Reply
Mon 12 Jan, 2004 11:54 am
Many of you probably know already about the famed Ontological Argument...I want your input on it.
If we can conceive of the greatest possible being conceivable, this being must exist, because if it didn't it would not be the greatest being conceivable. This means that the greatest conceivable, namely God, must exist...correct?
I'm not so sure. As an agnostic, I find that this is more about confusing words than proving God's existence. However, I think I may have solved this huge pain in the atheistic ass.
First of all, wouldn't it also be true thta everyone would believe in the existence of the greatest being conceivable? If they didn't, the being wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being, correct? This is the same principle as that which uses this idea to prove God's existence. If we are talking about God, and not everyone believes in God, then -correct me if I'm wrong- then God would not be the greatest conceivable being possible. Doesn't this go against Christian dogma?
The second flaw is the phrasing of it. We're talking of the greatest conceivable being possible, and even though by the logic in it this being would have to exist, the being would exist only in concept, right? How can we take this idea, which really makes sense when you think about it but only in imagination, and translate it properly into reality? Nothing in the Ontological Argument states that this being has to exist outside of our imagination, is there? Maybe I missed something?
What do you think!?
The "ontological argument" is often referred to as the "ontological proof of the existence of GOD."
It is not a proof -- and frankly, it is not an especially good argument.
It is circular -- and it gets to where it is going only because people proffering it want it to get there.
Don't need to add to that.
This is argument to the same extent that kicking a can is sport.
I'm glad to see your involvement, Mr. Apisa...
But I'd like to see what a religious person wants to say about this...I know you're agnostic like me, Frank, and I'm going to guess that you, Setanta, are as well or an atheist.
Yes, i'm an atheist. There are people here of markedly religious conviction--but given the reception they usually get, they tend to be gun shy. I have, of late, avoided such threads, so as not to unnecessarily offend those of religious conviction. However, the title of this thread was too good to pass up.
Re: Ontological Argument
Francisco D'Anconia wrote:First of all, wouldn't it also be true thta everyone would believe in the existence of the greatest being conceivable? If they didn't, the being wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being, correct? This is the same principle as that which uses this idea to prove God's existence. If we are talking about God, and not everyone believes in God, then -correct me if I'm wrong- then God would not be the greatest conceivable being possible. Doesn't this go against Christian dogma?
I'm not sure why the ontological argument would either require or result in universal belief. Humans are flawed, so the failure of some to believe in God would not disprove the ontological proof. St. Anselm was only talking about the greatest power
conceivable, not the greatest power that is actually conceived.
Francisco D'Anconia wrote:The second flaw is the phrasing of it. We're talking of the greatest conceivable being possible, and even though by the logic in it this being would have to exist, the being would exist only in concept, right? How can we take this idea, which really makes sense when you think about it but only in imagination, and translate it properly into reality? Nothing in the Ontological Argument states that this being has to exist outside of our imagination, is there? Maybe I missed something?
I'm pretty sure that St. Anselm was relying on a version of Platonic forms for his proof. As a general matter, Plato held that there existed "forms" that served as the blueprints for everything on earth. So, for instance, we know that a three-sided figure is a triangle because we have some conception of "triangle" provided by its "form." In the same way, Anselm argued that we cannot have an idea of God unless there was, somewhere, a "form" that corresponded to God. And so if we could conceive a god who is "greater than anything else," that means that there
exists such a god that serves as the form for our conception.
Well, >the greatest possible thing < cancels itself out since it includes all contradictions including, >not the greatest possible thing< , and including all nonbelievers. And all imaginations, in as much as they are part of the totality, are an aspect of the greatest possible thing.
One of the other almost humorous aspects of Anselm's ontological argument is the fact that it invites the law of unintended conseqences to assert itself.
In a sense (I know this is simplification) one rendition of the ontological argument can reduce to:
God is that which nothing greater than can be imagined.
Well, if that is the case -- and I am willing to concede it for the purposes of making this next argument -- it is a most compelling argument that, if there actually is a GOD, the god whose existence Anselm was attempting to establish -- is not GOD.
Anyone who cannot imagine a god greater than the god which Anselm posited -- simply has no imagination.
It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired to think. Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled brat.
Well, Frank, you should consider, at what time Anselm lived and what and how people living then generally thought.
It's not that they don't manage to dyslexia, it's that humans have the hubris to create everything in their own image.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, Frank, you should consider, at what time Anselm lived and what and how people living then generally thought.
Not really sure of what your point is here, Walter. I'd certainly like to discuss it if you want. If you do, just flesh the thought out a bit.
I know that you'd like to discuss that :wink:
Well, it is my idea that people in the 13th century were kind of prisoners of their time - like, perhaps/surely in any century.
Like mechanics, technics etc, philosophy develop as well.
But all is and was connected - the horizone was becoming wider during times.
(Kind of: at Anselm's time, they were falling down the earth disc, when they thought further than they could see from the cathedrals tower :wink: )
To address your two arguements against it:
A. God existed before man and before anyone believed in Him. How could lack of believers than detract from God? God is not lessened by the fact that people do not believe in Him.
B. The premise of the Ontological Arguement is that something that exists in reality is greater than something that only exists in the mind. A real unicorn would be greater than the idea of one read in a book. This ties into the Greatest Concieved Being in that actual existance is a stronger quality than concieved existance.
However, the arguement fails in that it assumes that this great being is possible in reality. The only way that we could know if something can exist in reality is if we know that it does exist in reality. Therefore, by assuming that our greatest possible being can exist, we must assume that it does (so we know that it is possible), this is how it's "recursive." So although the arguement is not perfect, I'm just addressing your two arguements against it.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
The "ontological argument" is often referred to as the "ontological proof of the existence of GOD."
It is not a proof -- and frankly, it is not an especially good argument.
It is circular -- and it gets to where it is going only because people proffering it want it to get there.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace