time when they attempt to define God–a mysterious being who we can’t claim to know. A dangerous line is crossed.

I apologize if that was an irrelevant response, but I had to comment.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Dameedna]

Why do you keep posing the same question in other threads, and in new threads?

Why is this meaningful?

It isn’t. Unless you already have an idea, of God in your head. It’s a meaningles argument.

I don’t doubt it. It is logically sound. Means nothing.

 

[JDaniel]

Why do you keep posing the same question in other threads, and in new threads?

Why is this meaningful?

Uh, because another member - whose (name removed by moderator)ut I value - suggested it.

God bless,
JD

 

[Ghosty]

From another thread:

However, in the case of Anselm’s argument, he merely suggests that there might be people who really do not understand what is meant by the word God, and/or, may be atheistic, These surmises do not necessarily disprove Anslem’s argument, they simply suggest that some people might not be inclined to accept some of the pre-suppositions, or, that they may be harder to sway.

This is reason enough to disbelieve the ontological argument. If the proof is not evident on the face, then it isn’t a proof but merely a suggestion.

As for thoroughly disproving the ontological argument, I think Aquinas does a good job by simply pointing out that just because we can think of something doesn’t mean it exists outside our mind. The GCB is merely conceivable, not real, and tacking on “but it would be even greater if it really existed” doesn’t prove that it exists outside the mind, it merely proves that the mind can conceive of things that would be greater than its own limits.

Basically the GCB is assuming a Platonic metaphysical model without proving it, and there are plenty of good arguments against the Platonic model (Aristotle did a fine job of taking it apart millenia ago).

Peace and God bless!

 

[cpayne]

Here’s how I understand Aquinas’s position on the OA (please, someone correct me if this is off):

If we could understand God’s essence in the same way He understands it, we would see that His existence is entailed. In other words, His existence would be self-evident, as the OA argues.

However, we cannot understand God’s essence in the same way He understands it.

So God’s existence is not self-evident, as in the OA, but must be approached by evidence and inference, as in the Cosmological Argument.

Does this sound like Aquinas?

I love Aquinas very much. I have troubles with this argument, however. I think I just like the OA a lot; it seems so elegant and beautiful.

 

[Starwynd]

Because it is mere speculation, nothing more.

 

[JDaniel]

Because it is mere speculation, nothing more.

Below are the definitions of “speculation” that inure to that word:

Dictionary.com
**speculation -
–noun

1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity’s ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking. **

Below is the definition of the word “logic”:

**Dictionary.com
logic -
–noun

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn’t much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.**

Did you mean to say “speculation” even though a logical propostion is not a “speculation”?

Just asking, as otherwise, your post isn’t appropriate to the OP.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[Starwynd]

And that’s what we call nitpicking over tiny details in order to make a semantic argument in order to proclaim the higher moral ground.

Another kind of Godwin’s law. In that there will always be someone who wants to start an argument over the semantic meaning of a word in order to make themselves look more “right” than the other person. And of course there’ll be outrage over getting the “wrong” meaning of a word.

 

[JDaniel]

And that’s what we call nitpicking over tiny details in order to make a semantic argument in order to proclaim the higher moral ground.

Another kind of Godwin’s law. In that there will always be someone who wants to start an argument over the semantic meaning of a word in order to make themselves look more “right” than the other person. And of course there’ll be outrage over getting the “wrong” meaning of a word.

Or, rather than debate in honesty, one takes an “argumentative” stance, provoking argument, not honoring the intent of the OP and the other members that have responded. Purely argumentative statements have no place in these forums, but, if you make one you should be prepared to get one back. That’s called “coming down to your level.”

Regarding your “higher ground” accusation, I believe that any debate, whether philosophical or not, should require of anyone giving (name removed by moderator)ut, “correctly used words and phrases.” Otherwise, how does one argue against something that is not germane? For example, I say, “That color is red.” You say, “No, it is a mathematical equasion.”

Now, I understand that nobody can write down the language perfectly, that errors occur. Often I am exceedingly lenient in that regard. But, when the reply’s purpose appears to be speciousness and argumentativeness, I will ask for precision.

Sorry.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[Starwynd]

The question was asked was why do you doubt the Ontological argument, I was not taking an argumentative stance but explaining why I don’t like them. You’re the one making wrongful assumptions about my intentions, and hen doing your best to bury your junk under a mountain of rationality and anal attention to details. I am not a person who likes going through all kinds of details and likes to keeps things simple and I do not appreciate people who love to put me through the wringer under false assumptions in order to make me look like an *** when I was not attempting to be.

And I refuse to do so just to placate such a person. I do not play semantic games because they are so boorish and accomplish nothing but resentment and contempt towards the people who do nor am I trying to be an instigator. You can go ahead an claim the higher moral ground if you want to, I feel no such need to play such an idiotic game.

And this will be my last post so if the last word is important to you, and I suspect it is, then you can claim it.

 

[JDaniel]

Here’s how I understand Aquinas’s position on the OA (please, someone correct me if this is off):

If we could understand God’s essence in the same way He understands it, we would see that His existence is entailed. In other words, His existence would be self-evident, as the OA argues.

However, we cannot understand God’s essence in the same way He understands it.

So God’s existence is not self-evident, as in the OA, but must be approached by evidence and inference, as in the Cosmological Argument.

Does this sound like Aquinas?

I love Aquinas very much. I have troubles with this argument, however. I think I just like the OA a lot; it seems so elegant and beautiful.

Yes, that would be Aquinas’ position on it. I agree with you regarding the love of the elegance of the argument.

But, Aquinas’ arguments are derived from abstractions from viewings of the real world. Now, those “viewings” of the real world might not have come directly to his eyes, as he could have been blind. They might have been reported to him. Nevertheless, they are real and the conclusions are correct and valid, as the premises are, and have been, easily seen and verified by many others.

I would ask, would not the eighteen determinates (attributes) of God, derived from similar reports, written down in the Bible, be just as correct and valid a ground for the OA?

One could counter, “Well, the biblical reports are said to be merely ‘revelations’ from God to various (relatively few) men.”

But, would not such revelations - that the rest of us have not seen nor verified, just as no person devoid of sight, or several of the other senses, would likewise have been able to view the ground occurences - have the same weight of veracity that Aquinas’ viewings have?

IOW, why would we refuse to accept the revelations of God’s attributes from the Bible reports, but, not refuse to accept the revelations of the cosmos, reported to us, by others? Does this not seem at least a little illogical?

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

The question was asked was why do you doubt the Ontological argument, I was not taking an argumentative stance but explaining why I don’t like them. You’re the one making wrongful assumptions about my intentions, and hen doing your best to bury your junk under a mountain of rationality and anal attention to details. I am not a person who likes going through all kinds of details and likes to keeps things simple and I do not appreciate people who love to put me through the wringer under false assumptions in order to make me look like an *** when I was not attempting to be.

And I refuse to do so just to placate such a person. I do not play semantic games because they are so boorish and accomplish nothing but resentment and contempt towards the people who do nor am I trying to be an instigator. You can go ahead an claim the higher moral ground if you want to, I feel no such need to play such an idiotic game.

And this will be my last post so if the last word is important to you, and I suspect it is, then you can claim it.

Starwynd:

I accept your wrath and sincerely apologize. I confess that I confused you with another poster.

Once again, my deepest apologies.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[Starwynd]

Thank you, I appreciate the apology. I have been in a really poor mood all day because I often get people who have taken a post like the one I made wrongly and want to get into my face over it. It gets really frustrating because they make me jump through all kinds of hoops in order to placate them and I am just incredibly frustrated. Sometimes it’s an honest mistake but other times some posters just want to get into an argument. And that’s why I was a bit upset with you.

And I apologize for my poor behavior and bad language as well.

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you, I appreciate the apology. I have not been in a really poor mood all day because I often get people who have taken a post like the one I made wrongly and want to get into my face over it. It gets really frustrating because they make me jump through all kinds of hoops in order to placate them and I am just incredibly frustrated. Sometimes it’s an honest mistake but other times some posters just want to get into an argument. And that’s why I was a bit upset with you.

And I apologize for my poor behavior and bad language as well.

“A bit upset with me!” You beat the heck out of me! :extrahappy:

I’m just kidding. And, you are right, that same thing happens to me. I’d like to take full responsibility for my actions, but, sometimes I wonder if part of the confusion/frustration isn’t from the restrictive parameters of the the software we are using.

If we were sitting in a room, what I just did to you would not have happened. I would have recognized you and known what you were trying to accomplish. The last time I did this I promised myself it wouldn’t happen again.

Starwynd, I know you now. I will always be here to help, if you need me, against some of those other jerks out there

Merry Christmas, Love and
God Bless you!
JD

 

[JDaniel]

The only problem with that quote (in my own personal opinion), it is presented as a definition.

People mess up big time when they attempt to define God–a mysterious being who we can’t claim to know. A dangerous line is crossed.

I apologize if that was an irrelevant response, but I had to comment.

Blade:

Actually that was a knock-me-in-the-head response! That got me thinking about the grounds for premises of the argument. In fact, I went there earlier, in another post, and, upon coming back to this post,realized why.

You are absolutely right on.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[MindOverMatter]

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?