Attention all philosophers!!!

[thomas]

I think this is relevant:

 

In his Proslogion, Anselm offers a definition of God as “that than which no greater thing can be thought” (aliquid quo maius cogitari no potest). He argues that, if this definition of God is correct, it necessarily implies the existence of God. The reason for this is as follows. If God does not exist, the idea of God remains, yet the reality of God is absent. Yet the reality of God is greater than the idea of God. Therefore, if God is “that than which no greater thing can be thought”, the idea of God must lead to accepting the reality of God, in that otherwise the mere idea of God is the greates thing which can be thought.. And this contradicts the definition of God, on which the argument is based. Therefore given the existence of the idea of God, and the acceptance of the definition of God as “that than which no greater thing can be thought”, the reality of God necessarily follows. Note that the Latin word cogitare sometimes is translated as “conceived”, leading to the definition of God as “that than which no greater thing can be conceived”. Both translation are acceptable.

 

God is thus defined as “that than which no greater thing can be conceived”. Now the idea of such a being is one thing; the reality is another. Thinking of a hundred dollar bill is quite different from having a hundred dollar bill in your hands -  and much less satisfying as well! Anselm’s point is this: the idea of something is inferior to the reality. So the idea of God as “that than which no greater thing can be conceived” contains a contradiction – because the reality of God would be superior to the idea. In other words, if this definition of God is correct, and exists in human mind, then the corresponding reality must also exist.

 

 

……….

 

There is, according to Gaunilo, an obvious logical weakness in Anselm’s “argument” (although it must be stressed that Anselm did not really regard it as an argument in the first place). Imagine, Gaunilo suggests, an island, so lovely that a more perfect island cannot be conceived. By the same argument, Gaunilo suggested, that island must exist……

 

….

 

It may however be pointed out that Anselm is not so easily dismissed. Part of his argument is that it is an essential part of the definition of God as he “that than which no greater thing can be conceived”. God therefore belongs to a totally different category than islands or dollar bills. It is part of the nature of God to transcend everything else. Once the believer has come to understand what the word “God” means, then God really does exist for him or her. This is the intention of Anselm’s meditation in the Proslogion: to reflect on how the Christian understanding of the nature of God reinforces belief in his reality. The “argument” does not really have force outside the context of faith, and Anselm never intended it to be used in this general philosophical manner.

 

Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology – An introduction

[pandora]

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)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Isn't that cosmological argument? That is different than this one... sorry, I have a midterm tomorrow and I have to be technical in order to keep things straight.

[Ouroboros]

Isn't that cosmological argument?  That is different than this one... sorry, I have a midterm tomorrow and I have to be technical in order to keep things straight. 

Correct. It's the First Mover argument.

[white_raven23]

I thought the Ontological argument was more like:

 

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

 

 

 

But we really CAN'T. Therin lies the problem. It's all a language issue......but in practice, pick something. An apple. A car. Doesn't matter.

 

Think about that the perfect and ultimate idea of that object.

 

Now here comes the problem. This notion only works for an individual. If there were only one sentient being in the whole universe, the concept of ultimate perfection would be solely defined by that being.

 

Now as we all know, there are billions of individuals on this planet alone.

 

Back to the object. I picked an apple. And trying to compare my notion of the perfect apple with the notions of billions of ideas of the perfect apple is impossible. So let's compare my notion, with my grandfather's notion of what a perfect apple is.

 

My perfect apple is crisp and sweet with very little tartness. Pink Lady apples are my first pick, followed by Fugis.

 

My grandfather's perfect apple comes off a tree on his land (can't remember what kind they are). Specifically the apples UNDER this tree are my grandfather's favorites. He likes rotten apples. Brown rotten apples. He picks them up off the ground, brushes off the ants, and eats the apple.

 

So since my idea of the perfect apple, and my grandfather's idea of the perfect apple are clearly going to be very different......whose notion of perfection is "correct"?

 

Only as individuals does the notion of perfection make sense. It is sheer ego to think that OUR notion of perfect and ultimate therefore reflects the definition and reality of the supreme being; when there are billions of other notions to consider as well.

[Ouroboros]

But we really CAN'T. Therin lies the problem. It's all a language issue......but in practice, pick something. An apple. A car. Doesn't matter.

I hopy you could see from my other posts that I'm not a supporter the Ontological Argument.

Just tried to clarify IMO how the argument was supposed to be stated.

[white_raven23]

I know that Han.

 

I'm having a very boring day, and just wanted to add my two cents against the Argument by pointing out that basic flaw in detail (I'm BORED!).

 

It wasn't directed against you at all.

 

Smooches.

[Ouroboros]

I know that Han.

 

I'm having a very boring day, and just wanted to add my two cents against the Argument by pointing out that basic flaw in detail (I'm BORED!).

 

It wasn't directed against you at all.

 

Smooches.

I didn't want you to believe that I considered the Ontological Argument valid.

 

Well, if you're bored, then you need to post even more! By doctor Hans orders!

 

(end of my derailing the topic)

[spamandham]

$0.02

 

If we define god as that which nothing greater can be conceived, then god can have no other properties other than being greater than everything else. If you qualify that greatness in any way, then you can always conceive of something greater.

 

The definition rests on the false hidden premise that it is possible to conceive of something for which nothing greater can be conceived.

[Ouroboros]

$0.02

 

If we define god as that which nothing greater can be conceived, then god can have no other properties other than being greater than everything else.  If you qualify that greatness in any way, then you can always conceive of something greater. 

 

The definition rests on the false hidden premise that it is possible to conceive of something for which nothing greater can be conceived.

In other words: that you could conceive a number that is the highest number conceivable, and no other number is higher than that.

 

But it falls on the rules of the infinite set: that actually there is no highest number.

[thomas]

$0.02

 

If we define god as that which nothing greater can be conceived, then god can have no other properties other than being greater than everything else.  If you qualify that greatness in any way, then you can always conceive of something greater. 

 

The definition rests on the false hidden premise that it is possible to conceive of something for which nothing greater can be conceived.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you are right.

 

And this shows, that the christian god, just like all other gods, basically is created in the image of man. Where the human ability to conceive stops, the christian god begins. And since the border for this human ability isn't a fixed point, the christian god always changes.

[aynalhub]

someone hit on the crux of this argument above.

 

if you say "God is x" where x is not an attribute but a definition, or equation, this is linguistically a copula. In a copula, both terms must already exist for it to have any meaning value, and the word "is" can be translated by "exists as". Thus the phrase can't linguistically function without an a priori assumption of god's existence as *something*. As soon as you get to "is" you are saying "exists" and have relegated the statement to the speculative, since neither god, nor the greatest conceivable being can actually be observed, or, as you guys mentioned, even reasonably conceived.

 

I doubt the "philosopher" meant it as an evangelizing tool anyhow. But i'm glad I got to say "copula".

[Ssel]

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.

pandora,

This represents a "presumptive argument", meaning that it presumes the acceptence of some earlier stage of reasoning (typical of the SCC debates).

 

In every spoken language, there are 3 concerns involved in definitions and the existence of what is being defined;

 

1) a spoken sound called a “word” (there is an interesting history on why it is called such)

2) a concept that the word refers to. This concept is not necessarily of something that exists.

3) an object(s) which the concept depicts. The object must either exist or be fantasy.

 

 

The “ontological argument” is an argument that is based on a definition of the WORD “God”. That definition must refer to a concept. That concept must then either refer to something which either exists or is fantasy.

 

An example of an ontological argument would be;

 

My God is a particular tree. I understand the concept of what a particular tree is. I can see that particular tree. Thus, my God exists, because I can SEE it.

 

Another example of an ontological argument;

 

My God is “Whatever exists”. I understand the concept of “whatever exists” being the combination of all that is out there even though I don’t know what all of it is. Thus, my God exists, because I can SEE that there is SOMETHING out there even if I don’t understand it all.

 

Another example;

 

A "God" is anything that someone worships as the ultimate authority. My mother worships something as the ultimate authority. Therefore God exists, because someone is worshiping it.

 

An example of a NON ontological argument;

 

My God is the one spoken of in the Bible. I understand what the Bible says. Thus my God exists, because I believe in the Bible.

 

 

“ontological argument” specifically refers to demanding a definition before you present the argument.

 

 

“we can't separate god's existence from god. Because we can merely conceive of something that is the ultimate, it must exist.”

 

This represents a presumptuous argument that the word “God” axiomatically represents the “ultimate”. That would be a very poor definition in that it doesn’t say ultimate of WHAT or in what respect. “ultimate” is a comparative. I would guess that the person meant “the ultimate reality”, because the dictionary begins its definition with those words. And if that is what was meant, then what the person is saying is that

 

“because an ultimate reality MUST exist, then God must exist.”

 

This is a common argument. But technically it is an argument of presumption still because it has not supported the fact that an “ultimate reality” must exist, although such is easy to provide.

 

To make the person’s statement into an ontological argument, it should be rephrased as;

 

“God is defined as the ‘ultimate reality’. Because an ultimate reality MUST exist, then God must exist.

 

There are very many logical arguments to prove the existence of God based on a given definition. Without the definition (non-ontological), no argument can be logical, merely persuasive at best.

 

 

…that help understand what he meant at all?

[Asimov]

To make the person’s statement into an ontological argument, it should be rephrased as;

 

“God is defined as the ‘ultimate reality’. Because an ultimate reality MUST exist, then God must exist.

 

There are very many logical arguments to prove the existence of God based on a given definition. Without the definition (non-ontological), no argument can be logical, merely persuasive at best.

 

 

…that help understand what he meant at all?

 

Ultimate Reality = Meaningless mumbo jumbo.

[spamandham]

There are very many logical arguments to prove the existence of God based on a given definition. Without the definition (non-ontological), no argument can be logical, merely persuasive at best.

 

I have to agree on this point. Of all the definitions I typically see, god is defined either inconsistently, or is indistinguishable from the universe itself. Even those who worship idols tend to assign some hidden power to it.

[Samurai Tailor]

In every spoken language, there are 3 concerns involved in definitions and the existence of what is being defined;

 

1) a spoken sound called a “word” (there is an interesting history on why it is called such)

2) a concept that the word refers to. This concept is not necessarily of something that exists.

3) an object(s) which the concept depicts. The object must either exist or be fantasy.

You will want to narrow the scope of this just to nouns, right?

The “ontological argument” is an argument that is based on a definition of the WORD “God”. That definition must refer to a concept. That concept must then either refer to something which either exists or is fantasy.

I don't know about all that. Ontology is the philosophy of existence. Thus, it seems an ontological argument is one in which it is said that X exists because X has the property of existence.

An example of an ontological argument would be;

 

My God is a particular tree. I understand the concept of what a particular tree is. I can see that particular tree. Thus, my God exists, because I can SEE it.

 

Another example of an ontological argument;

 

My God is “Whatever exists”. I understand the concept of “whatever exists” being the combination of all that is out there even though I don’t know what all of it is. Thus, my God exists, because I can SEE that there is SOMETHING out there even if I don’t understand it all.

 

Another example;

 

A "God" is anything that someone worships as the ultimate authority. My mother worships something as the ultimate authority. Therefore God exists, because someone is worshiping it.

Uh, I have to disagree. Those are all empirical arguments; that is, they require you to observe an instance of S before S can be used as a minor premise. The OA is a deductive argument; if sound, it is sound whether we observe an instance of it or not.

An example of a NON ontological argument;

 

My God is the one spoken of in the Bible. I understand what the Bible says. Thus my God exists, because I believe in the Bible.

That is just a tautology. Two of them, actually.

To make the person’s statement into an ontological argument, it should be rephrased as;

 

“God is defined as the ‘ultimate reality’. Because an ultimate reality MUST exist, then God must exist.

 

There are very many logical arguments to prove the existence of God based on a given definition. Without the definition (non-ontological), no argument can be logical, merely persuasive at best.

 

 

…that help understand what he meant at all?

Can't say it does.

 

Anselm was big on maximal greatness. His conclusion was derived from a contradiction:

 

"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."

[Ssel]

You will want to narrow the scope of this just to nouns, right?

Well, no actually, because I didn't really want to discuss it at length. I was merely attempting to help clear up an issue a bit (probably failed). I was pointing out that the issue of arguing about something existing has 3 concerns of the language before you get into the actual issue of any existence - the word, the concept, and what that concept refers to (object or event (in an elite discussion objects and events are the same)). On this thread, I'm sure no one cares of the details of all of this.

 

For whatever reason led to it, the dictionary defines “ontological argument” as referring specifically to an argument about God. I don't really care. I agree that "ontology" is the study of existence.

 

Thus, it seems an ontological argument is one in which it is said that X exists because X has the property of existence.

That is a true example of "tautology" in that it merely says that to exist something must have the properties of existence ...which has conveyed exactly what? It is "tauty".

The entire issue of "How do we define existence?" can be simply stated as "to exist is to have affect". That one line tells the whole story. The only time it gets even slightly confusing is when someone thinks of a dream and wonders about the affect of the images in the dream. The answer to that is that those images exist as images, not as physical objects. They have the affect on the mind that such images might have, but otherwise have no existence.

 

Those are all empirical arguments;

Those included empirical components so as to make a realistic example. The empirical component did not convert the argument into a mere "empirical argument". They each detail the argument of existence based on definition and THAT is what makes them ontological. Also the deductive element doesn't change the ontological quality.

 

"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."

This is a serious case of "baffle with bullshit for a paycheck"

Anyone speaking in this type manner obviously has no intention or talent for communication of his thoughts and has no business taking on the role of a teacher nor philosopher to the public. If you go to the trouble of taking out the misuse of words and grammar, you are left with something like;

"Therefore, if one only imagines something which could have no greater (of what quality is left out), then something CAN be imagined as greater. But certainly this can not be."

... can you say "Well .. DUHhh!"

That is another example of a tauty argument which reveals nothing to the reader.

 

But honestly on this thread, I don't think anyone cares.

[Pariah]

"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."

 

I actually used this as my last-effort excuse to believe right before I left Christianity. Basically the thought behind it was why do humans desire a higher purpose if no higher purpose exists? But now that I'm an atheist I don't care about a higher purpose, so .

So maybe whoever said it is just grasping at straws.

[spamandham]

There are multiple ontological arguments, but they all suffer from the same basic flaw. God can not be compelled into existence by linguistic manipulation.

[Samurai Tailor]

That is a true example of "tautology" in that it merely says that to exist something must have the properties of existence ...which has conveyed exactly what? It is "tauty".

Pretty much.

The entire issue of "How do we define existence?" can be simply stated as "to exist is to have affect".

Effect on what? Other things that exist?

Those included empirical components so as to make a realistic example. The empirical component did not convert the argument into a mere "empirical argument". They each detail the argument of existence based on definition and THAT is what makes them ontological.

But one of your premises is that you observe the thing you are trying to define. And observing is a fundamentally inductive process, as has been long acknowledged.

Also the deductive element doesn't change the ontological quality.

Erm, okay.

"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."

This is a serious case of "baffle with bullshit for a paycheck"

Anyone speaking in this type manner obviously has no intention or talent for communication of his thoughts and has no business taking on the role of a teacher nor philosopher to the public. If you go to the trouble of taking out the misuse of words and grammar, you are left with something like;

"Therefore, if one only imagines something which could have no greater (of what quality is left out), then something CAN be imagined as greater. But certainly this can not be."

... can you say "Well .. DUHhh!"

That is another example of a tauty argument which reveals nothing to the reader.

Well, no. It is a contradiction not a tautology. But my point was to show that Anselm tied existence to greatness.

But honestly on this thread, I don't think anyone cares.

I do.

[thomas]

There are multiple ontological arguments, but they all suffer from the same basic flaw. God can not be compelled into existence by linguistic manipulation.

 

Exactly

[Ssel]

"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."

Pariah, my hats off to you,

In that brief and simple statement you accomplished the job far, far better than I. My mind was obviously still wrapped up with prior debates and arguments on similar issues. I added needless complication and apologize.

 

But beyond the original intent of this thread, I would add;

 

If that speaker wanted to make a more complete argument which conveyed more obvious correctness, then he would have to add 2 components;

1) a statement that relates God directly to "the ultimate"

2) a statement that relates conceiving something with that something's existence

 

I would guess the speaker was either an older man or raised around such. Merely 2-3 generations ago, the understanding that "God" was what you called "the ultimate reality and thus highest authority which nothing could ever hope to avoid" was common knowledge among the educated. Confusing the language is the first step to disrupting a nations population, causing uncertainty, feelings of insecurity, self-doubt, lack of confidence. These are then led into a subtle feeling of urgent need (all of those scare movies you might remember from the ‘70’s) which leads into the seed of fear, raising; anger, depression, panic, but most importantly to the magic involved - CONFLICT. Through such inner conflict, no nation can survive except by a particular governing method. That method is the first step to the final goal.

[Ssel]

There are multiple ontological arguments, but they all suffer from the same basic flaw. God can not be compelled into existence by linguistic manipulation.

 

Exactly

True, but the correction of what the words truly meant can be corrected. A newer misunderstanding of what was meant by the word "God" certainly makes it no more authoritatively correct. The only real question is, does anyone look past the fears and passions to see if there really was any truth. Or do we merely accept that hundreds of millions of people from the uneducated to the elitely educated were merely so much less than we, that they all fell to such a simple contrivance and hoax?

 

What a marvel of evolution we must be to SO quickly become such an advancement in such a brief time. The evolutionist would claim that such wasn't possible by evolutionary means, but then what does that leave? - God did it?? OR perhaps a little more realistically, perhaps it is just our imaginations telling us what we want to believe.

[Ssel]

Now onto a lighter topic of being elite at logic, just for the fun of it..

But one of your premises is that you observe the thing you are trying to define. And observing is a fundamentally inductive process, as has been long acknowledged.

Technically, if you're interested in such, those were not "premises" but components of the argument. A premise is a statement (sometimes assumed) preceeding an argument.

Well, no. It is a contradiction not a tautology. But my point was to show that Anselm tied existence to greatness.

I'm getting the impression that you believe that if an argument has one quality then it can not have another as well. Almost ALL arguments contain many defined qualities.

 

His statement was certainly a contradiction and so obviously so that any child would see that (assuming he had corrected his word usage first). But the fact that it is SO simply obvious added to the fact that his word usage hid the serious pointlessness of saying such is what gave it the quality of being "tauty" and thus "tautological". It could have added qualities of deduction, induction, empiricalism, humor...you name it. But the lack of these other qualities is what added to its tautological quality of pointlessness.

 

In short, the man said to get his name spread around.. as you just performed for him. You fell to his game.

 

Merely say something that SOUNDS really mysterious yet contains no real value at all, and you can sell books. If you don't believe that, go visit any book store and look through the list of books on any self-help topic. They will say in many, many pages of what you problem isn't. They will tell you of all the many misunderstandings of all of the symptoms. They will *imply* many possible causes. And in a few, they will get around to revealing what you can do that MIGHT possibly have some positive effect, although no scientific or reputable data has been presented to support the claim. But for certain, "that old and ancient wise people of that far away and mysterious land knew this secret."

 

In a sense, it's a question of economics. If you stop worrying about what the people actually gain in their lives and merely use them for creating more economy (which isn't entirely an abuse), then it becomes easy and sensible to continually sell them worthless, yet valuable in appearance, books, cars, furniture, tools, glues, cleaners, medications... you name it. The governance becomes extremely wealthy while the population struggles with a deep feeling of not really making any progress. They accept that disease and death has always been anyway so why fight it.

 

In the similarly tauty arguments used to make the words and thinking useless, the population can be easily persuaded into believing anything merely by peer pressure (who can survive for long without friends or relatives). Point a finger of guilt (even if merely a frame up) and the population becomes quit controllable.

 

All of that stemming merely from confusing their language. So I would be more careful of thinking that the language is just "words". Dictionaries were created so as to protect nations years ago. It takes more than just those, of course. But the REAL game is far more serious than merely individuals, businesses and churches playing for money.

[spamandham]

True, but the correction of what the words truly meant can be corrected. A newer misunderstanding of what was meant by the word "God" certainly makes it no more authoritatively correct.

 

Every ontological argument I've seen is an attempt to equivocate. They start by redefining god in a way no-one accepts (by concentrating on only one aspect - existence), and then continue with the proof, with the obvious intent being to leave those who aren't paying much attention with the impression "so and so used logic to prove god exists, therefor give yourself to Jesus".

 

The only real question is, does anyone look past the fears and passions to see if there really was any truth. Or do we merely accept that hundreds of millions of people from the uneducated to the elitely educated were merely so much less than we, that they all fell to such a simple contrivance and hoax?

 

The fact that they (/we) have fallen for it does not make them less than we. It merely means they haven't looked at it the same way or do not have the same information. Note that since this is an ex-Christian board, most of us have been on both sides.

[Ssel]

Every ontological argument I've seen is an attempt to equivocate. They start by redefining god in a way no-one accepts (by concentrating on only one aspect - existence)...

Yes, that is exactly right. But look closely at what you have said. "..that no-one accepts" This is definetly the problem area. The meaning of the word "God" got switched out while the teacher/parent/whoever wasn't looking. Thus the teacher proceeds with what seems a clear statement or argument to HIM. He doesn't realize that his listener has a different definition for his words. And thus, he is seen as merely someone who is attempting some trickery for his personal gain. There is a sure fix for this whether he was attempting a deceptive trick or not. We can get into such if you have such interest.

 

..and then continue with the proof, with the obvious intent being to leave those who aren't paying much attention with the impression "so and so used logic to prove god exists, therefor give yourself to Jesus".

Yes, "obvious intent". That is that it was obvious to YOU. It wasn't obvious to him even if his intent really was to deceive, else he would had made it less obvious. The simple fact that it appeared obvious to you is a sure clue of a mishap. Either by the teacher for being so foolish as to try to trick you in such an obvious manner, OR he wasn't the one who created the trick and wasn't aware that he was being heard in such a manner.

 

Besides all of that, how incorrect one person is in a statement or argument offers no support at all that the contrary is true. The assumption that because the teacher tried to deceive. In no way says that the opposite of the argument has any valididty. If you look at those attempting to argue the opposite, you find the exact same tricks. -- So who is right? - It is like listening to 2 lying lawyers in a courtroom and attempting to resolve any truth. The typical judge merely awards the better liar (unlike in the older days in America when an obvious liar got his ass kicked out of a court for good)

 

But let me make something clear in this thread, I am NOT saying that those Christians were all right and everyone else is wrong. I am merely pointing out technical fallacies in logical thinking. I very much agree that the Christian is making very serious mistakes and many are satisfied that they have managed to bring someone into their fold even though the person didn't really understand what was going on. I personally do not favor this at ALL, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or any of their "anti"s. Misleading and intentionally accepting the misled is a BAD idea. I stand squarely in NO church, but then I can't stand squarely in any of the anti-churches either. They are all playing the same manipulative games. There is a BETTER way. They just aren't looking for it. They are all too passionately attempting to spread their words either for or against regardless of outcome or any truth.

 

The fact that they (/we) have fallen for it does not make them less than we. It merely means they haven't looked at it the same way or do not have the same information. Note that since this is an ex-Christian board, most of us have been on both sides.

I don't argue that point at all. But realize you have said "in the same way", meaning that the way is DIFFERENT, not more correct. The presumption is that today "our" information is more correct and thus if we see things differently, then we must be more correct. But the information that is "more correct" information isn't the information involved. When the word God, like the word "Love", gets redefined so as to mean something different than it had meant. The new comer doesn't have better information at all. He merely has things redefined without his knowledge nor the awareness of the older speaker. The listener hears a completely different message than the speaker was speaking. They had 2 different languages and neither was aware of it, thus.. conflict, insistence on ridiculous rationales being intentionally used just to attempt some trick.