RE: Why ontological arguments are illogical
August 7, 2012 at 7:43 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2012 at 8:50 am by CliveStaples.)
(August 7, 2012 at 4:24 am)genkaus Wrote: I can imagine a perfect woman with whom every man and lesbian in the world would immediately fall in love with, but I can also see that its "better" if she doesn't exist - given the amount of conflict her existence would create.
Doesn't that suggest that she doesn't have perfect beauty, but that she has 'too much' beauty?
In order to make your argument, you need to understand what is meant by "perfection". What do you mean when you say "perfect woman"? Which ontological argument uses the definition of "perfection" that you're employing here?
(August 7, 2012 at 2:32 am)CliveStaples Wrote: So, the ontological arguments use words in a different "sense" now? "Sense" which is not explained but must somehow be realized?
No. Different philosophers use different language and terminology--Leibniz has his particular metaphysic and epistemology, and Plantinga his.
To my knowledge, the philosophers that have offered ontological arguments have been careful to note what they mean by "perfection".
Quote:Regarding your point: "Gottfried Leibniz saw a problem with Descartes' ontological argument: that Descartes had not asserted the coherence of a "supremely perfect" being. He proposed that, unless the coherence of a supremely perfect being could be demonstrated, the ontological argument fails. Leibniz saw perfection as impossible to analyse; therefore, it would be impossible to demonstrate that all perfections are incompatible. He reasoned that all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that Descartes' argument is still valid."
Clearly, he saw the incompatibility of all perfections and made the excuse.
???
Leibniz thought that the logic of Descartes' argument was flawed, because Descartes failed to consider whether a supremely perfect being was coherent. The section you quoted even states that Leibniz thought all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that ultimately Descartes' argument was valid.
(August 7, 2012 at 2:32 am)CliveStaples Wrote: And once you offer an argument supporting this notion, I'll counter it. Otherwise, its a cheap cop-out.
An argument supporting the notion that Leibniz thought perfections were compatible? Didn't you just quote one?
“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.”
