The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[athrock]

I came across an interesting quote today from a guy by the name of Dr. Edward Fesser. He was an atheist at one point; today he is a Christian and a philosopher at some university in California. I think I quoted him once before in a thread somewhere.

Anyway, he wrote the following which seems to explain the value or purpose of philosophical arguments when considering the existence of a supreme being:

Think of it this way: you can’t find out why checkers boards exist by looking at the rules of checkers themselves, which concern only what goes on within the game. The rules tell you how each piece moves, how the game is won, and so forth. But why are the pieces governed by these rules, specifically, rather than others? Why do any checkers boards exist at all in the first place? No scrutiny of the rules can answer those questions. It is impossible to answer them, or indeed even to understand the questions, unless you take a vantage point from outsidethe game and its rules.

Similarly, what science uncovers are, in effect, the “rules” that govern the “game” that is the natural world. Its domain of study is what is internal to the natural order of things. It presupposes that there is such an order, just as the rules of checkers presuppose that there are such things as checkers boards and game pieces. For that very reason, though, science has nothing to say about why there is any natural order or laws in the first place, any more than the rules of checkers tell you why there are any checkers boards or checkers rules in the first place.

Thus, science cannot answer the question why there is any world at all, or any laws at all. To answer those questions, or even to understand them properly, you must take an intellectual vantage point from outside the world and its laws, and thus outside of science. You need to look to philosophical argument, which goes deeper than anything mere physics can uncover. [emphasis added]


This seems to explain what philosophy can do that science can't accomplish.

Thoughts?

---

My point is that the common tactic used by folks who want to undermine the strength of this argument is to parody it by substituting something like "leprechauns" for "maximally great being". I was directed to do a bit of research, and in the course of some brief reading, I learned that some monk named Gaunilo attempted this by saying that a perfect island could be proven by this proof. But Gaunilo's own argument has flaws, too. And I think I just undermined the parody approach myself in the post you quoted.

And yes, if all religions are reasoning about the same BIG issues (goodness, justice, the afterlife, etc.) it seems reasonable that they might have some commonalities, doesn't it? They might all be wrong, of course, but certain attributes, characteristics or ingredients are bound to be held in common when people consider something - whether it is god, a good football team or the best recipe for chocolate cake. 

So, wow. Can we get beyond the hostility that seems to flair up whenever anyone questions anything concerning atheism's sacred cows? How is anyone ever going to learn how to respond to arguments like this if there is no serious discussion of its pros and cons? I mean, if Cato is right, this argument must have SOME strengths to have survived as long as he suggested.

I have to ask, if you have never seen the argument before how can you then claim something is a common tactic used against it?

Good question. In the course of my reading, at Wikipedia (or maybe Stanford Encylopedia recommended by Cato), I came across the comment that parody is a common approach to addressing the Ontological Argument. The first was by some monk who substituted "perfect island" in place of "maximally great being" and showed how he could prove the existence of such an island using this proof. (Later, critics refuted his refutation, but the idea of parody was born early.)