RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
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: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!!
