The Ontological Argument is Sound

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 170
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
The third argument for God, a philosophical argument, is the Ontological Argument first written up by Saint Anselm in the 11th Century. It follows like this:
 
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

This argument is very simple and true. If an MGB(Maximally Great Being) could exist, then an MGB would have to exist because it is maximally great. The MGB here is God. Let’s go through this argument with each premise.

First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist. An MGB would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect. However, only a maximally great being could exist instead of a maximally great pizza for example because it is an object and objects have no intrinsic value to rank it whether it is great or not. With a being who has a soul and a state of mind, we can conclude that it is maximally great. It is the greatest being ever. Next, if it is possible that an MGB exists then it has to be in a possible world. A possible world meaning any other world that includes different things that is logically coherent. A unicorn or a leprechaun exists in a possible world because it could exist. However, a Married Bachelor or a circle does not have pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this,let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists. 

God is then defined as a necessary being then. In Philosophy, there are 3 different types of beings:

1.Contingent being: A being that could exist, but may not necessarily exist (such as a unicorn) 

2. Impossible being: A being that is impossible, such as an invisible pink unicorn or a married bachelor. 

3. Necessary being: A being who exists necessarily and whose non-existence is impossible (such as numbers, logic, etc). 

God is a Necessary being because, in order to be maximally great, it has to be necessary. It is not an MGB if it is impossible to be formed or a Contingent being that could exist. Follow logically, and if an MGB could exist, which is most certainly can, then it has to exist.

This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for a MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you tried using this syllogism on anything else, the conclusion you get would be absurd (as shown by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers). This argument tries getting around that issue by asserting that God is a "necessarily existent being", and that the syllogism only applies to "necessarily existent beings" without demonstrating why this is the case. This is special pleading.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This argument always bothers me. It took me a while to figure out what it meant, and even when it did finally make sense to me, it doesn't seem convincing. If valid, God has to exist. However, it always seems like it's missing something. I've tried to find an error in the logic and to disprove it (for the simple reason that, even though I believe in God, I don't like this argument), but I've never been able to prove an error in it. I don't know how to describe it, but something just feels wrong about it. So far as I can tell, it's logically sound, and I agree with the conclusion that there's a God, but I just don't like it.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
A MAXIammly Great  Being would have to be a neccessary being to be maxiammly great
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@SirAnonymous

First 4 search results

Explains it all and debunks the common objections
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I know the answers to the objections. I have no logical objection to it. I have no reason for it, but I just don't like it.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
The syllogism cannot apply to anything other than a maximally great being. One of the steps of the argument is that, if a maximally great being exists in one possible universe, it must exist in all possible universes, or else it would not be maximally great. Anything that isn't maximally great wouldn't have to exist everywhere. I've tried that objection before. It's no good. As much as I don't find this argument convincing, I've never been able to prove it invalid.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
I've tried to find an error in the logic and to disprove it (for the simple reason that, even though I believe in God, I don't like this argument), but I've never been able to prove an error in it.
<br><br><br>

Really? Nothing at all seems wrong to you? Then you must have a coherent and useful definition for this '''Maximally Great Being" it refers to. If you do then please let me know, none of its defenders have ever given me one. If you don't then well... There is the error you were looking for.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's a lot of <br>. Is that on purpose, or is the bug getting worse?

More to the point, a maximally great being would be one that is maximally great in every respect. It would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Define "great"
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
In this instance, "great" as opposed to "lesser." In any case, ask Dr. Franklin. I'll be off this site tomorrow until mid-January.

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
See #10
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Ok cya dude
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yep. It's been a fun few months. See you next year. Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is one of my favorite arguments for God. I think people dismiss this one too readily because it's unlike any other argument, but like a math equation, you can't escape the conclusion.


If you tried the syllogisms on anything else, it doesn't prove its existence it falls apart.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's a lot of <br>. Is that on purpose, or is the bug getting worse?

Not on purpose, though I do recall using the 'undo' button several times in that post. That might be related.

More to the point, a maximally great being would be one that is maximally great in every respect. It would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

I don't see how that makes premise 3 valid in any way. Just because you define something and put in the definition 'also this thing exists', I just don't see how that makes it exist. Just because you say so. You know? Premise 3 really is where it all falls apart.

Unless by omnipotent you mean 'able to do anything' rather than 'able to do anything within the world/world's that it exists in'... If that is what is meant by omnipotent then premise 2 is the breaking point.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
like a math equation, you can't escape the conclusion.

The conclusion does follow logically from the premises.

The problem is that the premises are blatantly invalid.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The counter argument is equally as sound.

Therefore a maximally great being either does or doesn't exist.

Which is the same old,  past, present and ongoing unprovable uncertainty that ever was and is ever likely to be.

So what?
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Which of the premises do you reject? And why do you reject them?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
God is neccessary
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
Percectly Moral,All-knowing and all-powerful

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Which of the premises do you reject? And why do you reject them?

Two is shaky and three is objectively absurd but the whole thing is built on a bad foundation in the first place since it basically boils down to "I define this hypothetical thing as existing therefore it exists".
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

Analytic propositions – propositions that describe the interplay between ideas and definitions.

Synthetic proposition – a model statement about the external world.

Synthetic propositions are described in logical terms and substantiated by empirical evidence.

“God exists” is a synthetic proposition.

Logic alone is not proof, you still need evidence.

OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Premise 2 is just a restatement. To say that something is possible is to say it could possibly exist, which is to say that it exists in a possible world.

Premise 3 I don't see any absurdity in. If a MGB exists He by definition must exist in all possible worlds rather than some. To exist in some but not others contradictions the definition of maximal greatness

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Paul
the evidene is isnide the logic
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The logic itself is not empirical evidence.

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What does "perfectly moral" mean? 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
His standards is the best
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Paul
why
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What are his standards?