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!
June 21, 2016 at 8:28 am (This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 8:30 am by Veritas_Vincit.)
(June 20, 2016 at 11:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(June 18, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:
This argument is what I call the 'Neverland supper' of theistic arguments - as with the lost boys' food in Peter Pan, Craig is trying to manifest God by closing his eyes and using his imagination to believe it into existence.
You can watch William Lane Craig giving the Ontological Argument for the existence of God on YouTube here:
This is the syllogism in Craig's words verbatim from this video:
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
So, let's have a look at this.
I'm not particularly tied to this argument (actually just started learning about it last weak), but I think that the comments here are interesting.
My comments below in Red.
[quote Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists.
Craig is conflating a possibility with a hypothetical idea. Hypothetically you can posit the idea that a 'maximally great being exists' but that in and of itself doesn't make it possible. If you want to say that something is possible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is possible. All Craig does is assert that it is, with no evidence and flawed logic. As Hitchens rightly says, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't think you understand, what is meant by possible here, and in regards to possible worlds. This is saying that it is logically possible or that there isn't a logical reason to reject it. It is an argument from pure reason
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
We can't get to 2 because 1 is flawed, but for the sake of argument - again, Craig is making the same mistake (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that it is an intellectual error rather than a conscious deception) confusing the idea of a hypothetical reality, which only exists in the mind of the person thinking about it, and a possibility as being something that might exist in some alternate reality. Again, bald assertion, no evidence, faulty logic.
Again, you have the same error as premise 1
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
This is contingent upon Craigs own definition - which literally means that is so because he says so. What is a possible world? Does he mean an alternate universe in the multiverse? Or does he mean an abstract hypothetical - because the latter does not exist, only the idea of it exists in Craig's mind.
You should probably look to understand the argument before trying to refute it!
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Another bald assertion and non-sequitur. All we have here is Craig's say so. It's the same fallacy of conflating 'possible worlds' with alternate realities or hypothetical ideas. He's trying to manifest God directly out of his imagination.
This is definitional true, please explain why you think that it is non-sequitur. Do you not think that the actual world is a possible world?
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
This is where the supper manifests directly from your imagination into your bowl... which is great unless you actually have an appetite for real truth.
Did you not follow the logic
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
That's not really a 'therefore' as it's implicit in the previous premise, he could have skipped this one.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
And here's a rabbit I've pulled straight out of my ass! Let's call him Zeus!
I think that it is interesting, when some try to oppose everything in an argument concerning God (You see this also in the Kalam Cosmological Argument). I am curious if your expert opinion in psychology from the other thread, would also agree, that it's not really about logic and reason, but a need to not let a divine foot in the door.
[/quote]
You know what, at first I found your response frustrating, but now I actually want to thank you because it made me go back and think about this and analyse Craig's argument:
Craig's description of Possible Worlds from the video:
"A possible world is just a way the world might have been. It's a complete description of reality. So a possible world is not a planet or a universe or any kind of concrete object, it's just a world description. The actual world is just the description that it true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. So, for example, Unicorns do not in fact exist. But, there is some possible world in which Unicorns exist. On the other hand, many mathematicians think that numbers exist in every possible world, they exist necessarily."
Now let's break it down and expose the slights of hand:
"A possible world is just a way the world might have been. It's a complete description of reality. So a possible world is not a planet or a universe or any kind of concrete object, it's just a world description. The actual world is just the description that it true. Slight of hand: the actual world is not the description that is true - Craig is blurring the distinction between the actual world and the description of it.
"Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true." Yes - but this means that the word 'possible' in 'possible world' does not actually make it possible in the sense that 'it can be the case in some reality', it is simply hypothetical. This is the key point: possibility is a positive claim, and it has to be demonstrated. It does not stand simply because the contrary claim that it is impossible has not been demonstrated either, because it has to uphold its own burden of proof. This is where the meaning of 'possible' and 'hypothetical' are confused.
To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. So, for example, Unicorns do not in fact exist. But, there is some possible world in which Unicorns exist. On the other hand, many mathematicians think that numbers exist in every possible world, they exist necessarily." It's true but look at what he's saying. He isn't saying that there IS a world where Unicorns exist, he's saying that there can be a description of a world in which Unicorns exist. The devil is in the detail here.
Craig then goes on to use 'possible' in different sense in his syllogism:
"It's possible that a maximally great being exists." - and that's simply not true! Not yet anyway because he hasn't demonstrated that it is. He is using 'possible' in this premise before he even gets to 'possible worlds' but he hasn't demonstrated that it is in fact possible that a 'maximally great being' exists. He's just asserted it. It's also an incredibly ill-defined idea. "God is by definition the greatest being conceivable" - this is meaningless - think about it, 'greatness' is not some objective quality, it's a subjective description. It's going to be different for everyone, and is limited by people's imaginations. The only reason this sticks for Christians is that they are already indoctrinated with these ideas about God, they already believe God has these qualities, so they accept everything he says about God even though he doesn't substantiate any of it. This is all smoke and mirrors!!
Quote:Then you have simply changed the definition of omnipotent. Equivocating. An omnipotent God could prevent getting eaten.
My point is that there exists, if we so wish to discuss it, an infinite number of ever increasingly maximally great beings, each one identical to the last, only with the ability to limit the one preceding it. You propose an omnipotent god, and this is your maximally great being, in response I propose a being with an identical power set, plus one more ability which allows it to weaken your god, thus making it the maximally great being, and so on, ad infinitum. Yes, I suppose in some sense I'm simply broadening the definition of omnipotence, but we're not talking about omnipotence, we're talking about maximally great beings within the premises of the ontological argument, and the fact that I can erect an infinite regress around that at all demonstrates my point: the concept of a maximally great being is logically incoherent in that any maximally great being that actually exists serves as little more than a platform from which other, more powerful beings can be posited. The moment you show a demonstrably real maximally great being is the moment that being can be surpassed simply by proposing additional beings capable of negatively influencing the extant one. And you can say that a really omnipotent god could prevent that, but that's the point: that god would no longer be omnipotent because I've built into the power set of my being the ability to take that power away from yours, and it's hardly like we're discussing real things anyway, we're just talking in hypotheticals. You've no reason to dismiss my concept out of hand.
Greatness has no defined criteria, nor an upper bound, and this is the problem here. The first premise of the ontological argument is roughly akin to saying "the greatest possible number exists," and then you, as a numberist, telling me what number you think that is. 64, you say, for the benefit of my analogy. Then I rightly point out that 65 is a higher number than 64: you just telling me that 64 is the highest possible number necessarily, therefore it can prevent 65 from being higher... well, that just doesn't make any sense, does it?
When Anselm first wrote this argument, he was careful to distinguish between what we could think of as the greatest possible being and God is the greatest being possible, that is to say, it is impossible for there to be any being greater than God. Your infinite regress is a result thinking of God simply as the greatest being there is.
(June 20, 2016 at 11:57 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: I have just deleted my response, you would gather what it would be, from my previous post. But again I will state, I cannt see your point, that God is apparently necessary also that ontologicial is self explinatory.( We are simply rationalizing words into existence by using these phrases is my feelings.)
The "Ontological argument" is completely invalid.
Quote:"The Ontological argument is simply that god is possible, therefore god exists."
It does nothing to prove or deduce the initial unproven premise.
One needs to prove that god is possible before the argument has any validity.
What is that so difficult to see? Oh, wait ... christian sunglasses.
I see this in a lot of posts. Premise 1 simply states that it is broadly logically possible that a maximally great being exists (not that God does exist). If you disagree with this you need at least a reason why. You do not need "to prove that god is possible before the argument has any validity". If you think that, you do not understand the argument.
June 21, 2016 at 12:03 pm (This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 12:06 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(June 21, 2016 at 4:38 am)Irrational Wrote: 2 is just simply true (as true as "all bachelors are unmarried")
No, "all bachelors are unmarried" is a logically valid tautology. The following is a logically invalid non-sequitur:
The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God Wrote:Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If something is logically possible it does not at all entail that that something exists in any world.
irrational Wrote:and 3 is based on the argument that the maximally great being, as defined by Plantinga, is possibly necessary.
No it's another non-sequitur.
The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God Wrote:Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If something exists in a possible world it does not at all entail that it exists in all possible worlds. If something is possibly necessary that does not at all entail that it necessarily exists.
(June 21, 2016 at 8:28 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Now let's break it down and expose the slights of hand:
"A possible world is just a way the world might have been. It's a complete description of reality. So a possible world is not a planet or a universe or any kind of concrete object, it's just a world description. The actual world is just the description that it true. Slight of hand: the actual world is not the description that is true - Craig is blurring the distinction between the actual world and the description of it.
"Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true." Yes - but this means that the word 'possible' in 'possible world' does not actually make it possible in the sense that 'it can be the case in some reality', it is simply hypothetical. This is the key point: possibility is a positive claim, and it has to be demonstrated. It does not stand simply because the contrary claim that it is impossible has not been demonstrated either, because it has to uphold its own burden of proof. This is where the meaning of 'possible' and 'hypothetical' are confused.
To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. So, for example, Unicorns do not in fact exist. But, there is some possible world in which Unicorns exist. On the other hand, many mathematicians think that numbers exist in every possible world, they exist necessarily." It's true but look at what he's saying. He isn't saying that there IS a world where Unicorns exist, he's saying that there can be a description of a world in which Unicorns exist. The devil is in the detail here.
You seem to think that Craig developed this framework to trick you. It existed long before Craig. You still do not understand it. Did you bother reading the link I first posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world. Philosophers writing philosophical arguments assume you understand this.
Quote:Craig then goes on to use 'possible' in different sense in his syllogism:
"It's possible that a maximally great being exists." - and that's simply not true! Not yet anyway because he hasn't demonstrated that it is. He is using 'possible' in this premise before he even gets to 'possible worlds' but he hasn't demonstrated that it is in fact possible that a 'maximally great being' exists. He's just asserted it. It's also an incredibly ill-defined idea. "God is by definition the greatest being conceivable" - this is meaningless - think about it, 'greatness' is not some objective quality, it's a subjective description. It's going to be different for everyone, and is limited by people's imaginations. The only reason this sticks for Christians is that they are already indoctrinated with these ideas about God, they already believe God has these qualities, so they accept everything he says about God even though he doesn't substantiate any of it. This is all smoke and mirrors!!
The first premise is talking about broadly logically possible. This simply means there are no contradictions in the idea that a maximally great being exists. There is nothing to prove. To defeat that premise you simply have to show why the idea of God is not broadly logically possible. The rest of your post is meaningless because you do not understand the argument you presented in the OP.
June 21, 2016 at 12:33 pm (This post was last modified: June 22, 2016 at 4:42 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(June 19, 2016 at 3:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you're just building necessity into the definition of maximally great, then first of all congratulations, you've got subjective opinion number 9,800,654 on what constitutes maximally great, and unfortunately for you your personal opinions are no more binding or objective than anyone elses'.
Not only that but any ostensible argumentation that assumes the conclusions it sets out to demonstrate is not actually argumentation.
(June 21, 2016 at 11:29 am)SteveII Wrote: When Anselm first wrote this argument, he was careful to distinguish between what we could think of as the greatest possible being and God is the greatest being possible, that is to say, it is impossible for there to be any being greater than God. Your infinite regress is a result thinking of God simply as the greatest being there is.
Trouble is, there's still no cap on greatness. I get that you're stuck in this mindset, due to the vague nature of your argument, where god's just the greatest thing ever, but your argument is attempting to show that god exists, and extant things have verifiable qualities, that's just the nature of reality, and unfortunately for you, your argument posits that god exists in this world. Actually think about the premises of the argument and the conclusions that follow on from them, don't just be happy that in them your god exists and stop there, really consider the real world as depicted in that argument: god exists, he's the maximally great being. What are his characteristics?
You aren't talking about some airy-fairy philosophical nothing anymore when you reach the conclusion of the ontological argument, you're talking about a real, extant being, and therefore he must have qualities that can be described. He is a set entity, an objective quantity, and to accept that he exists you must have some idea of what he even is. If you don't then I'm sorry, but you're not discussing a real thing, you're discussing an amorphous cocktail of ever-expanding traits with no bearing on reality.
But if god is real, which is the thing you're trying to prove, then he has a set level of greatness that you are asserting to be the highest possible level of greatness, and which I am capable of positing a being greater just by adding to the first being's qualities dominion over that first being. What then? If you're talking about a real entity then your god is no longer maximally great because there's a possible being greater, and that being doesn't exist, putting the lie to the ontological argument. If you're just going to assert that that being I made up is now god by dint of being greater than the one you think exists, then congratulations, you're no longer discussing a real being at all but just vague theological generalities that don't behave like existing things need to, and you're certainly not discussing the actual christian god. Either way, the ontological argument fails.
There is, of course, the third option, which is the one I suspect you're using, which is just to lazily assert based on nothing that the maximally great being under discussion is just the greatest thing there is possible to be, in the process ignoring the dual facts that greatness is a subjective criteria and that no such upper bound on greatness even exists... and in that case I don't really need to take your position seriously: it's nothing more than a bluff, an assertion made without evidence that ignores everything that has been said prior and is completely circular. It's just "god is the greatest possible being because there can be no greater being than god."
It's the same as saying nothing at all.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
The maximally great actual being in the universe may not even be that far beyond human, a maximally great possible being in the universe is still yet to be demonstrated.
As I understand it, the Maximally Great Being (MGB) doesn’t have anything to do with subjective criteria or value judgments about what constitutes the best possible thing anyone can imagine. Rather, the MGB means something more akin to the fullest possible expression of what it means to exist. The idea here is that every particular thing exemplifies its kind to a greater or lesser extent. For example, a warning traffic sign is an objectively better example of a triangle than a spanakopita. Thus when maximally great is attributed to God it is meant in the sense that He exemplifies the fullness of everything it means to be, i.e. complete, self-sustaining, necessary, fully in act, etc. As it relates to Premise 1, I would prefer going with the “If an MGB exists…” That’s because the Premise 1 rests on some type of realist foundation. As such it isn’t a true ontological argument because its truth depends on a theory about universals.
