Ontological Argument Defense
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
I would say that it isn't really saying much at all - other than trying to address one major argument against it (the claim that the existence of God is inserted into the argument as a premise).
The key paragraph / sentence, as I understand it, is:
"I find it logically inconsistent that many of those same people who say ‘no’ to the question of whether a logical transition from idea to reality can be made, have no problem at all making this same transition in logic when it comes to denying things."
Basically the author, in defending the ontological argument, is saying that those who argue against it are being inconsistent in their logical processes.
Be that as it may - the defense offered does not, IMHO, address the most fundamental flaws of the ontological argument:
It does not DEFINE GOD as anything other than "that above which nothing greater can be conceived" - which itself is open to question - who determines what is "greater" or not? And what of all the "greaters" that lead to logical paradoxes (the god that can create something that he can't lift, etc).
Secondly, the entire ontological argument boils down to a claim that "Existence exists" - which adds nothing to anything.
After all, what is greater than the entirety of existence itself?
It is a circular argument that this defense does not address.
Instead it cloaks "existence" with the unnecessary term "God".
Atheists have no problem in saying that existence is all.
Atheists have no problem in saying that nothing is greater than "the existence of everything".
For some reason, theists who accept the ontological argument merely transcribe the word "existence" or "the existence of everything" with "God".
Just my 2 cents.
The key paragraph / sentence, as I understand it, is:
"I find it logically inconsistent that many of those same people who say ‘no’ to the question of whether a logical transition from idea to reality can be made, have no problem at all making this same transition in logic when it comes to denying things."
Basically the author, in defending the ontological argument, is saying that those who argue against it are being inconsistent in their logical processes.
Be that as it may - the defense offered does not, IMHO, address the most fundamental flaws of the ontological argument:
It does not DEFINE GOD as anything other than "that above which nothing greater can be conceived" - which itself is open to question - who determines what is "greater" or not? And what of all the "greaters" that lead to logical paradoxes (the god that can create something that he can't lift, etc).
Secondly, the entire ontological argument boils down to a claim that "Existence exists" - which adds nothing to anything.
After all, what is greater than the entirety of existence itself?
It is a circular argument that this defense does not address.
Instead it cloaks "existence" with the unnecessary term "God".
Atheists have no problem in saying that existence is all.
Atheists have no problem in saying that nothing is greater than "the existence of everything".
For some reason, theists who accept the ontological argument merely transcribe the word "existence" or "the existence of everything" with "God".
Just my 2 cents.
The ontological argument has been debunked and drug through the mud for generations. The fact that it still comes up just demonstrates that theists keep learning about this "proof" without learning about the history of it. They get all excited, can't understand a word of the "proof", but since they agree with the conclusions, they get all giddy and run around with it for a few years. It is like watching a college student learn about Skinner or Meade or Freud.
Of all the bizarre things the ontological argument does (and Sarkus nails a few of the points) is that it grants the evolved nervous system of an animal extraordinary powers. Now, our brains are so great that we can *imagine* things into existence. The greatest thing I can conceive of MUST exist. How bizarre.
This only works if you already *know* the thing you are trying to create with your brain. Theists always stop with their own deity, and say, "So there". But I can something greater than a creator-god. I can imagine a void which has the natural properties of popping the entire universe into being. This is greater than a God because a God cannot exist in a void. A void which can randomly create the entire universe is the most powerful and incredible thing I can imagine. It needs no creator, and due to its stasis, it is eternal. It isn't limited by "thought" and without thought and moral sense, it is perfectly detached and incapable of doing wrong.
Any God would have to exist "within this void". It requires some void to contain the god, give him space and a canvas on which to work. So obviously, the void is greater. And the void escapes the logical paradox that you get from having an eternal creator-god. That god is impossible anyway.
See? It is like kids running around pointing their fingers at each other and yelling, "Bang".
"You missed."
"These are magic bullets, they never miss."
"They hit my magic-bullet shield and bounced off."
"These are magic-shield-piercing bullets, they are now releasing toxins in your bloodstream."
"I took the anti-dote."
It is easy to debunk the ontological argument by showing the flaws in the assumptions. What fascinates me is that you can grant every single assumption, and still show that it proves nothing because it can prove whatever you want to prove. It is adults talking like children.
Of all the bizarre things the ontological argument does (and Sarkus nails a few of the points) is that it grants the evolved nervous system of an animal extraordinary powers. Now, our brains are so great that we can *imagine* things into existence. The greatest thing I can conceive of MUST exist. How bizarre.
This only works if you already *know* the thing you are trying to create with your brain. Theists always stop with their own deity, and say, "So there". But I can something greater than a creator-god. I can imagine a void which has the natural properties of popping the entire universe into being. This is greater than a God because a God cannot exist in a void. A void which can randomly create the entire universe is the most powerful and incredible thing I can imagine. It needs no creator, and due to its stasis, it is eternal. It isn't limited by "thought" and without thought and moral sense, it is perfectly detached and incapable of doing wrong.
Any God would have to exist "within this void". It requires some void to contain the god, give him space and a canvas on which to work. So obviously, the void is greater. And the void escapes the logical paradox that you get from having an eternal creator-god. That god is impossible anyway.
See? It is like kids running around pointing their fingers at each other and yelling, "Bang".
"You missed."
"These are magic bullets, they never miss."
"They hit my magic-bullet shield and bounced off."
"These are magic-shield-piercing bullets, they are now releasing toxins in your bloodstream."
"I took the anti-dote."
It is easy to debunk the ontological argument by showing the flaws in the assumptions. What fascinates me is that you can grant every single assumption, and still show that it proves nothing because it can prove whatever you want to prove. It is adults talking like children.
Sarkus:
I do imagine that discussing "greatest" would be based off "logical extreme", E.G. omnipotence being the extreme of power, omnipresence the extreme of spatial presence, et cetera, et cetera.
Also, one can easily tackle the "rock argument" by exluding that which is logically incoherent. Omnipotence is not at all lessened by that which is incoherent.
It would seem that the label "God" is given because the attributes coincide with Western philosophy's conception of God.
I do imagine that discussing "greatest" would be based off "logical extreme", E.G. omnipotence being the extreme of power, omnipresence the extreme of spatial presence, et cetera, et cetera.
Also, one can easily tackle the "rock argument" by exluding that which is logically incoherent. Omnipotence is not at all lessened by that which is incoherent.
It would seem that the label "God" is given because the attributes coincide with Western philosophy's conception of God.
Swivel:
If it is not logically incoherent, whyever should it not exist?
On your notion of a "creative void":
The concept is incoherent. You ascribe "action" to "void" when a void cannot act, lest it cease to be a void.
If it is not logically incoherent, whyever should it not exist?
On your notion of a "creative void":
The concept is incoherent. You ascribe "action" to "void" when a void cannot act, lest it cease to be a void.
Not possible - logical extremes create logical incoherencies - and WHO is to determine which logical extreme takes precedence? Is the immovable to take precedent over the unstoppable? Or vice versa?
Also there is the nature of creation itself - the "god" that creates being inferior to one that doesn't - through the latter not having the lack in the first instance (creation implies lack).
This question has been raised in a thread begun by LG. And it was flawed from the outset due to bias in interpreting "greatest".
My point above: which extremes take precedence? Does the omnipotent god create the unstoppable or the immovable? It really is as simple as that. You can not just exclude that which you do not like - although it is what religions have done, I suppose
Bollox.
No offense, but this is drivel.
The word "God" is far more psychologically entrenched in the human psyche than that.
If God really was merely a term for "existence" then religions would never have been started.
God has so many connotations, depending on which religion you are, and none of them are just "existence" - or else they would call it that.
And that's one of the issues with the Ontological Argument - in that it doesn't define God beyond "that above which nothing greater can be conceived" - for to do so would result in that defined God failing the ontological premise of conceiving greater.
The Christian God sent himself (as Jesus) to Earth as our salvation.
This fails the test - as a greater God would not have created such imperfections.
You can argue the "greatest conceivable" all you want but ultimately you will come down to "existence exists".
And by referring to "existence" as God you imbue it with far more than it needs, and as a result will truly understand it less.
Sarkus:
Musn't we first discuss the coherence of the concept of absolute immovability and absolute unstoppability first?
This is certainly true.
Is it possibly to coherently postulate the creator of logical impossibilities? Noting that these logical impossibilities defeat themselves, such as int he case of a square-circle.
Yes, the other features are:
Omnipotence.
Immutability.
Omniscience.
Perfection.
Omnipresence.
Eternity.
Infinity.
Et cetera, et cetera.
I think it is the attribute of said existence which is best to deal with, no?
For instance, a non-infinite existence is inferior to an infinite existence.
Musn't we first discuss the coherence of the concept of absolute immovability and absolute unstoppability first?
This is certainly true.
Is it possibly to coherently postulate the creator of logical impossibilities? Noting that these logical impossibilities defeat themselves, such as int he case of a square-circle.
Yes, the other features are:
Omnipotence.
Immutability.
Omniscience.
Perfection.
Omnipresence.
Eternity.
Infinity.
Et cetera, et cetera.
I think it is the attribute of said existence which is best to deal with, no?
For instance, a non-infinite existence is inferior to an infinite existence.
Wrong. A void can have properties. Not containing anything is one property. Let's ascribe the property to matter, instead of the void. Matter (the entire universe) has the property of spontaneously coming into existence in the event that a perfect void is created. This could be a property of "stuff", and a *consequence* of the void, not a creative property of the void.
You are correct that if this happens the void is no longer a void, but what does that obvious statement prove? A runner cannot slow down to a walk because he would no longer be a runner?
There is nothing logically inconsistent with the universe starting as a void. Not that I pretend to think I can see past the first moments of the Big Bang, but I do use this as an example of what is logical (since an eternal creator is impossible). And causality is not an issue here. Causality is something we know about from our existence *within* the universe. That tells us nothing about what the laws of a void are. You are using the rules of a set, and applying them to the set itself. Not logical.
Please show how existence is not immovable or unstoppable?
Is not the superior god the one that can create logical impossibilities?
And furthermore - conveniently washed over with "This is certainly true" - you have said nothing about the "creator God" being inferior - and how that defeats the Ontological Argument for most of the Gods of Western Philosophy.
And in fact defeats all gods that are anything more than "existence".
And round and round and round we go...
Everything here merely describes "existence" - but actually adds nothing to that word - as they all require existence in the first instance.
Adding "God" is for political / emotional purpose - nothing more.
Please detail how a "non-infinite existence" is coherent?
If you want to set rules then you must stick with them and not pull fancies out of the air on a whim.
Swivel:
Does not containment imply container? When one discusses a void "containing" anything, this seems to imply spatial extension. Yet if it is a void, it is meaningless to consider it having spatial extension, no? As space itself is not a property of "void".
Moreover, can we speak of an absence of something as rightfully producing a consequence? For does not this require something acting in relation to nothing? How can one react to nothing? Isn't that "not reacting"?
Consider also that an acausal cause of causation implies causality prior to its establishment. Accordingly, it would seem that if causality exists, it exists eternally, for it to come into existence requires it to be caused.
Does not containment imply container? When one discusses a void "containing" anything, this seems to imply spatial extension. Yet if it is a void, it is meaningless to consider it having spatial extension, no? As space itself is not a property of "void".
Moreover, can we speak of an absence of something as rightfully producing a consequence? For does not this require something acting in relation to nothing? How can one react to nothing? Isn't that "not reacting"?
Consider also that an acausal cause of causation implies causality prior to its establishment. Accordingly, it would seem that if causality exists, it exists eternally, for it to come into existence requires it to be caused.
Sarkus:
Well the two would seem to be mutually exclusive, for one. Existence cannot move if it is immovable (hence cannot be stopped) and if cannot be stopped, cannot be immovable.
I would argue existence is immobile, though. Certainly, "everything which exists" is not moving anywhere together.
That which is superior is subject to the "rules of the game". Something which can create that which is impossible is violating itself. It is incoherent and cannot be "imagined".
And certainly, the God of the Ontological Argument is not the Christian God. It is, however, still very Western - the Greeks had non-creative absolute divinities. It reminds me a bit of the Stoic Logos and the Eleatic Absolute.
Well the two would seem to be mutually exclusive, for one. Existence cannot move if it is immovable (hence cannot be stopped) and if cannot be stopped, cannot be immovable.
I would argue existence is immobile, though. Certainly, "everything which exists" is not moving anywhere together.
That which is superior is subject to the "rules of the game". Something which can create that which is impossible is violating itself. It is incoherent and cannot be "imagined".
And certainly, the God of the Ontological Argument is not the Christian God. It is, however, still very Western - the Greeks had non-creative absolute divinities. It reminds me a bit of the Stoic Logos and the Eleatic Absolute.
- Mere existence does not address the other properties of (imagination of) the greatest being...
- ...I can imagine up a being called Fleem that will last for 43 seconds that has the power to wipe out everything in existence including all forms of gods. So there! (see swivel's earlier response)
But it is not the greatest thing - as the thing that continues to exist is greater than that which doesn't. And existence exists... etc.
A "Fleem" that doesn't exist after 43 seconds is not as great as one that exists for 44, or 45 etc - and then it will depend on how you measure "greater".
All arguments for the flaws in the OA.
I agree they would be mutually exclusive for something that exists within our framework of existence - but what about the actual framework itself??
For something to be "immovable" it must not move anywhere.
To move - you move from point A to point B.
Existence already incorporates ALL points - so can not move.
For something to be unstoppable it must not be stopped.
How do you stop existence?
Who determines what is "impossible", though? You - as a bag of limited sensory input/output and feedback loops?
Or God - the perfect, most superior "thing"?
And who determines which of the paradoxical extremes is "superior"? Is an unmovable object "superior" to an unstoppable one?
Apologies - my misunderstanding - I read the reference as being to Western religion (which is primarily Judaeo-Christian) rather than Western philosophy.
But it still doesn't get the OA past the "existence exists" boundary.
Enterprise-D:
Show me how it is coherent to be able to destroy an eternal being, and we can discuss Fleem.
Show me how it is coherent to be able to destroy an eternal being, and we can discuss Fleem.
Sarkus:
If something is stopped, it has been stopped or always has been stopped. Accordingly, it is "stoppable".
REason is like a Turing machine: Though different Turing machines differ in power, they do not differ in function. Accordingly, any action that one Turing machine can do can be done by another, albeit it superiorly or inferiorly.
Reason is the same: God could theoretically reason better than us/faster than us, but we'd be working on the same process. Ergo, what is impossible for us would be impossible for God.
No apology necessary.
It seems more about defining "what is entailed by existence"? Rather than "transcending" "existence exists".
If something is stopped, it has been stopped or always has been stopped. Accordingly, it is "stoppable".
REason is like a Turing machine: Though different Turing machines differ in power, they do not differ in function. Accordingly, any action that one Turing machine can do can be done by another, albeit it superiorly or inferiorly.
Reason is the same: God could theoretically reason better than us/faster than us, but we'd be working on the same process. Ergo, what is impossible for us would be impossible for God.
No apology necessary.
It seems more about defining "what is entailed by existence"? Rather than "transcending" "existence exists".
No - it is more about defining what is entailed by "God" that differs from mere "existence".
Everything you can ascribe to God through the OA can be ascribed to mere "existence" without the additional politics and emotions of the word God.
So why is the word "God" needed? It adds nothing but politics and emotions.
That is the barrier that the OA can not get past.
Please provide the thought process to get past this barrier... or else do you see the (perceived) flaw?
Sarkus:
Spinoza would not agree. NOr necessarily, again, the Greeks.
For instance, the Stoics do not speak of the Logos "transcending existence", nor the Eleatics the Absolute.
However, I agree that it is somewhat redundant. Yet I think the term is appropriate in as much as it implies that which we are discussing: Concepts of infinity, omnipresence, et cetera.
Spinoza would not agree. NOr necessarily, again, the Greeks.
For instance, the Stoics do not speak of the Logos "transcending existence", nor the Eleatics the Absolute.
However, I agree that it is somewhat redundant. Yet I think the term is appropriate in as much as it implies that which we are discussing: Concepts of infinity, omnipresence, et cetera.
But there is more in the implication of the word "God" than just that.
If everyone understood the word in the same way, to mean the same thing, then there would be no issue - in which case they should use the word "existence" - UNLESS they can determine what is different between God and Existence when using this Ontological Argument.
If not - why keep using such an inflamatory, emotional and political word when the term "existence" suffices without the additional baggage?
If everyone understood the word in the same way, to mean the same thing, then there would be no issue - in which case they should use the word "existence" - UNLESS they can determine what is different between God and Existence when using this Ontological Argument.
If not - why keep using such an inflamatory, emotional and political word when the term "existence" suffices without the additional baggage?
Sarkus:
The difference would not be there, unless we can prove that God would also have a personality as opposed to just being existence.
The best evidence does not point to God being a "person" if his attributes are coherent. For instance: It is very difficult to comprehend how we can rightfully speak of a personalized being with omniscience, as it implies a lack of thought, and omnipotence and perfection a lack of purposeful action.
The difference would not be there, unless we can prove that God would also have a personality as opposed to just being existence.
The best evidence does not point to God being a "person" if his attributes are coherent. For instance: It is very difficult to comprehend how we can rightfully speak of a personalized being with omniscience, as it implies a lack of thought, and omnipotence and perfection a lack of purposeful action.