The ontological argument

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 51
#31
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Depends on how one understands "maximally great being".

For example, the act of creating a rock that one could not lift and then lifting it is contradictory.

Then, out of all the beings, there has to be a greatest being.

In the end, perhaps this, entirely, is nonsense.
#32
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Are we to say that "God" is automatically the maximally great being? Either way, everyone should know that the ontological argument, even if it is sound, does not mean that I should pray a few times a day and condemn heretics because a maximally great being has the ability of not needing anything from humans.

Technically, anything exists, we just don't know it. God is already an recurring historical fiction character in many series. Harry Potter and Gandalf exist in the form of fictional figures. The idea exists, and the idea is as an idea as the idea about Trump or DebateArt.

If it can be made to an idea, and its existence does not automatically bar itself from coming into existence, then it exists. A being that can drive me to the town hall in a town without a hall is logically contradictory and thus does not even exist. DArt and Trump can be rationalized into existence, and we know it, thus we consider it existent.

Then, if "maximally great" is comparative, then out of all the beings, one must be the greatest. If "maximally great" is absolute, then contradictions would automatically bar it from existence, making that it is not "maximally great".
Topic's author
#33
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Maximally great is defined as the Abrahamic God basically, because the MGB is said to necesarily be the strongest, smartest and "moral-est" possible, fitting the description of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection. Now of course anyone could project their image of greatness onto this MGB, and this disqualifies the argument from (validly) being used by Christians or any other group. However, the argument's logic itself is wrong.

Actually my reconstruction doesn't prove the MGB at all; what it does is showcase the inconclusiveness of the argument. One cannot know anything about the other "possible" worlds the argument assumes, and thus claiming  with certainty that an MGB exists in one of those is absurd. Because of this, the question of an MGB's existence cannot be answered without clear evidence that such an MGB exists in OUR WORLD.

The ontological argument is a fallacy that attempts to move the goalpost of proving an MGB's existence in our world into its possibility in hypothetical worlds.

AKA, it's evidence from imagination.
#34
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin


 Well stated.
#35
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
My bad, I thought you were arguing in favor of the ontological argument.
#36
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
is gandalf the grey a MGB
#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Depends on how one understands "maximally great being".

For example, the act of creating a rock that one could not lift and then lifting it is contradictory.

Then, out of all the beings, there has to be a greatest being.

In the end, perhaps this, entirely, is nonsense.

This is the point though and why this ontological argument is flawed. It puts up a strawman God or GMB and then strikes it down.

Your example of omnipotence is a perfect example of strawman. The Christian God is omnipotent. Yet omnipotence is not defined "as can do anything absolutely and no matter how absurd it is".  But rather can do anything he chooses to do. Or anything he wills to do. Yes. He could create a world within a millisecond. Or six days or 10 billions years.  None of these things are absurd on the face of it. Yet, to make a rock so big he can't lift it - is an absurdity - not just in reality but with wordplay. He can't make a circle square either.  Circles are circles and squares are squares.  But God does not choose or will to do absurdities. 

Similarly, the argument above is also based upon the strawman picture of God, that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and all benevolent. Yet, the Christian God is not described in such terms - but rather as Holy.  Hence, both full of mercy and full of justice.  Jesus' death on the cross ultimately brought both of these into play - God's justice was seen to be done and yet it also wrought grace and mercy.  

To ever simply suggest God is only the three character traits above without bringing into play his mercy and grace - in totality with his Holiness will only be a strawman god.  

I think the argument is flawed for those reasons but also because it is premised upon a whole lot of other nonsensicals as well. 


Topic's author
#38
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You can’t go straight from “X is possible” to “therefore X”

The ontological argumetn goes from "X is possible" to "some possible world contains X". The problem is that this specific imaginary world does not evidently exist.
#39
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, an MGB is a classic British Sports Car.

Top of the morning to ya Doc.
#40
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
your sarcasm isnt appreciated
Topic's author
#41
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The ontological argumetn goes from "X is possible" to "some possible world contains X". The problem is that this specific imaginary world does not evidently exist.
Do you have any objections to this rebuttal?
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Should be occasionally expected though Doc.

Ontological Argument.....Not to be taken seriously.
#43
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 361
1
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
1
2
3
-->
@Benjamin
Aren't labels  like what you are specifying, greatness etc. subjective?

Your description of greatness is not necessarily what I call greatness.

Some think Yahweh great, but I see him as a vile demiurge.

Do you see a great god as putting evil into our reality?

Natural religions have no problem of evil, but a supernatural god does.

Christianity sort of does, but gets out of it by singing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Other than evolutionary theology, Christians are between a rock and a hard place and cannot justify the evil in Yahweh/Jesus.

Regards
DL
 
#44
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
nah I like it
#45
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Benjamin
we can imagine it in a world, it is logically sound to say so
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Of course you do Doc.

And I particularly appreciate it's futility.

An assemblage of recurring modifications that arrive at their own conclusion and achieve nothing other than that.


So replace MGB with Allah.

And Muhammad is a happy bunny too.


Doc and Muhammad

Like two peas in a pod.


The Ontological argument could unite the World Doc.

It could prove everything to everyone's satisfaction.


Like, replace MGB with MPA

Morally Permissable Abortionist

Will satisfy the pro-lifers for sure Doc.


Or MGP

Maximally Great Paedophile!


Oh dear dear Doc.

What have you started?
Topic's author
#47
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we can imagine it in a world, it is logically sound to say so
God existing in your imaginary world doesn't prove that all worlds that actually exist have a God in them, even if you assume an MGB to be interwordly.

Why would you base your argument for the existence of a higher being on your own imagination? Someone else, muslims for example, can imagine the MGB to be Allah and not JWHW; do you think the argument proves that both exist in the real world? If not, then you are arbitrarily selecting your own imagination to be the supreme ruler of what can and can't exist in hypothetical worlds. If you reject the existence of Allah without rejecting the existence of JWHW, you are a victim of cognitive dissonanse --- unless you admit the ontological argument to be a meaningless construction of hypotheticals with no basis in reality.
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
A meaningless construction of hypotheticals with no basis in reality.

Nice.
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
The ontological argumetn goes from "X is possible" to "some possible world contains X". The problem is that this specific imaginary world does not evidently exist.
Exactly, so how do you get from an imaginary world that does not evidently exist to the actual world? What is the bridge between these two things?
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
Just realized you are against the argument, didn’t read the thread fully. Why start a thread on it then?

255 days later

#51
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Benjamin
The Ontological Argument.
Christians are reducing God to a logical argument 

The evidence for God found in the scriptures was sufficient to convince some 4 million Muslims and Christians as well as over a billion Hindus.

The Ontological Argument is based on abstractions surrounding the conditional “if”.