The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Fake Messiah]

@Esquilax, one of your objections to maximally great being is that something "slightly more great" can be imagined makes no sense. What could be greater than an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessary being? If you could logically conceive of anything greater, then that would be God. Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

Well then how do you know there is no dragon in your room where you're writing your posts from? You'll probably answer "Because I can't see no dragon?" - Well then, I can say in spirit of ontological "logic" the dragon is invisible. You'll answer: I can sling a rope on the floor, under it's feet. - So what, dragon is flying.
To which you can reply: I know there's no dragon because I just spray painted the room and there was no dragon for it would be covered with color. - So, the dragon is moving fast, it's a dragon you know, and it escaped from being spray pained... and so on and on.
Would you believe there's a dragon in your room, leave it food and fear him? - No, because even if there is some sort of dragon in your room that's invisible, flying and very fast it obviously has no effect on your life - the same thing is with god.

BTW here's another argument for God by William Lane Craig - just to further show what a disturbing insane maniac that asshole is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc

[robvalue]

This is why evidence is important if you even remotely care about reality, and not just imaginary lands in your head. Evidence separates the two.

[SteveII]

Veritas_Vincit, your objection to premise 1 seems to indicate you do not understand "possible worlds" semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.

As Irrational said, it is important to understand the S5 modal logic that if something is even possibly necessary, it is actually necessary. (which would answer Kevin's question about the jump from 2 to 3.)

@Esquilax, one of your objections to maximally great being is that something "slightly more great" can be imagined makes no sense. What could be greater than an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessary being? If you could logically conceive of anything greater, then that would be God. Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

I do understand "possible world" although I don't necessarily agree with it. It states in the article: "...there is disagreement about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between the actual world and all the other possible worlds." In particular I disagree with Craig's application of the concept in this case.

The key point is this: you don't get to just say that something is possible because you can imagine it, you have to demonstrate that it is possible. That is not the same as asserting that it is in fact impossible, but until you can demonstrate that it is possible, then it is pure conjecture. Craig's whole argument is completely fallacious.

Your key point does not address the argument. Regardless of your personal evaluation of the evidence for God, yes or no, is the concept of God (maximally great being) illogical? If so, why?

[SteveII]

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

Which it is. At best, God can be super powerful to the point that no other entity would ever exceed it in power, but not literally omnipotent.

You are not pointing out why a maximally great being is illogical.

[Esquilax]

The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.

Which, again, merely presumes without justification that existence is a component of maximal greatness, which is an entirely subjective criteria asserted out of convenience. I would, for example, suggest that a being capable of doing all of the things a god is purported to do, while simultaneously not existing, is far greater than a being hamstrung by this requirement that he must exist to do things: the latter has a limitation that the former does not.

But then, I too would be making an argument based on my own subjective opinions of what greatness entails, which is good for the hypothetical but doesn't escape my main point, which is that the ontological argument relies exclusively on unsupported opinions of the criteria it seeks to explain, which doesn't exactly count for a lot.

As Irrational said, it is important to understand the S5 modal logic that if something is even possibly necessary, it is actually necessary. (which would answer Kevin's question about the jump from 2 to 3.)

Then I would point out that "necessity," where it isn't supported in any way, is not different than a petulant foot stomp and a yelled "because I said so!"

@Esquilax, one of your objections to maximally great being is that something "slightly more great" can be imagined makes no sense. What could be greater than an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessary being?

An omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, necessary being that can eat the one you're proposing. What's greater than that? Same deal, but it can eat the one preceding it. And so on. And so forth. Greatness has no upper bound.

More importantly, did you just not notice that this argument of yours is just one big argument from incredulity and ignorance? Your inability to fathom something greater is not an argument against my position.

If you could logically conceive of anything greater, then that would be God.

But once your god is a real being, with defined characteristics, then I can always conceive of a greater being. If you've got a god who is omnipotent and maximally great, then it's simplicity itself to logically consider a being that is identical, but has within its omnipotent power set the ability to be greater than your god, and also to bar your god from using his own power set to become greater than that.

This is the problem when your argument, like so many theistic arguments, rely on hazy, ill-defined yet strongly worded terms that are easy to manipulate.

Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.

1: and the qualities of a maximally great god aren't subjective? What makes you say that?

2: If she's maximally great then, by your own argument, she would have to be necessary. You seem to have appended necessity into your subjective definition of maximal greatness, so it's interesting to see you drop that part the moment it's convenient to do so.

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

"Greatness," both has no upper bound, and is a subjective criteria without an objectively set definition or list of minimal characteristics. Therefore, no entity or object of maximal greatness can exist, as there can be- especially within Craig's sphere of argumentation- no actual infinites, and if it did exist, it would only be maximally great insofar as it aligns with your personal idea of greatness, and not some global definition that would logically allow that being to be some dimension hopping ubermensch.

In short, you can't talk a god into existence with your own personal opinions.

[madog]

 
The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.
 

Without man there would be no one to think .... So surely it follows that there can be no God without man .... The rest falls away if he can only exist if man exists and thinks him up ....

[brewer]

You can't argue god into existence.

[madog]

You can't argue god into existence.

Exactly, and even if God could be argued into existence what is to say he would create man ... So what is the point of a hypothetical God that we will never know either this or the other side of death?

We'd have the same situation as now,  a hypothetical God somewhere that can never be proven or dis-proven ...

[Angrboda]

Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

The properties that make up 'greatness' are equally subjective.

The proof is fatally flawed because it assumes the possible objective existence of positive and negative properties. Properties themselves exist, but they are neither objectively positive or negative. In short, there is no objective, natural ordering of any set of properties such that for any P(i) and P(j) in the set, under all possible worlds, P(i) is more positive than P(j), or vice versa. You can say nothing about the ordering of properties in all possible worlds, therefore it is impossible to postulate a being that is essentially positive (using the definition of "essence" given in the Wikipedia article).

The concept of a maximally great being is illogical because the concept of 'objectively great' is incoherent.

[downbeatplumb]

You are not pointing out why a maximally great being is illogical.

Is a maximally shitty being illogical? if not I nominate Trump for the position.
What is maximally great? Sounds a bit nebulous to me.