Do I not understand the Ontological Argument...

[cuppajoe_9]

...or is it just really really bad?


1. God is something so great that nothing greater can be imagined.
2. One of the properties of greatness is existence.
3. If God existed only in the understanding, one could imagine him to be greater by existing in reality.
4. Therefore God, by definition, exists both in the understanding and in reality.

My main problems with this are that it is 1. circular, 2. a word game and 3. so weak that nobody who does not already believe in God could possibly take it seriously. What am I missing?

[Kurtz]

You are not missing anything. The above argument is why people of reason laugh at such ignorant conclusions.

[subterranean]

Say, where the quotation come from?

[mir]

:p it's like the old proofs. . .

Women = time x money

Time IS money

Women = money x money = money ^ 2

Money is the root of all evil

money = sqrt(evil)
=> money^2 = evil

since women = money^2

women = evil :)

[cuppajoe_9]

Say, where the quotation come from?It's a simplification of St. Anselm's interpretation of the Ontological argument in the Proslogion. Anselm isn't the clearest of writers, but I think I managed to untangle it with a little help from my philosophy prof and wikipedia.

[Thorwench]

I thought it is Anselm but it is not as stupid as some people obviously think. It is called the ontological proof because it acts upon the assumption that a thing that can be thought must exist (be) since existence (being) lies in thinking (ontos/being). Or, in other words: the subjective idea proves objective existence. This is certainly something really Platonic and is part of Anselm's merits which was to bring reason into the play. He thought, like Berengar, that it is reason which makes man into the image of God or, that it is reason and reason alone that likens man to God. For Platon, only ideas have real existence. One can see, how this then develops into Anselm "And so we believe that nothing higher than thou can be thought". I don't remember the original Latin wording very well but I would think that Anselm intends a "think" rather than an "imagine". Which would make more sense anyway but correct me if I'm wrong.
In a sense, Anselm's proof is also reminiscent of Aristotle (but Aristostle was lost in the early middle ages and returns in the course of the 13th century through Arab translations, Anselm died in 1109, i.e. he wouldn't have had any direct access to the Great Philosopher). However, Aristotle, looking at objective reality and its underlying laws, also arrived at the conclusion that there must be a final cause of all which then must be its own cause because it cannot be caused by something else (causa sui) and comes up with the picture of the unmoved mover, i.e. the one the moves all which we then call God. However, Aristotle's attempt is objectively inspired, Anselm's subjectively. I alway held that Anselm's phrase is the most beautiful postulation in all philosophy "Und zwar glauben wir, dass nichts Höheres als Du gedacht werden kann".

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes, after a few more philosophy lectures I did manage to tease out the idea (although I don't know if it was Anselm's or Descartes') that the fact of an idea of a God implies that there must be such a thing, as ideas do not just spring from nowhere. However, the fallacy that Descartes makes is in assuming that people are born with an idea of God. This is demonstrably false. I remember reading a study of the lower classes in Industrial Revolution England, wherein the studier interviewed some of the factory workers to see how educated they were. When questioned about God, some of the more ridiculously uneducated workers had never heard of such a thing. A similar phenomenon can be seen in children raised in religions such as Buddhism which have no concept of god.

In any case, Anselm's logic promptly falls apart when applied to anything other than a deity. I, for example, have a very clear idea of a footballer so great that none greater can be imagined, but that doesn't mean that there is such a thing.

The 'First Cause' argument, it must be said, does have somthing to it. Nothing too terribly convincing, but something anyway.

[ShoutGrace]

The problem lies in the premises. The following from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

All theists and non-theists should grant that the following argument is sound, given that the connectives are to be interpretted classically: "Either 2+2=5, or God exists. 2+2 does not equal 5. Hence God exists." It should be completely obvious that this argument is entirely useless.

It is simply a mistake for a theist to say: "Since the premise is true (and the argument is valid), this argument shows that the conclusion of the argument is true."

To put it in a most basic form, if I doubt that it is rational to accept the claim that God exists, then you can quite sure that I will doubt that it is rational to accept the claim that either 2+2=5 or God exists. I guess the critical word is "or." The proponent of an argument needs to establish the connective.


I found Plantiga's argument much more interesting than Anselm's, and I also found it laudable that he acknowledged it in no way constituted a forcing or necessarily realistic argument.

Plantinga writes: "Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational (?) to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion."

So, ultimately, it doesn't do much, but it still makes sense to agree with it?!? :D

And finally:



1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7. (Hence) God does not exist.


:D

[cuppajoe_9]

Ah yes, the good old "the argument is patently useless, but I like the conclusion" manoever.

[byquist]

You are not missing anything. The above argument is why people of reason laugh at such ignorant conclusions.

Scoffing, as above, tends to be an easy and pat attempt to dismiss an issue. But even a secular-tending character as Drummond in "Inherit the Wind" has a healthy respect for the religious Brady who he successfully battles, and stands up for him in the last act after Brady has died. Then there is the slight debate in "The Elephant Man" between Gom (the scientist) and the Reverend, and Gom retains a healthy respect for the Reverend, despite their differences.

[Thorwench]

Some of the greatest fallacies contain the greatest beauty. Not only in structure but also in content. Spinoza's "Ethics" isn't provable, doesn't work. However, it is clear as a crystal and shows a logical structure that equals a snowflake. The same with Anselm. The fact that reason became something theologians even considered is due to Anselm. For us, this seems a matter of course, it was not then. Descartes' mind/body problem is so simple that you do it with 1st year students. However, it was Descartes who brought rationalism back into science as it was then. We stand on the shoulders of others and should not look or kick down at them if we don't wonna tumble. The mind/body problem is still not solved. We still struggle with the dichotomy conceived through Descartes. But then, such postulations, even if fallacious, should be contemplated on and if it only were for the simple reason that it is a great privilege and a great joy to see man's mind at work.

[cuppajoe_9]

Some of the greatest fallacies contain the greatest beauty.And sometimes they contain the greates arrogance. Anselm refered to atheists as fools. In fact, he used the word 'fool' to mean 'atheist'. I am not endeared.

[Thorwench]

And sometimes they contain the greates arrogance. Anselm refered to atheists as fools. In fact, he used the word 'fool' to mean 'atheist'. I am not endeared.

Well, you don't have to be. But you shouldn't measure people who lived 900 years ago by the standards of today, this seems a) a little bit unfair and b) may cloud your view to find things that may be useful or worthwile. I am not a Platonist myself, if I were I could never say that fallacious arguments can be beautiful since only truth can be, and must be, beautiful. If you do philosophy, bring a little bit of respect which you require to understand. We start philosophy by asking and by trying to understand. You may critize Anselm's or any other thinker's arrogance once you have deserved your own.

[Kurtz]

Scoffing, as above, tends to be an easy and pat attempt to dismiss an issue. But even a secular-tending character as Drummond in "Inherit the Wind" has a healthy respect for the religious Brady who he successfully battles, and stands up for him in the last act after Brady has died. Then there is the slight debate in "The Elephant Man" between Gom (the scientist) and the Reverend, and Gom retains a healthy respect for the Reverend, despite their differences.

I will quit scoffing at such weak arguments when they are successfully defended. Why should I not view people who hold these ideas with contempt? I like the candor of your response, but I do not see how alluding to a few literary characters and how they act proves your point. Moreover, scoffing is not an attempt to dismiss an issue, but instead, it is my way of requiring people who make claims about the universe to back them up with something besides ignorance.

[byquist]

Kurtz,

Fair enough. I did sense that the originator put forth an honest inquiry, far better than much of the nonsense I have to graciously read and grade on a daily basis. My implication was that those two secularists still held in reasonable esteem their diehard opponents.

Identifying contemptibility and ignorance is too complex an area for me to venture upon - so I applaud your direct boldness. Still, wit sometimes can make more of a sting and impact than a direct attack. But, there are many roads to Rome.

Byquist

[negoeyore]

I agree with you that it is circular, but the poposotions that the speaker uses are false. With false propostions, you've got a invalid arguement.

[Pendragon]

Something tells me the originator of that argument forgot to think it over before make it a pillar of faith. Had they done so, they would have found they had a weak argument. Mind you, I believe firmly in God, but this argument is not one to take to battle with you.

Pen

[Taliesin]

Let us state two properties (greatness, let's denote it with g, and existence in this world, let us denote it with e) and then view the properties of all possible elements in the group, into which belong all elements that either exist or don't exist in this reality.
I. Let us presume that such a group exists. Let's call it C.
II. g(God) can be the supremum of all g-s, if We define it so. In fact, yes, let's define g(God) as supremum of all g-s.
II.It is stated that g(P(+))>g(P(-)) when the only difference between P(+) and P(-) is that e(P(+)) is positive and e(P(-)) is negative. This is considered to be an axiom.
III.Let us assume that g(God(-)) is certainly an upper bound of g-s in the group C/(God(+)U God(-)). (basically, let's assume that sup(C) is either God(+) or God(-))
IV.
However, We know that g(God(+))>g(God(-)) due to point II. God(+) and God(-) both belong to C. Hence (God(-)) can't be an upper bound since there is a greater element than it in the group. Thus the only supremum left is g(God(+))
Thus God(+) is the supremum of the group - e.g God exists.


We would continue, but we need another drink before that.

[Orionsbelt]

Thus God(+) is the supremum of the group - e.g God exists.

We would continue, but we need another drink before that.

Not so easy I'm not sure that your notation is clear at least to me. Could you explain what looks like the intersection of set theory with something else?

g - all greatness ... g-s ? P() is ? anyway great if your counting marbles.. not so great if marbles can be other things or make other marbles or even pearls out of nothing at all.

I'll drink to that!

[Etienne]

You have to realize that St Anselm's proof was what... 12th century (edit: 11th century)? And that it has been rejected by almost every philosophers after, from Thomas Aquinas (St Thomas) to Kant. There is no philosophical proof of God that have survived philosophically and not because it was refuted by atheist philosophers either, because they were all refuted by theist philosophers.

As for your remarks, they are justified. The argument did make more sense at the time if we consider the thesis he was refuting and the philosophical context. The word "imagine" is translated from cogitare which could be better translated in "understand" as well, which might at least bring more sense in the argument.

Also to say it's an "ontological" argument, like it's called is slightly off track, as there is no previous conception of "essence" or "existence", but lies in fact between the relation between thought and perfection, or the existence of the maximum outside thought,
-Alain de Libera, my traduction and paraphrasing.

You cannot expect to dig up ancient and medieval philosophers and expect to find truths, there is some interesting ideas that they originated but have been developed better afterwards. The main point of interest in studying these philosophers is an historical point of view, and allows a better understanding of the process of thought through history. The conceptual worlds, mostly aristotelician and neo-platonician, these philosophers were thinking in is different from the vision of the world that we might have now.

[Taliesin]

Not so easy I'm not sure that your notation is clear at least to me. Could you explain what looks like the intersection of set theory with something else?

g - all greatness ... g-s ? P() is ? anyway great if your counting marbles.. not so great if marbles can be other things or make other marbles or even pearls out of nothing at all.

I'll drink to that!
It is an intersection with set theory and us being drunk.

[Pensive]

It is an intersection with set theory and us being drunk.

:lol:

[Orionsbelt]

I'm think'n cause it made alot more sense after some holiday cheer. I started to notice it's like Pi where we all in one big circle and I'm in th middle ... and everyone else is around but.... then they are in the middle of their circle so it's like paint ball ... then I don't remember anything after that...


Happy holidays:santasmil

[Ludmila607]

The argument was critizised to be a phalacy.(petitio principii)a circular argument as someone called it.
Pretending to proove an existence based on its idea , can be only understood by the carefully reading of Descartes " Rules of Method".I think he afirmes that Gods exist beacuse we , finit, imperfect,limited have the idea of an infinite, perfect and powerful ente we call God.
How can I doubt it?
That seem so clear and distinct as the three triangle sides, if awake if asleep...I can doubt about myself...not Gods existance cause his idea and properties are into my since I am alive.
I knowit has debilities...seems to be circular.
Refute it if you can!!:D

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

...or is it just really really bad?



My main problems with this are that it is 1. circular, 2. a word game and 3. so weak that nobody who does not already believe in God could possibly take it seriously. What am I missing?

Without reading other posts, I suggest reading Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason for a very detailed and exact explanation as to why all ontological arguments are necessarily flawed. If I recall, there is a confusion between "grounds for knowing" and "reason for something," or at least something along those lines. He addresses the ontological argument within the first few pages.

It might also interest you to read Wittgenstein's philosophy of language; although that gives the best, most complete explanation, it is pretty difficult.

[Ludmila607]

Wittgenstein, yes.
He started being anti metaphysich and end to be a true mistic.Not at Pascal Mood but going from the identification of reallyty to dicourse about reallity and afirmations such as only is real what can be named and can be declared true or false...
He went smoothering his analithical and logical fanatism surrendering to methaphysich little by little.MAybe cause he was ill and will face an early dead.
Wittgesntein is a Phylosophy monster.Shy,brilliant, disappointed to humanity.
Chosed Ireland to live his last days.
No words to define him.

[NikolaiI]

Glancing over some of the comments on this thread but not reading them all, I'd just like to give my suggestion; a perhaps more eloquent, better, proof, that would never-the-less get less support and enthusiasm, is this: I can see God, therefore He can see me. Which is like this; if you think things can be connected in a vast, vast way, beyond imagining, beyond time, in a way that actually slips through all the doors of reality, then this is true, in fact, and it is a more real reality, a more real being; yet this true reality, the one that slips through the holes of the common illusion, would not be seen by anyone else, and to speak of it would seem madness. Therefore: I see God-- something no one else can see-- and through my new vision I can see that it is real, and I can see that God sees me.

[Etienne]

Wittgenstein, yes.
He started being anti metaphysich and end to be a true mistic.

He never became a mystic. His first work (and the only he published while he was living), the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was a treaty about trying to analyze the language down to it's basic forms, a bit the same method that led Descartes to the " doubt, therefore I think therefore I am" but Wittgenstein took a different path. He later abandoned this logical language for an analysis of the ordinary language, and other occupations (philosophy was only one of his occupations, this genius...)

He never went to metaphysics, I'm not sure where you picked that up...

[Ludmila607]

Yes he did...He started as a radical defender of LOGICAL ANALIZING FROM LANGUAJE and tried to identified what propositions make sense and what did not make sense .METAPHISICAL propositions were considered empty, non sense not improving human knowledge or undestanding of the world.
That kind of ideas will influence over movements as Circle Of Viena and all first half of twenty century thought about SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY were philosophy is considered only Analitic Philosophy to elaborate the Characteristica UNiversalis dreamed by Leibniz , I mean a common languaje used by scientis, free from ambiguety and error...free from Methaphisycal concepts.
But, after years passed and maybe because of being at he front of war or knowing he was ill he went less radical about Methaphysics and maybe you should read some actualized Biography to know I am not wrong...
He was a brilliant man and brilliant men change their mind.

[Etienne]

I agree but that doesn't make him a mystic... he simply moderated his view of logicisation of language and approached the language in it's "natural" or "popular" form, as he realized that it was futile to try to create a complete logicisation of the language (not because of his years in war, he wrote the Tractatus while at war and his philosophical turn came many years later, and not because he was ill, because his philosophical turn came before).

In his analysis of the ordinary language he was as far of a mystic as his earlier days and was still very much rationalist, he only changed the perspective of his philosophy, and it is very far from any kind of mysticism. You talk about his biography, but perhaps I should return the proposition and say that perhaps you should read his writings to assess if there is any mysticism in it.