The ontological argument

[solieus]

There was once this guy, he's a saint now, saint anslem. he proved god by saying that something must exist that is greater, more powerful, than anything else - hence, all-powerful. "a being than which no greater can be ceonceived." This has to exist because there has to be something greater than everything else. Also he said instead of it just being an idea, it must exist in reality because real things are greater than imaginary things and so it must be greater and must exist. gotta love a priori arguments. God exists just because he is what he is, in this case anyways. Whadda you guys think of ontological arguments - are they just as valid as theories that use empirical evidence? I personally find them very interesting since they are, in most cases, foolproof except for the fact they don't rely on anything other than the statement itself which may not be foolproof. I'm not sure if experiments are any better. I think the only thing that rivals an a priori arguments is mathematical and geometrical stuff - like how a triangle has 180 degrees and 3 angles. Why does it have 180 degrees and three angles? because that is what makes a triangle. Yet math is all just something made up by humans. Whenever we change any constants - like our base 10 number system - everything changes. Kinda like how if our definition of "exist" ever changed, than anslem's whole proof would go out the window.

[arh]

I think ontological arguments are important, even though they may not be on accord with science. After all,philosophy is about being open minded and not stick too closely to empirical facts -- it may all be an illusion, remember? One might say that the "I think, therefore I am" is a bit silly and don't get you anywhere, but then again you need constants in order to make any argument at all. Taking a thing for granted and then building a world around it can be a delightful excersise.. Yet math is all just something made up by humans. Whenever we change any constants - like our base 10 number system - everything changes. Kinda like how if our definition of "exist" ever changed, than anslem's whole proof would go out the window. [/b] The math don't change, just the representation of the numbers. But you are correct, mathematics is a highly abstract profession, as it so heavily relies on the concept of pure numbers; a fictional entity in itself. Now, what about 'God exists because I think he does'? What do you really define as an existence? What do you define as reality (an interesting question in a forum like this)? Ho-hum..

[Neruo]

Oh my god this saint anslem dude is a genious! He proved the flying spagetti monster Years before anyone heard of it! : 0 His logic is as correct as spaggeti bolognese to ski on.

[The Blue Meanie]

The ontological argument is logically invalid. Here's why: It relies on the premise that existance is a property, and furthermore, that existance is a "positive" property.

[Roller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div> The ontological argument is logically invalid. Here&#39;s why: It relies on the premise that existance is a property, and furthermore, that existance is a "positive" property.[/b] Damn, you beat me to it. No, the ontological argument is not a very good one. Another version of the Ontological argument (from Descartes) goes like: "The concept of God is of a being perfect in every way. Failure to exist would be an imperfection, therefore God must exist." The main objection to this from Kant is that, as Meanie pointed out, existence is not a property. St. Aslem&#39;s argument is a little different: 1. God is, by definition, a being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 2. The atheist thinks there is no God. 3. If the atheist thinks this, then (by definition) she thinks there is no being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 4. But she can only think this if she can understand the phrase, "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived". 5. And if she understands this, then she conceives, in her mind, of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. 6. But a being who actually existed outside her mind would be greater than one that only exists within her mind. 7. Therefore to think that there is no God is to contradict oneself. It&#39;s a complex argument for sure, but actually not very convincing. It is saying that our concept of a being which no greater can be concieved is not as great as the reality of God, and therefore the athiest stance is one of contradiction. It is not actually attempting to argue for the existence of God, only that the arguments against God are faulty. This in itself is troublesome: in proposing a new entity, the burden of proof is on the believers. Also, the whole argument can be negated by Athiests in the statement "there is nothing satisfying the concept of a being which no greater can be concieved." Nice to see some actual philosophy in the philosophy section, though

[Invader]

1. God is, by definition, a being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 2. The atheist thinks there is no God. 3. If the atheist thinks this, then (by definition) she thinks there is no being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 4. But she can only think this if she can understand the phrase, "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived". 5. And if she understands this, then she conceives, in her mind, of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. 6. But a being who actually existed outside her mind would be greater than one that only exists within her mind. 7. Therefore to think that there is no God is to contradict oneself. [/b] The conception of thought does occur within the mind, but because she creates the possibility of a God, it doesn't mean that the God in its own form has to exist within her head. I can acknowledge you as a human being, but it doesn't mean that I created a version of you in my head that can actually be considered another entity entirely. I'm not saying I agree with the ontological argument, I'm just making a correction.

[ninja pirate]

Oh my god this saint anslem dude is a genious! He proved the flying spagetti monster Years before anyone heard of it! : 0 His logic is as correct as spaggeti bolognese to ski on. [/b] No, he didn't. A "flying spaghetti monster's" existence would have to be derived from something. That than which nothing greater can be concieved does not derive it's existence from anything. The ontological argument is logically invalid. Here's why: It relies on the premise that existance is a property, and furthermore, that existance is a "positive" property. [/b] Can you explain that? I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

[The Blue Meanie]

Can you explain that? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. [/b] Check Roller's post. He pretty much picked up the slack and gave a good explanation. Thanks, Roller!

[Oneironaut Zero]

Basically, it's nothing but rhetoric.

[becomingagodo]

well this is a perfect example how idiot dont know how logic work so here prof your also known a cantor argument: now their is a all powerful being says. well then can a all powerful being create a more powerful being? well say no then he not all powerful because he cant create somebody more powerful. then it must be yes then but then he not all powerful because he can create a more powerful being. this clearly show a paradox and how your wrong any other argument would then have to abadom logic because of paradox but then you cant call it logical at best logically unlogical. this argument proves nothing unless you abadom logic whitch would be perfectly fine for anyone who believe in god plus you wouldnt take any care to this because you proberly only look for reason and evidence to support your claim and forget the rest idiots!

[Keeper]

you seem rather angrey today, becoming. I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water in a logical debate, one reason being when you get to the top ...

[becomingagodo]

I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water in a logical debate, one reason being when you get to the top ... [/b] well the hole topic pointless any way because of godel paradox and what it says about logic. well a more general idea will their is no logic that can prove something right plus brining the nature of truth would be another topic it easier just to show how that paradox is wrong or that the rest of this argument is just going to go on intill someone find proof in what they believe in but that flawed too because of nature of truth and logic so then it left to stupid logic or reasoing kind of the beginning and rest of the post. yes i have read all other thread they all say i agree or it wrong but i dont know or changing it to mind the point is their all argument to prove themselves right or it pointless. you seem rather angrey today, becoming.[/b] well i am thanked to is exisistance natural or miraculous topic

[ninja pirate]

this argument proves nothing unless you abadom logic whitch would be perfectly fine for anyone who believe in god plus you wouldnt take any care to this because you proberly only look for reason and evidence to support your claim and forget the rest idiots! [/b] Haha. What? Grammar... well i am thanked to is exisistance natural or miraculous topic [/b] Oh, my apologies.

[The Blue Meanie]

unless you abadom logic whitch would be perfectly fine for anyone who believe in god[/b] Despite being a devout atheist, I would disagree with this. I think it's possible to believe in God without being illogical. It's possible to believe in ANYTHING without being illogical. All you need to do is have a certain set of premises, and use sound deductive reasoning starting from those premises to arrive at the desired conclusion. HOWEVER, I think that it's impossible to believe in God without relying on wrong premises. In most cases, I think that there ARE logical problems with Christians' beliefs. But in a certain few cases, Christians' (and those of other religions) actual deductive reasoning is perfectly sound, but the premises on which they base their beliefs, I believe to be wrong.

[ninja pirate]

Damn, you beat me to it. No, the ontological argument is not a very good one. Another version of the Ontological argument (from Descartes) goes like: "The concept of God is of a being perfect in every way. Failure to exist would be an imperfection, therefore God must exist." The main objection to this from Kant is that, as Meanie pointed out, existence is not a property. St. Aslem's argument is a little different: 1. God is, by definition, a being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 2. The atheist thinks there is no God. 3. If the atheist thinks this, then (by definition) she thinks there is no being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 4. But she can only think this if she can understand the phrase, "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived". 5. And if she understands this, then she conceives, in her mind, of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. 6. But a being who actually existed outside her mind would be greater than one that only exists within her mind. 7. Therefore to think that there is no God is to contradict oneself. It's a complex argument for sure, but actually not very convincing. It is saying that our concept of a being which no greater can be concieved is not as great as the reality of God, and therefore the athiest stance is one of contradiction. It is not actually attempting to argue for the existence of God, only that the arguments against God are faulty. This in itself is troublesome: in proposing a new entity, the burden of proof is on the believers. Also, the whole argument can be negated by Athiests in the statement "there is nothing satisfying the concept of a being which no greater can be concieved." Nice to see some actual philosophy in the philosophy section, though [/b] So, basically, Kant's counter-argument to Anselm's is that one cannot apply any properties to something that does not exist in the first place. Thus, you cannot even refer to a non-existent entity as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," which is why the argument is void. Am I following this logically?

[The Blue Meanie]

Partly. But the main force of the counter-argument is that existence is not a property, but rather a prerequisite for having properties. Otherwise, I'd be able to say that anything in my imagination must therefore exist in real-life if I imagine it to have the property of existence. You see how this gets stupid? Also, the assumption that it is possible to imagine something with "perfect" properties is also dubious.

[ninja pirate]

"Otherwise, I'd be able to say that anything in my imagination must therefore exist in real-life if I imagine it to have the property of existence" Well, wouldn't Anselm just say something like, "The argument can only be applied to that than which nothing greater can be conceived because that non-conceivable entity does not derive it's existence from anything. Any other entity in your imagination must derive it's existence from an already existing thing, therefore the argument cannot be applied to the said entity." Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you entirely. Is it possible that the entity than which nothing greater can be conceived is the very universe we reside in? If that's plausible, then the argument only proves that our universe exists, which I think goes without saying...

[The Blue Meanie]

It doesn't matter. The argument relies on three premises. 1) Existence is a property 2) Existence is a "good" property 3) If one can imagine something which has the property of existence, that imaginary thing must exist. All three premises are point-blank WRONG. Even if you DO accept P1 and P2, P3 is clearly stupid and raises all sorts of problems.

[Neruo]

I just read about the The ontological argument in Richard Dawkins book 'The god Delusion'. What I concluded myself from it, is that The ontological argument is a bunch of verbal crap that used some semi-holes in speach to from a steaming pile of not-even-funny propaganda.

[sephiroth clock]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem "Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows: For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent. (Proof of the "if" part If T is inconsistent then anything can be proved, including that T is consistent. (Proof of the "only if" part If T is consistent then T does not include the statement of its own consistency. This follows from the first theorem. There is a technical subtlety involved in the second incompleteness theorem, namely how exactly are we to express the consistency of T in the language of T. There are many ways to do this, and not all of them lead to the same result. In particular, different formalizations of the claim that T is consistent may be inequivalent in T, and some may even be provable. For example, first order arithmetic (Peano arithmetic or PA for short) can prove that the largest consistent subset of PA is consistent. But since PA is consistent, the largest consistent subset of PA is just PA, so in this sense PA "proves that it's consistent". What PA does not prove is that the largest consistent subset of PA is, in fact, the whole of PA. (The term "largest consistent subset of PA" is rather vague, but what is meant here is the largest consistent initial segment of the axioms of PA ordered according to some criteria, e.g. by "Gödel numbers", the numbers encoding the axioms as per the scheme used by Gödel mentioned above)." wikipedia