Attention all philosophers!!!

[pandora]

I am having a really hard time understanding why this argument works. I am not sure I even understand it enough to outline it.

 

I think it goes something like this: we can't separate god's existence from god. Because we can merely conceive of something that is the ultimate, it must exist.

 

This honestly doesn't make sense to me. Could someone offer me their insights into this particular argument for God's existence?

[Ouroboros]

I thought the Ontological argument was more like:

 

Because that we can conceive the thought of something perfect and ultimate, it must exist.

 

So just because we can think of a God, therefore a God must exist.

 

And basically this is ridiculous since I can think of Santa Claus, but it doesn't make him exist, and I can think of a perfect circle when I work in math, but it's impossible to make one in our universe. I can also think up the idea of the perfect warp drive for interstellar space-travel, but I haven't seen anyone invented yet.

[pandora]

I thought the Ontological argument was more like:

 

Because that we can conceive the thought of something perfect and ultimate, it must exist.

 

So just because we can think of a God, therefore a God must exist.

 

And basically this is ridiculous since I can think of Santa Claus, but it doesn't make him exist, and I can think of a perfect circle when I work in math, but it's impossible to make one in our universe. I can also think up the idea of the perfect warp drive for interstellar space-travel, but I haven't seen anyone invented yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly. I said what you did as well, my prof added that whole "you can't separate god's existence from god" because in effect, that is what has to be true in order for the basic premise to make sense at all.

 

I agree with you on how you can't think non-existence beings into being, but prof says that since it is claimed that this god is perfect and ultimate, it solves this problem.

 

I don't see how... that is the problem I am having.

[Ouroboros]

Exactly.  I said what you did as well, my prof added that whole "you can't separate god's existence from god" because in effect, that is what has to be true in order for the basic premise to make sense at all.

 

I agree with you on how you can't think non-existence beings into being, but prof says that since it is claimed that this god is perfect and ultimate, it solves this problem. 

 

I don't see how... that is the problem I am having.

To me it only sounds like playing with words.

 

A perfect circle can be thought of but can't exist, so it doesn't exist.

 

A perfect being can be thought of but exist because it is perfect.

 

Can he concieve of Q? (The being that lives independent of time/space-continuum)

 

Look at the counter arguments at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

[Ouroboros]

The argument pretty much is saying "I believe, therefore there is a God to believe in, and I have a reason to believe."

 

But it starts with the a priori acceptance that they have an emotional drive to believe, rather than a logical. Then they turn the emotional argument into a pseudo-logical argument to prove why they must believe.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The gist of the OA is to say that God, as the most perfect being must exist, because if he didn't, he would lack something, i.e. existence. After Anselm formulated this, the monk Gaunilo disagreed, giving the example of an imaginary island that he can think of - which doesn't exist. Anselm replied that an island is not a perfect entity, so the example does not hold.

 

The standard reply to Anselm goes back at least to Kant, as far as I'm aware, and Schopenhauer makes use of it in attacking Hegel and other idealists. That is, Anselm errs by treating existence as a predicate. Existence is not a predicate, not a quality. Modern predicate logic has made great advances by formulating sentences of the kind "there exists an X such that X is F and G." I.e. this way of phrasing propositions about existing entities avoids the trap of treating existence as though it's a third property, say, H.

[Emperor Norton II]

The gist of the OA is to say that God, as the most perfect being must exist, because if he didn't, he would lack something, i.e. existence.  After Anselm formulated this, the monk Gaunilo disagreed, giving the example of an imaginary island that he can think of - which doesn't exist.  Anselm replied that an island is not a perfect entity, so the example does not hold.

 

The standard reply to Anselm goes back at least to Kant, as far as I'm aware, and Schopenhauer makes use of it in attacking Hegel and other idealists.  That is, Anselm errs by treating existence as a predicate.  Existence is not a predicate, not a quality.  Modern predicate logic has made great advances by formulating sentences of the kind "there exists an X such that X is F and G." I.e. this way of phrasing propositions about existing entities avoids the trap of treating existence as though it's a third property, say, H.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, this is a solid way of answering it, but an easier answer that works just as well is "How is a finite being capable of fully imagining an infinite being?" Because the first premise, that we can imagine a perfect and infinite being, is false, so is the argument.

[Ouroboros]

Well, this is a solid way of answering it, but an easier answer that works just as well is "How is a finite being capable of fully imagining an infinite being?" Because the first premise, that we can imagine a perfect and infinite being, is false, so is the argument.

Wait a MINUTE! You opened a pandoras box!

 

Can God imagine a perfect and ultimate being outside himself?

 

If so, then God has a Super-God.

 

If not, then God is not omnipotent.

 

Or???

[HadouKen24]

The gist of the OA is to say that God, as the most perfect being must exist, because if he didn't, he would lack something, i.e. existence. After Anselm formulated this, the monk Gaunilo disagreed, giving the example of an imaginary island that he can think of - which doesn't exist. Anselm replied that an island is not a perfect entity, so the example does not hold.

 

Eh, that's really more along the lines of Descartes' OA rather than Anselm's. Anselm does NOT define God as the most perfect being, but as the greatest conceivable being. (Or, to be perfectly correct but confusing, the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.) If you don't believe that God, the greatest conceivable being exists, and you can conceive of his existing, then--Anselm's argument runs--you cannot say that God does NOT exist without at the same time saying that it's possible to conceive of anything greater than God.

 

Gaunilo really didn't counter the argument very well. His criticism is, in my opinion, almost a complete failure. Anselm's response to Gaunilo shredded Gaunilo's objections. Later thinkers--you mentioned Kant, for instance--did do a quite thorough job of dismantling the OA, however.

 

The OA fails, but not because of Gaunilo's criticism.

 

Well, this is a solid way of answering it, but an easier answer that works just as well is "How is a finite being capable of fully imagining an infinite being?" Because the first premise, that we can imagine a perfect and infinite being, is false, so is the argument.

 

That doesn't work for two reasons.

1) Anselm defined God as "that which nothing greater can be conceived." That is, you can't conceive of anything greater than God.

 

2) The argument merely requires that one be able to "conceive of" God. You can conceive of an infinite being just as you can conceive of a hundred-sided polygon. You can't fully imagine either. That's why the argument says "conceive" instead of "imagine."

[Kuroikaze]

We discussed this argument in one of my religion classes once, even as a christian someting about the argument seemed wierd to me. It helps to restate the premise this way

 

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

 

Of couse the conclusion you are trying to reach is in fact that God is

 

So his argument is just an example of Circulus in demonstrando or circlular logic. He essentally is assuming the conclusion in the premise.

[HadouKen24]

Yes, that's true. To be fair, that doesn't negate the value of the argument. He was not using it to convert atheists. There really weren't any around when he formulated it. It was Anselm who coined the phrase "Faith seeking understanding." He went through the argument to strengthen his faith on the assumption that it is true, not to prove it.

 

Were someone to use it to try to prove the existence of God to an atheist, then they would indeed be committing a fallacy.

 

Although it's more often known as petitio principii, or "begging the question," than circulus in demonstrando.

 

 

I really don't think that anyone should just declare it disproven, though, without actually reading Anselm's actual argument in full. It took me a week or two to suss out for myself where he was making the mistake, and I'm certainly no slouch at analyzing that kind of argument. It's not as simple and easy to refute as many atheists would claim.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

 

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'

 

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

 

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

 

----------------

 

If a finite being can dream of an infinite being, does that make the finite being now infinite by dreaming of such infinity?

[narcissist]

Because we can merely conceive of something that is the ultimate, it must exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm conceiving one million dollars in my pocket right now....

 

OH MY GOD THERE IT IS!!!!

 

not.

[a midnight star]

I am having a really hard time understanding why this argument works.  I am not sure I even understand it enough to outline it. 

 

I think it goes something like this: we can't separate god's existence from god.  Because we can merely conceive of something that is the ultimate, it must exist.

 

This honestly doesn't make sense to me.  Could someone offer me their insights into this particular argument for God's existence?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Because according to the christians, even if evolution was true then it still had to start somewhere. The particles had to start somewhere, so then there must be a god.

 

(remember this is not my thoughts, only that which was believed my myself and most of the christians I know from when I was a christian)

[Ouroboros]

If a finite being can dream of an infinite being, does that make the finite being now infinite by dreaming of such infinity?

Maybe the definition of God, is the being can can not conceive a notion of a anything more ultimate than himself. The ultimate being can't see himself in the need of a Creator.

 

 

Still, the problem I think is the use of the word of God.

 

"God" is by tradition related to a cognitive and conscious supreme being.

 

If I can conceive a notion of something that is the ultimate, perfect and supreme above and beyond anything existing. It doesn't require a cognitive mind. Actually, the more I have been thinking about multiverses and brane models etc, I think more in the term of an infinite machine, without purpose. Like a Mandelbrots fractal, and our universe is just a small fraction of one of the pattern sequences in it.

 

So if the definition of God can be changed to not include purpose or intelligence, then God becomes nothing more than: the existence or the universe. God is not "he", but only "it", and it just happens just to exist, and nothing more. We can agree that we exists, to whatever level of existence we happens to have (as an illusion or not), and that existence does exist. God is nothing more the ultimate "it".

[Skankboy]

I always hated this argument. It really is just a play on words. Just because I can conceive of something doesn't necessitate it's existence in the real world (see han's "perfect circle"). Indeed anything taken to the level of "ideals" (perfect, ultimate, etc), by definition, CANNOT exist in reality as these are only abstract notions.

[MQTA]

Maybe some sort of intelligent being some how got this universe started and in motion. Perhaps it was some other sort of intelligent being that created the life on this planet. And perhaps it was yet another intelligent being that created homo sapiens out of homo erectus.

 

Did the jump from homo erectus get homo sapiens to where they'd never have gotten to, or did it just accelerate it? A clear violation of the Prime Directive

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Maybe some sort of intelligent being some how got this universe started and in motion.  Perhaps it was some other sort of intelligent being that created the life on this planet.  And perhaps it was yet another intelligent being that created homo sapiens out of homo erectus.

 

Did the jump from homo erectus get homo sapiens to where they'd never have gotten to, or did it just accelerate it?  A clear violation of the Prime Directive

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Why does there have to be a "beginning" at all? It could be that the Universe

in one form or another has always existed. Even the Big Bang could just be

the Universe transforming itself from one state to another.

[Ouroboros]

Why does there have to be a "beginning" at all?  It could be that the Universe

in one form or another has always existed.  Even the Big Bang could just be

the Universe transforming itself from one state to another.

(I agree, but to spin further on this...)

 

It is the definition of God. No beginning and no end. He's the Perpetum Mobile.

 

If we just would replace the word "God" with something else, like "The Ultimate X", and its meaning is not an entity, not a superbeing, not anything that has a cause, purpose, intent or reasoning, not having foreknowledge or any of the other arbitrary attributes contributed to the label God, then we all would have to agree that the Ultimate-X would have to exist.

 

For an atheist, or scientist, it coult be the Universe, or the Multiverse, or the what-ever-we-can-think-of. The no beginning of the existence and no end. That's the Ultimate-X. The perpetual existence, and the unknown beyond Big Bang and after the Big Crunch.

 

But for a religious person this always, always leads to the next step, that the Ultimate-X resides outside our universe and existence and is smart, well educated, eats his vegetables and wear blue slippers on Sundays. Which is a leap in faith, and only an idea of how to interpret the Ultimate-X. We don't know anything about Ultimate-X, and we can't know.

 

There's nothing we can touch or test or measure to prove that Ultimate-X is of one sorts or another. And the only argument the religious person gives is that he "feels" that way. And of course the problem there is, that 6 Billion people "feels" a bit different from each other how this Ultimate-X really is supposed to be understood and interpreted. His attributes are biased on a personal level. That's why the word "God" is such a bad word to use.

 

The argument is kind of related to the Prime Mover and First Cause and Kalam Cosmological argument, it all boils down to... what is the greatest, biggest, meanest and the ultimate first and earliest of everything you can think of.

 

What is infinity in the power of inifinity? Is it a number? Can it be defined? Does it exist?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Eh, that's really more along the lines of Descartes' OA rather than Anselm's. Anselm does NOT define God as the most perfect being, but as the greatest conceivable being. (Or, to be perfectly correct but confusing, the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.) If you don't believe that God, the greatest conceivable being exists, and you can conceive of his existing, then--Anselm's argument runs--you cannot say that God does NOT exist without at the same time saying that it's possible to conceive of anything greater than God.

 

Gaunilo really didn't counter the argument very well. His criticism is, in my opinion, almost a complete failure. Anselm's response to Gaunilo shredded Gaunilo's objections. Later thinkers--you mentioned Kant, for instance--did do a quite thorough job of dismantling the OA, however.

 

The OA fails, but not because of Gaunilo's criticism.

That doesn't work for two reasons.

1) Anselm defined God as "that which nothing greater can be conceived." That is, you can't conceive of anything greater than God.

 

2) The argument merely requires that one be able to "conceive of" God. You can conceive of an infinite being just as you can conceive of a hundred-sided polygon. You can't fully imagine either. That's why the argument says "conceive" instead of "imagine."

 

Hey, HadouKen24! I'm excited at your reply. I don't think we're in disagreement. I was trying to shorten and simplify my answer. I don't think that by "greater" Anselm meant "bigger," but rather, something like "more perfect," don't you?

 

I too didn't think Gaunilo really contributed much. I think the "existence is not a predicate" answer works pretty well, though, because it breaks down the muddy propositions into clearer ones and then exposes them as ultimately circular.

 

Do you disagree fundamentally?

 

Sorry, everyone else - I haven't read through the whole thread yet!

[Kuroikaze]

Yes, that's true. To be fair, that doesn't negate the value of the argument. He was not using it to convert atheists. There really weren't any around when he formulated it. It was Anselm who coined the phrase "Faith seeking understanding." He went through the argument to strengthen his faith on the assumption that it is true, not to prove it.

 

Were someone to use it to try to prove the existence of God to an atheist, then they would indeed be committing a fallacy.

 

Although it's more often known as petitio principii, or "begging the question," than circulus in demonstrando.

I really don't think that anyone should just declare it disproven, though, without actually reading Anselm's actual argument in full. It took me a week or two to suss out for myself where he was making the mistake, and I'm certainly no slouch at analyzing that kind of argument. It's not as simple and easy to refute as many atheists would claim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I read it for one of my religion classes, and your right of course, he wasn't really trying to convince athiests with the argument. I guess I always wondered why he even bothered...just using and unsound argument to prove what he already had chosen to believe anyway.

 

Well, of couse its not clear if he did actually understand where the flaw was or not. He doesn't mention it in his writings, or at least I don't remember him saying anything about the flaws. I could be wrong there, its been a while since I read it and I can't remember if I even read the whole thing or just part of it.

 

But yeah, its not easy to spot the flaw, the way its stated in his writings its not very obvious that the conclusion has already been stated the premise. I probably woudn't have noticed it myself if the religion professor hadn't pointed it out. Of couse at the time I was still a christian, and therefore wasn't nessarally thinking very criticaly when it came to the christian religion.

[MQTA]

Why does there have to be a "beginning" at all?  It could be that the Universe

in one form or another has always existed.  Even the Big Bang could just be

the Universe transforming itself from one state to another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For all intents and purposes, there is no beginning that we'll ever be able to figure out. The Earth may have had a beginning, as well as when life first appeared here, but that too, we'll probably never know when/how.

[HadouKen24]

Hey, HadouKen24! I'm excited at your reply. I don't think we're in disagreement. I was trying to shorten and simplify my answer. I don't think that by "greater" Anselm meant "bigger," but rather, something like "more perfect," don't you?

 

"More perfect" is probably close, but I don't know that it's completely synonymous. Probably close enough for our purposes, but I do think that it's important to note that he didn't exactly say "greatest" or "most perfect" directly, but used that awkward phrase "than which nothing greater can be conceived." The first two make the argument much more obviously false.

 

I too didn't think Gaunilo really contributed much. I think the "existence is not a predicate" answer works pretty well, though, because it breaks down the muddy propositions into clearer ones and then exposes them as ultimately circular.

 

Do you disagree fundamentally?

 

I definitely don't. I'm glad you pointed out how the modern approach to logic makes the error more obvious.

 

Yeah, I read it for one of my religion classes, and your right of course, he wasn't really trying to convince athiests with the argument. I guess I always wondered why he even bothered...just using and unsound argument to prove what he already had chosen to believe anyway.

 

Well, of couse its not clear if he did actually understand where the flaw was or not. He doesn't mention it in his writings, or at least I don't remember him saying anything about the flaws. I could be wrong there, its been a while since I read it and I can't remember if I even read the whole thing or just part of it.

 

Anselm admit to flawed reasoning? Not likely.

 

I don't think he was aware that his reasoning was flawed, no. The thought of there not being a God would have been so unthinkable to him, that I would have been surprised if he had managed to formulate an argument that wasn't circular. He could imagine a "fool who says in his heart there is no God," but he could not contemplate the non-existence of God himself.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Maybe it's all just quantum physics.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm going to pretend I'm a TAG guy now and venture this:

God guarantees the truth of the laws of logic

The laws of logic guarantee the invalidity of the Ontological Argument

But the Ontological Argument is unsound because it relies on presuppositional thinking

Therefore TAG refutes itself

 

bwa ha ha ha ha