The ontological argument

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 51
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Ontological Argument:

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.

Maximally Great Being: Being that is Morally Perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful

Sound: Argument is valid and has true premises


Topic's author
#2
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
The premise here is that a maximally great being isn't logically contradictory. What that means is that it is possible that it could exists; however, its posible existence isn't certain. That is to say, we don't know whether or not a maximally great being could exist. Abscence of known imposibility is not evidence of possiblity.
 

If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
Why are we just assuming that every possible world exists? And how do we know with absolute certainty that some world is both possible and allows for an MGB?Claiming that an MGB already exists in some hypothetical world is equivalent to saying that the world exists; and that claim requires evidence.



If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
So the strange mind-twisting reasoning behind this claim is that nothing can be called maximally great if it's restricted to one or a few worlds. If we accept this, then we run into a contradiction. An MGB possibly existing in a world_X forces it to also exist in every other world, even those in which an MGB cannot exist. To avoid this dilema you would have to prove that an MGB is possible in every possible world. This is nigh impossible, seeing as there are supposedly infinite possible worlds.



 If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
First off, we don't know that an MGB exists in any world, because we don't know for sure that a world_X exists in which an MGB is possible. Moving on. Simply because a hypothetical multiverse could exist doesn't prove that it does. We know that our world is possible because it exists, but we don't know if any other possible worlds exist. Logically speaking, its a possibility that an MGB is impossible in the real world(s), and that an MGB only resides in the hypothetical (read: imaginary) worlds. Because non-real worlds, even if possible, are imaginary, it doesn't matter whether or not they are inhabited by an MGB.

Unless a world with an MGB is proven to exist, an MGB cannot be proven to exist either. Imaginary possibilities don't make for valid evidence.



If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
If "God-in-disguise" exists, then he does indeed exist. The problem is in the second premise in the argument, when God was already "proven" to exist due to possibly existing. This entire argument is a piece of circular logic, because we cannot know whether or not God actually exists in any world, far less ones that aren't our own. 



Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Correction: could exist.



RETURN TO SENDER:
  • If God is an MGB, then he necesarily is the greatest personal achiever
  • Humans reproduce and create a civilisation of their own kind -- thus they create something greater than themselves
  • The Biblical God, despite being omnipotent, has not created anything greater than himself
  • The Biblical God has not achieved more (compared to his ability) than humans, and thus isn't the greatest personal achiever
  • An MGB would be a greater personal achiever than God, and thus God is not an MGB
This argument uses the same kind of logic that the ontological argument uses.

Topic's author
#3
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@Dr.Franklin
Any thoughts?
#4
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
You can’t go straight from “X is possible” to “therefore X”

This argument doesn’t establish the existence of a maximally great being, it sneaks it in. The only way 2 works is if you regard the second half of the sentence as a logical statement rather than a factual statement. In other words, “exists” here is only being invoked as a logical possibility. Otherwise you’re just asserting the very thing you’re trying to prove.

But if 2 merely establishes a logical possibility, then 3 is a bare assertion of something that has not been established, which is again the very thing you’re trying to prove.

In other words, the argument sounds compelling because the usages of “exist” and “possible” change within the argument but does so in a way that initially difficult to spot, so we don’t even realize we’ve jumped from possible to actual until we’re already talking in terms of the actual.
#5
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
An argument used often by Christian apologists, which does not in any way advance the ball on "MGB = Bible Character." 
#6
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Benjamin
its sound
#7
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
@Benjamin
An argument used often by Christian apologists, which does not in any way advance the ball on "MGB = Bible Character." 
Which Christian apologists advance this argument? 

I think the entire argument is flawed and would never use it myself.   Benjamin has in his second post adequately demonstrated some of these flaws - I do not need to repeat them. 

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Possible is a word that is too vague and creates doubt. I want to know whether the existence is plausible or likely or even probable.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
Again the word possible gets in the road here.  Doubt extended to further doubt.  It simply is a nonsense extension of an already vague premise. 

3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Stop with the word possible.  The internal inconsistency of the premise is unsound.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Wow. Possible extends to actual. What is actual? And what can't so called "possible" world be also real?


5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
The logic could be worked backwards. 

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

I would like to know which Christian apologists use this so called ontological argument
Topic's author
#8
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The premises aren't true, therefore, even if you believe the argument itself to be valid, it isn't sound.
#9
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
want to debate that 

#10
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
As I recall it's pretty big for William Lane Craig among others. 
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@Benjamin
Nontological Argument


1. It is not possible that a Maximally Great Being exists

2. If it is not possible that an MGB exists, then an MGB doesn't exist in any possible world.

3. If an MGB doesn't exist in any possible world, then it doesn't.

4. If an MGB doesn't exist anywhere, then it doesn't.

5. Ditto.

6.Therefore Ditto.


MGB: Figment of the imagination.

Sound: What Doc was bound to say.

Ontological Argument: Archaic Bullshit Ben.
#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Modern Man is separating into Worm Man and Intelligent Man.

Earthworms form herds and make "group decisions", scientists have discovered.
The earthworms use touch to communicate and influence each other's behaviour, according to research published in the journal Ethology.
By doing so the worms collectively decide to travel in the same direction as part of a single herd.

In Humans this is called Religion.
#13
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
God exists because the concept of God exists, simple as
#14
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

The earthworms use touch to communicate and influence each other's behaviour, so do Mormon's.

In Mormon Temple Ceremony, every person learns certain secret handshakes and passwords necessary for them to enter heaven. Mormons learn about through staffing ceremonies, but most LDS members are not worthy of the temple. One of these ordinances is known as “the endowment” and consists mainly of theological instruction interspersed with the making of specific covenants. As part of this ordinance, Latter-day Saints are taught a series of challenge/response signs, including hand signals (“secret handshakes”) and spoken phrases, which are symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice the covenants being made.
#15
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
but it is possible
#16
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Benjamin
well, the premises are true
#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Bones
No.
#18
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
thought so. 
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
As I recall it's pretty big for William Lane Craig among others. 
Do you have a reference or a link for this? 
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
but it is possible
Anything is possible. The limit is only to the edge of your imagination - and even then it is possible for more outside of that. Do you see how how useless the word possible actually is? 


But how plausible, probable and likely is it.   

I think it is highly unlikely that there are other so called dimensions of us.  It assumes too much.  

The greatest way to create doubt about something is to use the word "possible". The problem is - "possible" is too broad a concept. 

I don't think "possible" is something we ought to promote in relation to God or His existence.

The non-existence of God is impossible.  

It is an absurdity to pretend or purport that God does not exist.  The very essence of everything else requires God to exist. 

We don't need ontological proofs to prove God's existence. 

We just need to open our eyes and observe.    As I  have said on numerous occasions, I have never seen anything or heard any argument presented by any person that would even make me doubt the existence of God.  It is simply an absurdity to think otherwise.  Nevertheless, many people do think that God does not exist.

It would be an interesting study to examine how rational thinkers in most areas of life can simply deny God's existence in the face of such obvious evidence when it comes to thinking about God.   

I don't believe I am brainwashed or conditioned to think this way.  I find that an incredibly naïve thing to suggest - an convenient for some to throw out. 

In the first place - if I am conditioned, then it is simply the result of life - and EVERYONE else is conditioned too? It is therefore on some levels inescapable.  

Hence - it is a redundant argument because none of us can escape from conditioning. It is either this one or another one.  Which one is better or worse than the other one? And who decides? 




#21
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I'd just look up some of his debates on youtube, I don't have one particularly. He was also a big Calam Cosmo go, however you spell it. Same sort of thing. 
#22
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Tradesecret
interesting thoughts and I probably have to agree
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ludofl3x

Yes, in a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, published in 1979, Michael Martin states:[
"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequiter. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."
Martin also claims that Craig has not justified his claim of creation "ex nihilo", pointing out that the universe may have been created from pre-existing material in a timeless or eternal state. Moreover, that Craig takes his argument too far beyond what his premises allow in deducing that the creating agent is greater than the universe. For this, he cites the example of a parent "creating" a child who eventually becomes greater than he or she.
#24
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Benjamin
I don't use the ontological argument but really this whole post is missing the point IMO. I think for this argument the strength of it is raising the possibility of God's existence rather than the proof of it. Because if it is possible, then really why would anyone think it's impossible? or even unlikely? in other words if there is no world or this world where it would be impossible for God to exist then what real reason do you have to think God does not exist?
Think of any one thing, place or creature in a world which they could not exist.....think of all the scenarios that would or could eliminate the possibility of their existence (this should be easy). Now, think about God and try to eliminate the possibility of God's existence (in which you will fail) in which it would be impossible for God to exist. The point of the exercise is to show the soundness of the concept, that there is no possible scenario where God could not exist. Therefore, hypothetically God exists because you cannot eliminate God from any scenario (possible world).

If we change the wording of it a tad, perhaps the argument will be a bit more sufficient or realistic. 
Instead of MGB let's try Most Necessary Being (MNB). God's existence as a "necessary" Being is perhaps the most grounding reality of all arguments. I can break this down as to why God's existence is necessary but hopefully that won't be necessary, as it speaks for itself without much clarification. For even when the opposition claims it is not necessary for God to exist, they only speak from a position of interpretation and speculation and when you truly evaluate their reasoning it is weak, useless in terms of reality and function. I do this all the time, which is to show how weak the argument is for their premises as to why God does not exist, the argument from comparison. The point of course is to show why God's existence is likely or even possible rather than unlikely or impossible. And even though the average atheist (or nonbeliever) believes God's existence is not possible (absurd) they won't admit it here, but it will come out in their arguments when you push them.

It is possible that a Most Necessary Being exists! (which it is)
If it is possible that a Most Necessary Being exists, then a MNB could exist in any possible world. (as there is no world God can't be conceived of)
If a MNB exists in any possible world then a MNB exists in every possible world.
If a MNB exists in every possible world then a MNB exists in this world.

But again, you can argue the premise that nothing proves God's existence here (by speculation) but you'd be missing the point. It doesn't really prove anything, it simply shows there's nothing to offer (no real reason) as to why God could not exist.

What really do I mean by "necessary"...?
"required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential.
needed in order to achieve a particular result
being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part
unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable
happening or existing by necessity; unavoidable
determined or produced by the previous condition of things"

God's necessary existence cannot be contradicted in any way as it relates to the existence of any possible world. God's existence does not contradict reality therefore "God exists in reality"....because...... there is no real reason to suggest God does not exist, therefore it is a sound proposition to claim God exists. I believe that's the root of the argument here. Not to prove God exists but to show there is no premise to deny it. By description and function, any other thing can be eliminated as a MNB from reality, but God cannot be eliminated from reality from existing.


#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Yes, in a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, published in 1979, Michael Martin states:[
"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequiter. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."
Martin also claims that Craig has not justified his claim of creation "ex nihilo", pointing out that the universe may have been created from pre-existing material in a timeless or eternal state. Moreover, that Craig takes his argument too far beyond what his premises allow in deducing that the creating agent is greater than the universe. For this, he cites the example of a parent "creating" a child who eventually becomes greater than he or she.
Thanks.  Just out of curiosity - have you read Craig's book or just the critique of it by Martin? 


#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
The existence of thoughts is an interesting thought for sure.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The imagination is boundless.

So replace MGB with Gandalf the Grey.

And:
6. Therefore Gandalf the Grey exists.

Easy Peasy Doc.
#28
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
For one, you can't just define something into existence. For two, this "proof" is totally dependent on your subjective definition of the word "great." Finally, the word God can be replaced with literally any other noun and be equally as invalid as an argument for that things existence.
Topic's author
#29
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
I prefer to re-construct the absurd premises into a more logical form.


1: An MGB necesarilly exists in all possible worlds if it exists at all
2: Our world is possible, as it exists
3: IF and ONLY IF an MGB exists, it exists in our world

Whether or not an MGB is even possible, or if it exists, is up for debate as you can't "define something into existence" as you said.
#30
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Define "great." 

And your reconstruction is no longer a proof of the being in question