The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Mystic]

I think intuition says a Necessary being exists which is the true nature of existence. That is why existence exists rather then not, because it's the nature of existence to exist. But the independent existence is not such that it can vary possible world to possible world. It cannot be such that it can be increased or decreased or have unnecessary attributes for existence. Existence in the truest sense is the necessary existence in all possible worlds.

Now we leave aside this intuition, and we go to an argument shows if a necessary being is rationally possible, then it surely exists. This has to say a lot. It can be that the nature of necessary is such that it cannot be possible without having to exist. That is saying a lot in itself. Rational/logic proves that much, and we have to wonder, what is embedded in reality of necessary being that if it's possible it surely exists.

The only controversy is whether such a being is possible or not rationally. I think it's quite obvious that full true existence that is absolute and ultimate is not only rationally possible, but must be. But here we only discussing if it's rationally possible such a being to exist. And it's obvious to me it is.

[Cyberman]

Ah, intuition. How very logical.

[Jackalope]

Ah, intuition. How very logical.

Intuitively, it sounds like bullshit. How one can solve a counter-intuitive argument by applying intuition defies reason.

Someone's going to have to connect the dots here, withiut the handwaving and smoke and mirrors.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I think intuition says a Necessary being exists which is the true nature of existence. That is why existence exists rather then not, because it's the nature of existence to exist. But the independent existence is not such that it can vary possible world to possible world. It cannot be such that it can be increased or decreased or have unnecessary attributes for existence. Existence in the truest sense is the necessary existence in all possible worlds.

Now we leave aside this intuition, and we go to an argument shows if a necessary being is rationally possible, then it surely exists. This has to say a lot. It can be that the nature of necessary is such that it cannot be possible without having to exist. That is saying a lot in itself. Rational/logic proves that much, and we have to wonder, what is embedded in reality of necessary being that if it's possible it surely exists.

The only controversy is whether such a being is possible or not rationally. I think it's quite obvious that full true existence that is absolute and ultimate is not only rationally possible, but must be. But here we only discussing if it's rationally possible such a being to exist. And it's obvious to me it is.

WTF - hasn't it already been pointed out to you that if unicorns are rationally possible, then they must also exist? As a matter of fact they are, if we allow the possibility that life was created by any intelligence, as it exists here is a rational idea!

It's also possible that life was really created by Lucifer, when he made an intergalactic pit stop, and selected the earth to wipe his evil ass with. I can't think of a better theory if there must be a creator of life, it explains why life is so poorly "designed" and cruel, with no justice for any species. Tell me, just what do you think the rabbits did to offend their creator?

Rationally, there is no necessity for a creator, and all your attempts to rationalize that there must be amount only to mental masturbation. There is what we know from what we have been able to observe since the ruling priests began losing their iron grip on intellectual discussion everywhere, and then there's what isn't known yet. The pseudo-intellectualism which you present here is beyond laughable, for all the convoluted ramblings and misapplication of logic. Moreover, it's beyond arrogant to draw conclusions of "necessity" on anything with no supportive data whatsoever. Life is not a designed watch found in the woods, it developed from the bottom up - we can see that, but we cannot see any reason why anybody would involve him/herself in any process such as that. We really don't know exactly how the origin took place, so just leave it at that, instead of creating more problems such as infinite regress: who created the creator? If somebody must have created us, then somebody must have created our creator!

Here's a much better rule for you: The simplest answer is usually the best answer.
Occam's Razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Your answer fails for being horribly over-complicated.

[Simon Moon]

I think intuition says a Necessary being exists which is the true nature of existence. That is why existence exists rather then not, because it's the nature of existence to exist. But the independent existence is not such that it can vary possible world to possible world. It cannot be such that it can be increased or decreased or have unnecessary attributes for existence. Existence in the truest sense is the necessary existence in all possible worlds.

Now we leave aside this intuition, and we go to an argument shows if a necessary being is rationally possible, then it surely exists. This has to say a lot. It can be that the nature of necessary is such that it cannot be possible without having to exist. That is saying a lot in itself. Rational/logic proves that much, and we have to wonder, what is embedded in reality of necessary being that if it's possible it surely exists.

The only controversy is whether such a being is possible or not rationally. I think it's quite obvious that full true existence that is absolute and ultimate is not only rationally possible, but must be. But here we only discussing if it's rationally possible such a being to exist. And it's obvious to me it is.

When it comes to existential claims, who cares what intuition tells us?

We evolved in an environment where our intuition developed in order to help us survive, not figure out if there is a god.

So, tell us, how do you go about discerning whether such a being as you describe is possible? What are your data points?

As far as I can tell, a god that exists outside space and time, is not rationally possible, by definition.

[Esquilax]

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.

Me: "You can't logic a thing into objective existence. Logical arguments alone aren't sufficient to do that, except in cases where they refer to real world evidence in support of their premises."

MysticKnight: "But if we use this specific set of modal logic premises..."

You seriously don't see the immediate, blindingly obvious problem with your response here? Like, really?

I think intuition says a Necessary being exists which is the true nature of existence. That is why existence exists rather then not, because it's the nature of existence to exist. But the independent existence is not such that it can vary possible world to possible world. It cannot be such that it can be increased or decreased or have unnecessary attributes for existence. Existence in the truest sense is the necessary existence in all possible worlds.

Unjustified opinions don't count for much.

Now we leave aside this intuition, and we go to an argument shows if a necessary being is rationally possible, then it surely exists.

How do you intend to demonstrate that there's a substantial difference between your "logical argument," divorced as it is from any form of evidence, and simply making things up?

The only controversy is whether such a being is possible or not rationally. I think it's quite obvious that full true existence that is absolute and ultimate is not only rationally possible, but must be.

"Because my intuition says so!"

God, this is the most insultingly anemic argument for god I've ever read.

[IATIA]

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

And that has absolutely nothing to do with just making shit up.

Prove a god is necessary or even possible. Any definition of a god capable of creating a universe contradicts itself on so many levels that it is not possible for a god to exist.

It is not possible, therefore it is not necessary.

[athrock]

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?

I don't see what my admin status has to do with it, but I don't necessarily agree. I can only speak for the forae I've been acquainted with; and while it is entirely possible to learn from the shared and not-so-shared opinions of others, which sort of the bread and butter of discussion, I think likening it to a Sunday school is misrepresenting things somewhat. I've been on a forum where we had a Young-Earth Creationist member, in the particularly zealous Kent Hovind mould. Eventually after many months, he started to see cracks in his arguments, then in his faith, finally to cross the floor as a full-fledged atheist. (We still keep in touch via Facebook, though I haven't heard from him in a while.) I remember the day he told us. He'd been dithering about 'coming out' to his parents; finally he plucked up the courage and confessed his atheist conversion. He told us his mum had said "Oh, is that all? We thought you were going to tell us you're gay, like your brother!"

Does this address your question and why did you want to know?

Yes, thank you. I only asked because you expressed that someone (and you may have meant me though I'm not sure of this) was posting shit and giggles or something to that effect all over the forum.

Spam is a thing to be prohibited, but decent questions asked in the right spirit seem to be something that you can accept as a good thing in an online forum like this.

Cool! 

---

There is no argument needed Chad. You argument is just noise if you don't deal with the problem of anthropomorphism. Because it's self-evident that anthropomorphic god is not the greatness being imaginable.

Anthropomorphism may well be the problem.

Too many people envision god as a Marvel comic character instead of as a supreme being.

---

It is possible that FSM exists.
If it is possible that FSM exists, then FSM exists is some possible world.
If FSM exists in some possible world, FSM exists in every possible world.
If FSM exists in every possible world, FSM exists in the actual world.
If FSM exists in the actual world, then FSM exists.
Therefore, FSM exists.

So why arn't you a pastafarian OP?

Also this is a great resource for debunking the ontological argument: https://www.youtube.com/user/AntiCitizenX/videos

As I have pointed out in this thread previously more than once...

ALL you have done is to propose a candidate, FSM, for the office of maximally great being.

You have not, thereby, actually proven that a maximally great being cannot exist.

---

A maximally great being defined as god would simply mean the greatest being in the universe is god.  Since I'm absolutely fabulous, and obviously exist, I guess that makes me god.  Now worship me.  And none of that blood sacrifices.  Vodka and cash make great sacrifices. Gum will suffice if you're unable to acquire either of those things because you're poor but not because you're cheap.

In the universe???

There's your problem right there.

[Pizza]

There is no argument needed Chad. You argument is just noise if you don't deal with the problem of anthropomorphism. Because it's self-evident that anthropomorphic god is not the greatness being imaginable.

Anthropomorphism may well be the problem.

Too many people envision god as a Marvel comic character instead of as a supreme being.

What are you actually left with once you remove all forms of anthropomorphism(saying a supreme being wants, commands, etc is anthropomorphism)? Not anything most people would call a god. Atheism is what is left.

[athrock]

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.

Cato, I agree with you to this point. I think the value of the Ontological Argument for the theist camp is that arguments such as this demonstrate that belief in a supreme being IS rational. That, in and of itself, is a blow to the notion that belief in god is irrational.

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.

Alternatively, it may be that theists deploy a cluster of arguments (Kalam, Teleological, Moral, Ontological, etc.) knowing that the net effect is to persuade that the existence of a supreme being is more likely than not to be true.

IOW, Cato, theists have quite a few arrows in their quiver, and it only takes one to strike the target. Atheists, on the other hand, must successfully dodge them all as they rain down...