RE: Why ontological arguments are illogical
August 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2012 at 6:08 pm by Simon Moon.)
The ontological argument is one of the silliest. I really don't understand why theists seem to think it's so compelling.
In effect, it defines a god into existence by claiming that existence is just one more attribute that a deity can have. But in reality, if a deity does not have existence, it has no other attributes either. So, we are still left with demonstrating that this deity actually exists.
This seems to be circular reasoning.
There are 3 ways that something can be said to exist;
1. as a concept of language
2. as a concept of mind
3. in reality
It seems to me that the ontological argument is speaking of a concept of mind, but is trying to apply it to reality. This seems to be an equivocation.
A piece of parody, Gasking's Proof for the Non-existence of god is as follows:
1.The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2.The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3.The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4.The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.Therefore, God does not exist.
In effect, it defines a god into existence by claiming that existence is just one more attribute that a deity can have. But in reality, if a deity does not have existence, it has no other attributes either. So, we are still left with demonstrating that this deity actually exists.
This seems to be circular reasoning.
There are 3 ways that something can be said to exist;
1. as a concept of language
2. as a concept of mind
3. in reality
It seems to me that the ontological argument is speaking of a concept of mind, but is trying to apply it to reality. This seems to be an equivocation.
A piece of parody, Gasking's Proof for the Non-existence of god is as follows:
1.The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2.The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3.The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4.The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.Therefore, God does not exist.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
