The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Cyberman]

We don't know what it is, we cannot know. All we can say is that it appears as a unicorn to us. You're just making a special pleading argument from ignorance hybrid. We don't need to give Steven Moffat any more silly ideas.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

DBP's post is a excellent example of carelessness. If you read a little further in the article, you'll see that Wikipedia's introductory "definition" has little or nothing in common with the word's etymology, which is much more specific. Overall, it is a grand example what happens when words are carelessly used over time: they lose their specificity and dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness.

Pot calls kettle black.

Etymologically speaking, the Merriam-Webster theists have been mangling that for "atheist" for centuries, and this is probably new information for you as well. We are not people "who do not believe in God", as if the Abrahamic god is the only one which may apply! We are "a" (the Greek negation) "theist", which is "not a theist". If you don't believe in FSM, then you are an atheist on that god - that's right, you're an atheist too! Relative to monotheism, we go one god further with the gods we doubt the existence of.

The important difference here is that atheists are very real people, therefore we have the right to demand recognition of our position true to the original etymology of the word which society refers to us by. With no evidence in existence that a literal "spirit" exists, it's perfectly ok for the world to forget about any etymology which may have once credited it as something well-defined and real.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If the biblical or Koranic deity exists then angels, demons, and zombies exist. No one has had any luck tracking down the deities but they might have better luck capturing an angel, demon, or zombie. Ghosts and spirits are very elusive. You'll need special equipment to bag them. Therefore, the first person to capture an angel, demon, or zombie will have bragging rights to claim that its associated deity really does exist. It might be a good strategy to look for some angel, demon or zombie crap elsewhere beside on the internet.

Now go bag an angel, demon, or zombie!

[Cato]

No what I mean by that, is by the word "possible", it means in some possible world, it such that such and such is possible. Whatever is necessarily possible is necessarily. Therefore a necessary being being logically possible (as opposed to the may or may not exist type possible) would actually prove it to exist by this argument.

Let's put this to bed, shall we?

First, if informal logic is insufficient to demonstrate god's existence I'll take the stance that the theist already has two feet on the proverbial plank carrying enough momentum to make the result fairly obvious.

Second, I am always suspicious when someone starts deploying formal logic systems such as modal logic and its S5 axiom as demonstration of something's existence. The ontological argument is deductively valid, but in no way can its validity pertaining to the existence of god be demonstrated. What formal logic systems cannot do, by their very nature, is establish the truth of its premises; in this case the possibility of the existence of maximal excellence. It simply cannot be demonstrated and quite frankly is defined by the arbitrary characteristics already assigned to god; i.e., damn close to begging the question.

Third, as Stimbo has already pointed out, if this argument is dishonestly used to draw a conclusion about a metaphysical truth by blindly accepting an unjustified premise it can be used to prove the existence of anything. Using Stimbo's example, if a maximally great being is possible why can't a pink unicorn be possible? Hell, the argument can be used to assert that unproved mathematical conjectures must necessarily be true.

This is my muddled thinking, let's hear from the man that created this version of the Ontological Argument:

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Plantinga himself agrees: the “victorious” modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. But how, then, is it “victorious”? Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga 1974, 221).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontolo...#PlaOntArg

I left the last line of the quote in the spirit of intellectual honesty. I do not agree with the statement and think it's easily dismissed as the linked article demonstrates.

The important part here is that the professional philosopher that reformulated the Ontological Argument using modal logic admits that it does not 'prove or establish' it's conclusion. This of course doesn't stop apologists that should know better, William Lane Craig as an example, from deploying it knowing full well that most people will happily accept what they think is a sophisticated justification for a conclusion they already hold. In this respect WLC is nothing more than the dishonest lever puller behind the curtain.

[Esquilax]

A better form of an argument goes on the lines like this.

It's possible a necessary being exists.
What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily.
Therefore a necessary being exists.

The only premise that can be argued in this argument to be wrong, is the first one. However, when it's said it's possible, it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible. It's rather about it being logically possible. And whatever is logically possible to be necessarily, in model logic, has been proven to be necessarily.

In the second premise, how did you get from "possible," to "probable," let alone "true"?

Moreover, a logical argument is not a sufficient condition for demonstrating objective existence. If you have a logical argument, and yet the evidence conflicts with it, it is the argument that is faulty, not the evidence. You will never be able to logic your god into existence and it's a testament to the paucity of actual evidence for any god that theists are reduced to this.

[downbeatplumb]

DBP's post is a excellent example of carelessness. If you read a little further in the article, you'll see that Wikipedia's introductory "definition" has little or nothing in common with the word's etymology, which is much more specific. Overall, it is a grand example what happens when words are carelessly used over time: they lose their specificity and dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness.

And yet it was still there as part of the definition, there were other usages but you must admit that it also has the meaning you want to ignore so that you can continue to berate others. You have been proved wrong , now grow a pair and accept it.

[Mystic]

A better form of an argument goes on the lines like this.

It's possible a necessary being exists.
What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily.
Therefore a necessary being exists.

The only premise that can be argued in this argument to be wrong, is the first one. However, when it's said it's possible, it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible. It's rather about it being logically possible. And whatever is logically possible to be necessarily, in model logic, has been proven to be necessarily.

In the second premise, how did you get from "possible," to "probable," let alone "true"?

Moreover, a logical argument is not a sufficient condition for demonstrating objective existence. If you have a logical argument, and yet the evidence conflicts with it, it is the argument that is faulty, not the evidence. You will never be able to logic your god into existence and it's a testament to the paucity of actual evidence for any god that theists are reduced to this.

You might want to look up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)

[Cyberman]

That's not answering the question.

[Mystic]

That's not answering the question.

What is possibly necessary, is necessary is an axiom proven through model logic.  He was asking where I go from something being possible to being true, well, in the case of necessary beings, if it's possibly necessary, then it is necessary is proven by model logic, although, admittedly it seems counter intuitive.

[Whateverist]

What are you even saying here, Knight? "If something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary - provided its being necessary is true? If so, what is the point?