The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[athrock]

 Oh goody! 

Seriously, if there is a better formulation, let see it.  Please provide definitions for any words not used in a colloquial way.

Actually it is a little technical because it relies on modal logic concepts like possibility and necessity, as well as the S5 axiom.

Here are the two definitions Plantinga starts with

[*]A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and
[*]A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

Given these two definitions, the argument is constructed:

1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.
2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being (that is, God) exists in every logically possible world.

From a formal-logical analysis, everything is consistent. There aren't any "holes" in the argument.

Instead, most atheists who have a problem with it question P4 because it reliexs on the S5 modal axiom. Which, oddly enough, is something atheist philosophers are quite comfortable with outside this context.

[*]

If Plantinga has reformulated the argument, it's worth another look. Where can I read a discussion of this online?

Thanks.

---

[*]

I've seen some mental gymnastics and word spastics in my time, but this takes some beating.

Try scrabble.

[*]

^ This is the typical response you'll see from atheists who are uneducated and uninformed on issues like this. 

There's a fear of anything that might discredit their religion, and even if they can't find anything wrong with it, they must repudiate it. They are not intellectually competent enough to refute it with reason or evidence, and thus, out of their fear and paranoia, resort to name-calling, emotional appeals, and empty rhetoric.

This is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt.

[*]

[*]

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of serious philosophy is beyond my skillset (and I get bored), but that doesn't prevent me from trying to pull the curtains back as far as I can.

That's actually the reason I started this thread in the first place...to increase my understanding through dialogue.

Not everyone has the...um...temperament for discussions like this, and they are threatened by something they do not understand which appears to contradict what they want to believe.

They aren't alone, of course. Believers do the same thing when confronted with science that is beyond them.

---

Well, it's all shits 'n' giggles, until someone giggles 'n' shits - all over an atheist forum.

[*]

[*]

Forgive me, Stimbo, but I see that your name is in red and that you are an administrator, so I must ask:

Is it a good thing or a bad thing if one of this forum's functions is that it becomes a sort of online learning center for people who want to go deeper with subjects like this?

Believers go to Sunday School to learn more about what they believe; it seems that online forums have become the classrooms of non-believers.

Do you agree?

---

Why, when the whole point of parody is to highlight the inadequacies in the arguments?

[*]

[*]

That's fine unless folks are merely memorizing the punch lines without understanding what makes the jokes work.

Would YOU be persuaded to give up your (non)beliefs by mockery? 

So, why would atheists expect to make any serious in-roads into theism without making genuinely solid arguments?

[RobbyPants]

Evil is the absence of good. It does not actually exist as a "thing" itself.  Consequently, "not existing in all possible worlds" is simply the absence of "existing in all possible worlds" and that is an evil thing - not a good thing - for a maximally supreme being which must, by definition, be "good".

"Good" and "maximally supreme" are not synonyms. At all. You're equivocating the use of the word "good" in the moral sense and in a sense of (suspiciously undefined) greatness. This point makes no sense.

And no, "maximally great" is not another way of saying "omnipotent". We can conceive of a god who is all-powerful but NOT omniscient and thus unable to prevent all evil. But a maximally great god must be both omnipresent and omnipresent along with a bunch of other stuff. 

Is there anything limiting this "maximally great" being? Can it do whatever it wants?

Which is why the skeptic's problem of evil objection fails, btw.

Well, I'm not making that objection, so, whatever. My objection is that you are making unsupported assertions and then making complete leaps in your premises to get to your conclusion.

[athrock]

Evil is the absence of good. It does not actually exist as a "thing" itself.  Consequently, "not existing in all possible worlds" is simply the absence of "existing in all possible worlds" and that is an evil thing - not a good thing - for a maximally supreme being which must, by definition, be "good".

"Good" and "maximally supreme" are not synonyms. At all. You're equivocating the use of the word "good" in the moral sense and in a sense of (suspiciously undefined) greatness. This point makes no sense.

If I did, it wasn't intentional. But I think what I wrote still makes sense.

And no, "maximally great" is not another way of saying "omnipotent". We can conceive of a god who is all-powerful but NOT omniscient and thus unable to prevent all evil. But a maximally great god must be both omnipresent and omnipresent along with a bunch of other stuff. 

Is there anything limiting this "maximally great" being? Can it do whatever it wants?[/quote]

As long as it is not self-contradictory. The classic "Can God make a square circle" argument comes to mind.

Which is why the skeptic's problem of evil objection fails, btw.

Well, I'm not making that objection, so, whatever. My objection is that you are making unsupported assertions and then making complete leaps in your premises to get to your conclusion.

Thank you. Please keep me honest and on my toes.

[coldwx]

My point is that the common tactic used by folks who want to undermine the strength of this argument is to parody it by substituting something like "leprechauns" for "maximally great being". I was directed to do a bit of research, and in the course of some brief reading, I learned that some monk named Gaunilo attempted this by saying that a perfect island could be proven by this proof. But Gaunilo's own argument has flaws, too. And I think I just undermined the parody approach myself in the post you quoted.

And yes, if all religions are reasoning about the same BIG issues (goodness, justice, the afterlife, etc.) it seems reasonable that they might have some commonalities, doesn't it? They might all be wrong, of course, but certain attributes, characteristics or ingredients are bound to be held in common when people consider something - whether it is god, a good football team or the best recipe for chocolate cake. 

So, wow. Can we get beyond the hostility that seems to flair up whenever anyone questions anything concerning atheism's sacred cows? How is anyone ever going to learn how to respond to arguments like this if there is no serious discussion of its pros and cons? I mean, if Cato is right, this argument must have SOME strengths to have survived as long as he suggested.

I have to ask, if you have never seen the argument before how can you then claim something is a common tactic used against it?

[athrock]

I came across an interesting quote today from a guy by the name of Dr. Edward Fesser. He was an atheist at one point; today he is a Christian and a philosopher at some university in California. I think I quoted him once before in a thread somewhere.

Anyway, he wrote the following which seems to explain the value or purpose of philosophical arguments when considering the existence of a supreme being:

Think of it this way: you can’t find out why checkers boards exist by looking at the rules of checkers themselves, which concern only what goes on within the game. The rules tell you how each piece moves, how the game is won, and so forth. But why are the pieces governed by these rules, specifically, rather than others? Why do any checkers boards exist at all in the first place? No scrutiny of the rules can answer those questions. It is impossible to answer them, or indeed even to understand the questions, unless you take a vantage point from outsidethe game and its rules.

Similarly, what science uncovers are, in effect, the “rules” that govern the “game” that is the natural world. Its domain of study is what is internal to the natural order of things. It presupposes that there is such an order, just as the rules of checkers presuppose that there are such things as checkers boards and game pieces. For that very reason, though, science has nothing to say about why there is any natural order or laws in the first place, any more than the rules of checkers tell you why there are any checkers boards or checkers rules in the first place.

Thus, science cannot answer the question why there is any world at all, or any laws at all. To answer those questions, or even to understand them properly, you must take an intellectual vantage point from outside the world and its laws, and thus outside of science. You need to look to philosophical argument, which goes deeper than anything mere physics can uncover. [emphasis added]


This seems to explain what philosophy can do that science can't accomplish.

Thoughts?

---

My point is that the common tactic used by folks who want to undermine the strength of this argument is to parody it by substituting something like "leprechauns" for "maximally great being". I was directed to do a bit of research, and in the course of some brief reading, I learned that some monk named Gaunilo attempted this by saying that a perfect island could be proven by this proof. But Gaunilo's own argument has flaws, too. And I think I just undermined the parody approach myself in the post you quoted.

And yes, if all religions are reasoning about the same BIG issues (goodness, justice, the afterlife, etc.) it seems reasonable that they might have some commonalities, doesn't it? They might all be wrong, of course, but certain attributes, characteristics or ingredients are bound to be held in common when people consider something - whether it is god, a good football team or the best recipe for chocolate cake. 

So, wow. Can we get beyond the hostility that seems to flair up whenever anyone questions anything concerning atheism's sacred cows? How is anyone ever going to learn how to respond to arguments like this if there is no serious discussion of its pros and cons? I mean, if Cato is right, this argument must have SOME strengths to have survived as long as he suggested.

I have to ask, if you have never seen the argument before how can you then claim something is a common tactic used against it?

Good question. In the course of my reading, at Wikipedia (or maybe Stanford Encylopedia recommended by Cato), I came across the comment that parody is a common approach to addressing the Ontological Argument. The first was by some monk who substituted "perfect island" in place of "maximally great being" and showed how he could prove the existence of such an island using this proof. (Later, critics refuted his refutation, but the idea of parody was born early.)

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:

The Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
   
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
   
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
   
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
   
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
   
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
   

Thoughts?

Problems with Point 1 have already been exposed.

Point 2 would probably exploit the multiverse hypothesis for the modern audience, ignorant of the fact that an infinity of universes cannot be determined and cannot be ideated logically anyway. Therefore, even if Point 1 could pass, the ontological argument would fail at Point 2.

Also, Plantinga offered no thought to the implication of realistic possibility on supernatural ideas. If something exists in any real world, dimension, or universe, then it is something which can be explained by anyone if they had access to said place for observation. This would necessarily make the subject n.o.t. supernatural! Therefore, the supernatural cannot possibly be any sort of a reality other than what people's minds make of it. It doesn't make the very unlikely idea that the earth was purposefully designed by someone impossible, but in the unlikely event that this is proven to be true the Xtians would have to admit that he is not without faults (perfection is a human construct and would require something supernatural).

[coldwx]

---

I have to ask, if you have never seen the argument before how can you then claim something is a common tactic used against it?

Good question. In the course of my reading, at Wikipedia (or maybe Stanford Encylopedia recommended by Cato), I came across the comment that parody is a common approach to addressing the Ontological Argument. The first was by some monk who substituted "perfect island" in place of "maximally great being" and showed how he could prove the existence of such an island using this proof. (Later, critics refuted his refutation, but the idea of parody was born early.)

So it is not a common tactic that you have heard, just something you read on Wikipedia.  Did you also address the Devil's Corollary parody?

[Cyberman]

Interestingly, by misrepresenting parody as a "common tactic", he indulges in a similar one himself when he dismisses Gaunilo of Marmoutiers as "some monk".

[IATIA]

My point is that the common tactic used by folks who want to undermine the strength of this argument is to parody it by substituting something like "leprechauns" for "maximally great being". I was directed to do a bit of research, and in the course of some brief reading, I learned that some monk named Gaunilo attempted this by saying that a perfect island could be proven by this proof. But Gaunilo's own argument has flaws, too. And I think I just undermined the parody approach myself in the post you quoted.

Substitution is a valid operation to display the properties of an argument.  Your argument works as well with "maximally great being" as it does with "leprechauns".  You have made no statement to separate your "maximally great being" from a leprechaun.  Who is to say that in some world the leprechaun is not the "maximally great being" anyway?  Maybe there is nothing no more  "maximally great" than a human being. You have provided no definition of this "maximally great being" nor is your definition likely to be accepted without proof that it exists, of course, in which case, this particular argument would no longer be necessary.

1. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are animals.
   
2. All dogs are mammals.
   
3. Therefore, all dogs are animals.
   

1. If all fish are mammals, then all fish are animals.
   
2. All fish are mammals.
   
3. Therefore, all fish are animals.
   

Both arguments are valid and both arguments come to a valid conclusion.

"I think god exists, therefore god exists" is no more valid than "I think faeries exist, therefore faeries exist" and that is all your argument states.

Your first statement or premise can be anything you like (I do not have to like it or believe it) as that is what you posit to prove.  Your statement #2 takes liberty with MW scenario which, albeit has more evidence, is just as unfalsifiable (at this time) as your "maximally great being".  Your #3 statement takes more liberties with a new premise that has yet to be established (and is not done within this argument).  4, 5 and 6 are fine once you fix 1, 2 and 3.

[Cyberman]

1. If God didn't exist, I wouldn't be trying to argue for his existence.
2. I am arguing for his existence.
3. Therefore God must exist.