Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:44 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Ontological Argument
#1
The Ontological Argument
Continuing my threads on the more classic arguments for God's existence, I figured I pick y'alls brains on the various ontological arguments, but moreso on Alvin Plantinga's since theists tend to push his nowadays.

Plantinga's argument essentially uses the possible worlds concept and says that if God (the maximally great being or MGB) exists in any possible world, as the MCB, He must therefore exist in all of them including the actual world.


I don't have any real knowledge of formal logic and since Plantinga is a well-respected philosopher (I'm told), I would presume the argument is structurally valid. However, I've seen some people claim that it is invalid because of the particular logical framework it uses (axiom S5). I've heard that on the argument's 3rd premise, it begs the question because in that particular framework to say that something is 'possibly necessary true' equates to being 'actually necessarily true' (hope I got that right). Is this objection to the argument legit?


Secondly, what of the objection that the argument can be used to establish the existence of a "maximally evil being"? If you call that being a god, apologists tend to throw up a smokescreen of "A God by definition must be worthy of worship and thus can't be evil".
Anyway, if the just flip "omnibenevolence" to "omnimalevolence", the argument seems to work the same, but then you've got a seeming contradiction with two omnipotent beings existing.


So, what exactly are the problems with Plantinga's formulation? Other than denying the 1st premise anyway. :p
Reply
#2
RE: The Ontological Argument
There is an interesting analysis of the Ontological arguments, including arguments against, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontolo...#ObjOntArg

The bit that makes me laugh is:

"In the seventeenth century, René Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For instance, in the Fifth Meditation, Descartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists."

The thing is - we can conceive of a triangle whose internal angles do not add up to 180 degrees. In fact, we can draw one on the surface of the earth:

Stand at the North pole - draw a line down to the equator. Now draw another line down to the equator at 90 degrees to the first from the same point. At the equator draw a line between the 2 lines from the pole. If the angle between the lines at the pole is 90 degrees and each hits the equator at 90 degrees then the internal angles of that triangle add up to 270 degrees.
Reply
#3
RE: The Ontological Argument
Plantinga simply defines the terms he wants to prove. For example, he tells us that a 'maximally great being' is simply that being which has the properties that he (Plantinga) imagines God would have: omnipresence, omnipotence, moral perfection, and so on.

The glaring flaw in the first point is that it is not readily obvious that it IS possible for MGB to exist. For instance, I can easily imagine a situation in which two coeval Beings surpass all other beings in excellence, thus giving us a pair of MGBs.

Point 3 strikes me the same way - Plantinga wants God to be everywhere, so he simply states that the MGB would be everywhere (and - apart from Plantinga - it is not immediately obvious that omnipresence is a requisite for maximal greatness).

I soured on ontology years ago. These word games will never prove of disprove the existence of God.

Boru[/i]

Quote:Stand at the North pole - draw a line down to the equator. Now draw another line down to the equator at 90 degrees to the first from the same point. At the equator draw a line between the 2 lines from the pole. If the angle between the lines at the pole is 90 degrees and each hits the equator at 90 degrees then the internal angles of that triangle add up to 270 degrees.

Helluva lot simpler to draw it on an orange.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#4
RE: The Ontological Argument
(July 26, 2013 at 5:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Plantinga simply defines the terms he wants to prove. For example, he tells us that a 'maximally great being' is simply that being which has the properties that he (Plantinga) imagines God would have: omnipresence, omnipotence, moral perfection, and so on.

The glaring flaw in the first point is that it is not readily obvious that it IS possible for MGB to exist. For instance, I can easily imagine a situation in which two coeval Beings surpass all other beings in excellence, thus giving us a pair of MGBs.

Point 3 strikes me the same way - Plantinga wants God to be everywhere, so he simply states that the MGB would be everywhere (and - apart from Plantinga - it is not immediately obvious that omnipresence is a requisite for maximal greatness).

I soured on ontology years ago. These word games will never prove of disprove the existence of God.

Boru[/i]

Quote:Stand at the North pole - draw a line down to the equator. Now draw another line down to the equator at 90 degrees to the first from the same point. At the equator draw a line between the 2 lines from the pole. If the angle between the lines at the pole is 90 degrees and each hits the equator at 90 degrees then the internal angles of that triangle add up to 270 degrees.

Helluva lot simpler to draw it on an orange.

Boru

LOL - agreed - but for some strange reason people find it harder to visualize it. I think it might be that we are used to thinking of the earth as having an equator.
Reply
#5
RE: The Ontological Argument
What is flawed is saying God must exist in all possible worlds to be the greatest being possible. In reality, the true premise, is there cannot exist a possible world with a greater being then God for God to be the greatest possible being. This would be the real premise. He doesn't need to be the greatest in all possible worlds.

I have lost faith in philosophers. It takes too long to realize simple logical errors in arguments.
Reply
#6
RE: The Ontological Argument
So.. If god god exists in any possible world he must exist in all possible worlds.

Firstly, he starts with an "if",then somehow without explanation turns it into a "must", therefore god.

Ta Dah!!!

Ok, let's try this another way. Since this should be applicable to anything we can imagine, we'll swap god for a million dollars in my bank account.

So... If in a possible world I have a million dollars in my bank account, then that must be so in all possible worlds, including the actual one.

*checks bank account*

Oops, no million dollars. Guess that fails then.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#7
RE: The Ontological Argument
It's not a terribly persuasive argument: what's the more "maximally great being," the one who does all the things theists say he does, or the one that does all of that while simultaneously not existing?

I submit that the latter feat is far more impressive, and thus the maximally great being cannot exist under the premises of the ontological argument.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#8
RE: The Ontological Argument
(July 27, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: So.. If god god exists in any possible world he must exist in all possible worlds.

Firstly, he starts with an "if",then somehow without explanation turns it into a "must", therefore god.

Ta Dah!!!

Ok, let's try this another way. Since this should be applicable to anything we can imagine, we'll swap god for a million dollars in my bank account.

So... If in a possible world I have a million dollars in my bank account, then that must be so in all possible worlds, including the actual one.

*checks bank account*

Oops, no million dollars. Guess that fails then.


I should note that Plantinga has specifically stated that his argument does not establish it's conclusion as true. Rather, he believes it makes theism rationally tenable.

(July 28, 2013 at 5:44 am)Esquilax Wrote: It's not a terribly persuasive argument: what's the more "maximally great being," the one who does all the things theists say he does, or the one that does all of that while simultaneously not existing?

I submit that the latter feat is far more impressive, and thus the maximally great being cannot exist under the premises of the ontological argument.

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. Shock
Reply
#9
RE: The Ontological Argument
(July 29, 2013 at 1:08 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I should note that Plantinga has specifically stated that his argument does not establish it's conclusion as true. Rather, he believes it makes theism rationally tenable.

If your argument, starting with favorable premises, still fails to establish your conclusion as true, then I'm sorry, but your position is not rationally tenable.
Reply
#10
RE: The Ontological Argument
(July 29, 2013 at 2:18 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(July 29, 2013 at 1:08 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I should note that Plantinga has specifically stated that his argument does not establish it's conclusion as true. Rather, he believes it makes theism rationally tenable.

If your argument, starting with favorable premises, still fails to establish your conclusion as true, then I'm sorry, but your position is not rationally tenable.

What I mean is he thinks you could still deny the initial premise - that the greatest conceivable being can possibly exist - to get around the argument, and that is what, as he says, 'the canny atheist will do'.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 79225 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 11024 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3170 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3102 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  How would you describe your ontological views? The Skeptic 10 2698 July 29, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation MindForgedManacle 23 5429 March 20, 2014 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Rabb Allah
  The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic Rational AKD 82 31099 February 17, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  The modal ontological argument - without modal logic proves atheism max-greece 15 4901 February 14, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  Plantiga's ontological argument. Mystic 31 7875 April 25, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Last Post: A_Nony_Mouse
  Why ontological arguments are illogical liam 51 28037 August 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Last Post: Angrboda



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)