Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:57 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
#1
Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
This will form the basis for my one of the first lf my future YouTube counter-apologetics videos, so sneek peek broski.


Basically, ontological arguments come down to trying to turn the proposition "God exists" into an analytic judgement, a statement whose truth is guaranteed essentially because it comes down to affirming the Law of Identity (A is A), with another example being "All batchelors are unmarried", i.e "All unmarried men are unmarried men".

Existence is not a Property

Most, if not all, ontological arguments import the assumption that existence is the property of an object, that is to say that things can "have" existence. To get a little philosophically deep, it assumes that their is some ontological substance to which properties inhere. This is self-evidently absurd. Firstly, this assumption actually assumes the non-existent things exist! They simply lack the particular property of existence is all... Lol. Secondly, a simple thought experiment. Imagine an apple and some of its properties: We'll say it's several inches wide, is green (yum) is a little sour and is fairly round. Now, subtract each of those properties in turn and what happens? The apple is gone, you've reduced it to nothing. To exist is to manifest in some way via properties, it is not a thing to be had in and of itself. If you doubt this, try to imagine an apple that doesn't have existence in your imagining. Wink


Modal Realism and its Myriad Problems

Now, theists think they can escape this through the lulz of Plantinga's modal ontological argument; think again. Plantinga's argument makes use of the "possible worlds" concept. Basically, a possible world is a way the world might possibly have been, other possible states of affairs. For example, there is a possible world in which we lost World War II, or where I didn't make this post (:p). The actual world is the way the world happens to, actually, be; this world.

The problem here is this: What does it mean to say things exist in other possible worlds? There are 2 positions here: Modal realism - which says that other possible worlds REALLY exist and that the term "actual world" is just indexical and valid relative to each world - and Modal fictionalism - which says that possible worlds are just fictions useful in the analysis of modal propositions, not as realms with real ontic grounding.

So, aside from the INFINITELY inflated ontology one tends to get with modal realism, it actually makes a complete lulzfest of Christianity. If God really exists in other possible worlds, then so do other gods. In fact, all gods ever imagined in this world and those not yet imagined - so long as they aren't contradictory - all exist under modal realism. They are all possible, therefore any monotheist holding to modal realism and the validity of Plantinga's modal ontological argument must become polytheists. Smile And accepting a strong modal realism is NECESSARY for a modal ontological proof of God's existence to work, because otherwise you're stuck in modal fictionalism, which simply holds that to be in some possible world is merely to say something about an abstract principle, just a set of compossible propositions. But under modal realism, it just leaves ontological arguments (and other theistic argument-styles such as theodicies) in complete disarray. Even God's supposed trans-possible worlds persistence doesn't allow theists to negate this without being inescapbly inconsistent on their metaphysics of modality.

So, either Christians, Muslims and the like must accept modal realism, become polytheists and fundamentally change their view of God and his relation to things like evil and other gods, or they must accept modal fictionalism and admit they have a decrepit, useless argument regarding God's existence. I don't think they like those options. Smile


There are more ("Why Axiom S5 Can't be used like This", "The Problem of Non-God Objects", etc.), but how many of you actually read this far (you bastards)? xD
Reply
#2
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
I'm pretty much a bone head in terms of philosophical terms. I understood the general argument (because I am familiar with most of the terms you used) but I'm not sure I completely understood what inhere or ontic actually mean.
Enlighten me,
"I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant; It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are"-Mewtwo
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”- Voltaire
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus
Reply
#3
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
I'd like a quick explanation of 'modal realism' vs 'modal fictionalism' please.

Thanks
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? Huh
Reply
#4
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
I thought I did:

(March 12, 2014 at 9:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: The problem here is this: What does it mean to say things exist in other possible worlds? There are 2 positions here: Modal realism - which says that other possible worlds REALLY exist and that the term "actual world" is just indexical and valid relative to each world - and Modal fictionalism - which says that possible worlds are just fictions useful in the analysis of modal propositions, not as realms with real ontic grounding.



Basically, modal realism says that possible worlds are really existing things, while modal fictionalism just says that possible worlds are just a useful fiction, not existing things in the same way our world is.

(March 12, 2014 at 9:40 pm)Jovanian Teapot Wrote: I'm pretty much a bone head in terms of philosophical terms. I understood the general argument (because I am familiar with most of the terms you used) but I'm not sure I completely understood what inhere or ontic actually mean.
Enlighten me,

To inhere is basically to be a necessary aspect of. "Ontic" just refers to the factual, real existence of something. Smile
Reply
#5
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
(March 12, 2014 at 10:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I thought I did:

Blush so you did.....Sorry, but I'm still confused.
How do the two differ? What is the difference between a real possible world and a fictional possible world when each has equivalent effect on the material universe we experience? Like, none other than as topics of discussion.
Is the modal realist acting on faith? Is faith in the reality of a possible universe parallel to that of the theist who claims a real deity despite no material evidence?
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? Huh
Reply
#6
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
No no no. These are 2 different positions about possible worlds. The modal realist thinks other possible worlds exist, while the modal fictionalist doesn't think they exist.
Reply
#7
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
As I have understood it, modal fictionalism compares to modal realism in the way that on the former, one need not assume that the worlds are plausibly real in order to benefit from thinking about them (essentially hypothetical situations) while the latter suggests that all worlds can be real because the claim "this world is real" is indexical.

OP, did I butcher this? I hope not.
I'm trying to become more technically savvy with the philosophical jargon.
"I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant; It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are"-Mewtwo
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”- Voltaire
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus
Reply
#8
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
(March 13, 2014 at 1:09 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: No no no. These are 2 different positions about possible worlds. The modal realist thinks other possible worlds exist, while the modal fictionalist doesn't think they exist.
Sorry to be dim, but I don't think I'm getting it.
Neither position seems to have reason to believe. If they exist, where are the real possible worlds? At least the fictional possibles only claim to be hypothetical. That makes sense.

Jovian Teapot Wrote:because the claim "this world is real" is indexical.
I looked up indexical and I hope I'm using the right definition: that an indexical term's meaning will differ with usage and context.
Using that definition, in what context is the "this world is real" claim made other than in the world we find ourselves?
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? Huh
Reply
#9
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
Well I read it - all Cool Shades

Not that I understood it but I did my best.

I have a number of questions with regard to the Ontological Argument which may or may not have already been covered by what you've written. These are:

What defines what is actually possible in any given universe and what is not? How do we know God is possible in any universe? Is it, for example, possible in another universe that Scooby Doo is a living creature with all of the characteristics of the cartoon character? Same for Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck et al.

If we assume that there is a possible universe where God exists can we also assume that there is a possible universe where he doesn't? If there is a universe that exists without God then that universe was not created by him. If its possible for there to be a universe without God the creator then no universe needs a creator and therefore God doesn't exist in any possible universe.

Even if there is a universe where God exists how does he get from there to here? Surely, if he can visit any universe (omnipresence) then there can't be a single universe without him, but, some of those possible universes weren't created by him so he isn't really God there.

Actually there are about a dozen more of these but I think they are all on similar lines. I am probably making all sorts of false arguments (argument from ????). Perhaps you could point a few of them out?
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Reply
#10
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
Ontological arguments fail because argument must be valid and sound. Sound means the premises from REALITY must be true. If there are no premises argument is empty.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability) JAG 12 938 October 8, 2020 at 10:30 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Best arguments for or against God's existence mcc1789 22 2716 May 22, 2019 at 9:16 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 79244 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 11030 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments? vulcanlogician 223 28100 April 9, 2018 at 5:56 pm
Last Post: KevinM1
  Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency datc 386 41273 December 1, 2017 at 2:07 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Valid Arguments for God (soundness disputed) Mystic 17 2036 March 25, 2017 at 2:54 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3174 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3102 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  Arguments for God from a purely philosophical perspective Aegon 13 2861 January 24, 2016 at 2:44 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)