The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[KevinM1]

The jump from 2 to 3 is what always gets me. I know they hand wave it with modality (whatever), but on the surface it doesn't seem remotely logical. I can envision a reality where felines simply don't exist, for instance, even though they exist here.

[Esquilax]

The flaw is with premise 1. The others are fine.

Not so much: a lot of the other premises are predicated on existence being a requisite for maximal greatness, something that the argument never justifies. Now, I'm sure it's Craig's personal opinion that existence is necessary for maximal greatness, and that's super convenient for him, but I wasn't aware we all just had to play along with Craig's subjective idea of what constitutes greatness.

The big problem, though, is that "maximally great being," isn't a logically coherent concept, and is in fact, logically impossible, because "greatness" is not a quality with an upper bound. Any extant purported "maximally great being," could have the title taken from it by an imagined being that's identical, except slightly more great than the being under examination, and since we've abandoned objective evidence in favor of logical arguments to take the ontological argument seriously at all, it's no less a valid point that premise one is. So basically, any "maximally great being" ceases to be so the moment it's objectively real and, hence, quantifiable.

I know I've posted this before, but it really does sum up the eminent ridiculousness of the ontological argument:

[GrandizerII]

The flaw is with premise 1. The others are fine.

Not so much: a lot of the other premises are predicated on existence being a requisite for maximal greatness, something that the argument never justifies. Now, I'm sure it's Craig's personal opinion that existence is necessary for maximal greatness, and that's super convenient for him, but I wasn't aware we all just had to play along with Craig's subjective idea of what constitutes greatness.

As I understand it, the modal ontological argument formulated by Plantinga (which Craig's argument is based on) is that if it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then he exists in actuality. Under modal logic, if something is necessary and can possibly exist, then it actually exists. For the record, Plantinga argues that a maximally great being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. So going by that definition, then the question is about the logical possibility of the existence of such an entity.

Your argument overall is good. Another good one I've seen, by the way, that counters this version of the ontological argument is this one:

[Fake Messiah]

Ontological argument is like this:


Sure, Universe is a big place and there could be a lot of things out there, including God, but we have no evidence of it, no evidence that it affects our lives, answers prayers or anything like that, so if there is some sort of God he doesn't give a fuck about us - so why would we give a fuck about him or her?

And then it all goes back to Epicurus who famously said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"
That was so beautifully said even back in 4th century BCE, that there was no need for people to pursue the God hypothesis - if only.
When faced with rationality religious people stoop to violence. Needless to say, it is with rash and unfriendly reaction that the god-loving community takes to Epicurus; and in Dante’s Divine Comedy: The Inferno one can find Epicurus and his followers in the Sixth Circle, known as the Circle of Heretics, trapped and tortured in flaming tombs.

[robvalue]

Big old load of crap that makes unfounded assumptions, uses terms so vague as to be useless, and still leaves you out of reach of any specific imaginary friends.

[SteveII]

Veritas_Vincit, your objection to premise 1 seems to indicate you do not understand "possible worlds" semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.

As Irrational said, it is important to understand the S5 modal logic that if something is even possibly necessary, it is actually necessary. (which would answer Kevin's question about the jump from 2 to 3.)

@Esquilax, one of your objections to maximally great being is that something "slightly more great" can be imagined makes no sense. What could be greater than an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessary being? If you could logically conceive of anything greater, then that would be God. Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

[Veritas_Vincit]

[This post was duplicated]

[Veritas_Vincit]

Veritas_Vincit, your objection to premise 1 seems to indicate you do not understand "possible worlds" semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.

As Irrational said, it is important to understand the S5 modal logic that if something is even possibly necessary, it is actually necessary. (which would answer Kevin's question about the jump from 2 to 3.)

@Esquilax, one of your objections to maximally great being is that something "slightly more great" can be imagined makes no sense. What could be greater than an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessary being? If you could logically conceive of anything greater, then that would be God. Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

I do understand "possible world" although I don't necessarily agree with it. It states in the article: "...there is disagreement about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between the actual world and all the other possible worlds." In particular I disagree with Craig's application of the concept in this case.

The key point is this: you don't get to just say that something is possible because you can imagine it, you have to demonstrate that it is possible. That is not the same as asserting that it is in fact impossible, but until you can demonstrate that it is possible, then it is pure conjecture. Craig's whole argument is completely fallacious.

[GrandizerII]

To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.

Which it is. At best, God can be super powerful to the point that no other entity would ever exceed it in power, but not literally omnipotent.

[KevinM1]

I take issue with the concept of god being necessary. The video posted above highlights the absurdity of it - following the structure of the argument you can claim that anything is possible and possibly necessary without support. I think giant space faring whales who shoot Skittles out of their blowholes are possible and possibly necessary. Therefore they're necessary. Therefore it exists.

Do you see the absurdity? You can't just pull anything out of your ass, apply modal logic to it, and then say "Ta da!" You still need to demonstrate that these creatures aren't just possible, but that they're possibly necessary. Ultimately, you can't logic something into existence.