The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[robvalue]

It's a good point. The motivation is inconsistent and ridiculous. When you stop to think about what is suggested, it's laughable.

[madog]

 

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.

 

I was watching Matt Dillahunty answering a question that stated that a God was necessary, but not in the exact context of this thread, just pointing that out to explain the core concept is not my idea, even though I will phrase it differently ....

It appears that the ontological argument is based on necessity?

Even accepting (which I don't) a God is necessary to create the universe/world why would it need to be a "maximally great being" ?

Why can't the "being" just be sufficient to create a universe? we'll call the being "Noddy"

Why couldn't "Noddy" cease to exist through the creation of the universe/world, by exploding into what we call the "big bang" that arguably lead to our world ?

Why can't the conclusion be "Noddy" existed, but doesn't exist anymore?

I know this will mess with talking to "Noddy" and leave us all alone in the world but the necessity or the conclusion doesn't have to be something humans want ....

[robvalue]

Yeah, I don't get the compulsion to pimp up the daddy. There's absolutely no reason to think that a creator is anything special at all. Or that it's still alive, or cares about us if it is.

It's like 1835 didn't even happen sometimes.

[madog]

Yeah, I don't get the compulsion to pimp up the daddy.  

LOL ... exactly ... 

What appears to be their argument ...

1) There is no explanation for the first cause, so it must be a God .... Mmm Ok, lets throw that in with the other infinite possibilities 

2) If there is a God he is probably a maximally great being ... Eh, pretty big jump there 

3) If its probable it is fact ..... Aaah   

4) If there is a God he loves us wants to send himself as his son to kill himself and start a religion that allows arrogant beings to think they are 
right without evidence    (little Rik moment)

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, I don't get the compulsion to pimp up the daddy.

Ummm depends if we are talking abouttttttttttttttttttttttt..................................... God still?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Your still missing the point, Chad.  We can order things in terms of purity.  We can't order things in terms of greatness, except by subjective preference.

I think our difference is largely a semantic one that turns on the definition of greatness. As a fact the Pyramid of Giza is greater than Chartres Cathedral in terms of its size and mass whereas in my opinion Chartres Cathedral is the greater because it is more sublime.

....what the Scholastics have traditionally held to be the case is totally irrelevant.  That's just a weak argument from authority.

I believe you misunderstand why I made reference to the Scholastic Doctors. As a general rule I object when people substitute modern definitions for the traditional definitions on which various arguments rely. For example, the terms "substance" and "movement" had entirely different meanings to the Schoolmen than they do for me and you. If someone wants to critique a traditional Christian apologetic that does back to the Middle Ages, then it is right and proper that they use the same traditional definitions as those who presented the apologetic in the first place.

The same for "greatness". While I admit that I am unaware of any specific reference to greatness as a metaphysical attribute, I feel that the relevant references to greatness generally point back to the idea that a specimen is great to the extent that it participates in its genus. It is also important that from Aristotle to Aquinas in terms of usage goodness and being were essentially synonymous. So really, to say "Maximally Great Being" in a modern way would be "That which most Completely Exists."

As an aside, I personally find WLC annoying because he presents traditional arguments by wrapping them in modern modal logic. That is a recipe for confusion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol "That which most completely exists" what pretentious bunk, either something exists or it doesn't. Existence is not a substance or quality something can have, the question of something's existence is separate to what that something is.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Lol "That which most completely exists" what pretentious bunk, either something exists or it doesn't. Existence is not a substance or quality something can have, the question of something's existence is separate to what that something is.

Yes, "what a thing is" is different from "that a thing is". You can have two things with entirely different "whatness" while still having in common the fact that they exist. If that is so then existence actually is something attributable to each. But I take issue with your binary approach to existence since it does not take into account why things exist as they do in the first place.

[Whateverist]

OP: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

A: Certainly not valid. Not worth the effort to debunk.

[robvalue]

It needs rebunking. Repeating that it is bunk.