The Ontological Argument

[MikeTheInfidel]

It is possible that the greatest a being can actually be is less than maximally great. (That is, it is possible that a maximally great being cannot exist.)

Thus, there is a possible world in which a maximally great being cannot (and therefore does not) exist.

Thus, no being can be maximally great, since being maximally great involves existing in all possible worlds.

That's just playing within the boundaries of modal logic. If we're going to deal with reality, possible worlds don't exist. Only the actual world exists. The concept of "maximally great" is incoherent in the face of reality and it becomes plainly obvious that he's attempting to define God into existence by insisting it must exist in all nonexistent and existent worlds.

[Esquilax]

If it didn't exist, then it by necessity couldn't do anything and thus couldn't be labelled 'more impressive', so I don't think that objection works.

We're already in a discussion about multiple worlds, magic djinn and space wizardry by that point, though: what's one more impossible thing?

Besides, we've seen plenty of things that exist create other things, but something that doesn't exist creating something? That's one of a kind! Pretty impressive to me.

[MindForgedManacle]

We're already in a discussion about multiple worlds, magic djinn and space wizardry by that point, though: what's one more impossible thing?

I don't think the things you mentioned are actually impossible, rather they're just absurd but nonetheless possible given no *apparent* incoherence in their concepts. And possible worlds just refer to the ways things could have been ("states of affairs"), nothing that crazy.

Besides, we've seen plenty of things that exist create other things, but something that doesn't exist creating something? That's one of a kind! Pretty impressive to me.

But my point was that is incoherent. A being that has the power to create a square-circle might be said to be impressive... until you realize the concept of a square-circle is incoherent and so too is a being that could make one, i.e it cannot be the case.

[Locke]

It is possible that the greatest a being can actually be is less than maximally great. (That is, it is possible that a maximally great being cannot exist.)

Thus, there is a possible world in which a maximally great being cannot (and therefore does not) exist.

Thus, no being can be maximally great, since being maximally great involves existing in all possible worlds.

That's just playing within the boundaries of modal logic. If we're going to deal with reality, possible worlds don't exist. Only the actual world exists. The concept of "maximally great" is incoherent in the face of reality and it becomes plainly obvious that he's attempting to define God into existence by insisting it must exist in all nonexistent and existent worlds.

Actually in the face of reality 'maximally great' makes perfect sense, considering that out of everything that exists, something has to be the greatest. If two things are exactly equal and greatest then they are both the 'maximally greatest'.

Maximal: The greatest or highest possible.

I'm going to try to help clear the water some of you seem to be drowning in. Before you engage in a logical debate you need to understand a core principle - if you don't get it, just stop.

There are absolute and relative impossibilities. FOR EXAMPLE, it is relatively impossible for a man to lift a car over his head, because he simply isn't strong enough. Sure, it can be imagined, but by the laws that govern the universe it is relatively impossible.

Something that is logically impossible is considered absolutely impossible. These are things that are impossible by definition. They require a violation of logic and truth, thus invalidating the argument. Examples of absolute impossibilities would include things like loud silence, or a 19-ounce pint.
Make sense?
No logical question has proved God doesn't exist. In fact, most such questions fail to account for God's true nature, so they ask an irrelevant question anyways.
Suffice to say, logic cannot prove the existence of God.. nor can it disprove it.

@ the billion dollar word substitution: A billion dollars is not omnipresent, and thus in a possible world it could either be nonexistent, or displaced, or you might not even have a bank account or exist in the first place. The argument does not work for the billion dollars where it does work for God because God was defined as omnipresent. But again, logic games will never prove a point either way; they only prove the limits of an individual's ability to see beyond what they wish to be true.

@ the triangle argument: A triangle is, by definition, a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.

Go read a book.

[Mister Agenda]

No logical question has proved God doesn't exist. In fact, most such questions fail to account for God's true nature, so they ask an irrelevant question anyways.
Suffice to say, logic cannot prove the existence of God.. nor can it disprove it.

@ the billion dollar word substitution: A billion dollars is not omnipresent, and thus in a possible world it could either be nonexistent, or displaced, or you might not even have a bank account or exist in the first place. The argument does not work for the billion dollars where it does work for God because God was defined as omnipresent. But again, logic games will never prove a point either way; they only prove the limits of an individual's ability to see beyond what they wish to be true.

@ the triangle argument: A triangle is, by definition, a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.

Go read a book.

So what's God's true nature?

And can you dispense with the implications that other posters are insufficiently educated? You're representing Christ here.

[MindForgedManacle]

I'd like to see my objection that a Platinga-style argument could just as easily be used to 'establish' the existence of a maximally evil being. The logic is exactly the same, you just flip all the moral statements. If you object to that, you are by definition special pleading.

[David Sims]

I'd like to see my objection that a Platinga-style argument could just as easily be used to 'establish' the existence of a maximally evil being. The logic is exactly the same, you just flip all the moral statements. If you object to that, you are by definition special pleading.

No matter how great a fictional character might be in a fictional narrative, a fictional character is all he ever is.

Maximal greatness might not, in fact, require omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. The maximum for greatness might be rather less than that.

Before we decide whether a perfect character exists for reason that non-existence would be an impermissible flaw in his perfection, we should discover whether perfection, itself, is even a possibility. It might not be.

[Mister Agenda]

I think the possible worlds thing can be turned around: if there's any possible world where God does not exist, God does not exist in ANY possible world. If God exists, he necessarily exists, if God does not exist, he necessarily does not exist. For what that gets you.

[Jackalope]

Personally, I have found the ontological argument to be about the most obvious case of attempting to mentally masturbate a deity into exisistence. Honestly, I don't know why people bother with them. There are far better arguments (which IMO still fail, bit they are nonetheless better).