RE: Why ontological arguments are illogical
August 3, 2012 at 8:52 am
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2012 at 8:52 am by CliveStaples.)
(August 3, 2012 at 5:18 am)genkaus Wrote: If perfection can be imagined without the object being real, then it follows that reality is not a necessary property of complete perfection.
Well, the argument goes something like:
If you're imagining something that has every perfection, and you're imagining something that doesn't actually exist, then the thing you're thinking of would be 'better' if it did actually exist. Hence what you were thinking of could not have been complete perfection.
(August 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Not unless "goodness" is proven to be a necessary part of perfection.
Well, moral goodness is a type of goodness, and moral perfection would be a kind of perfection (under the moral theory that these arguments are typically made under).
Quote:No, it doesn't. The argument doesn't even attempt to prove that existence is a part of perfection. It simply states it.
I think you just need to see more ontological arguments, then. Leibniz doesn't just declare that existence is a part of perfection; Plantinga doesn't couch his modal ontological argument in those terms, either.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
