The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Mystic]

The human perception believes in human value, in levels towards more value and less value. Ultimately, we do have subjective judgement, but we do have judgement on belief that there is an objective value to humans, and that there is some sort real standard out there that is accurate. 

That doesn't prove that our perception is based on reality, but, if we know for certain our valuing and standards of value are not meaningless, these are good reasons to investigate what is possibly the source of all this value?

A perception that sees value as it is, would obviously be necessary. That measures things as they by a perfect understanding of reality and standard, and what perfect standard can possibly be different then ultimate value and perfection itself.

I would have to read what Thomas Aquinas actually says and his argument form. But I think we are justified to believe that our value judgments are not meaningless.

Yes we can doubt everything down to our very identity, or we can say, we believe in these things, perhaps we even knows these things, if we know these things, what do they imply? And the ultimately do we know these things?

The argument is saying we are justified to believe that value and standards of more and less in value are not meaningless. I think it's hard to argue against that. If we are going to deny everything spiritual simply because it points to the Divine, then yes, there would be no arguments for the Divine.

But is this at all rational?

[Angrboda]

The argument is saying we are justified to believe that value and standards of more and less in value are not meaningless. I think it's hard to argue against that. If we are going to deny everything spiritual simply because it points to the Divine, then yes, there would be no arguments for the Divine.

But is this at all rational?

The real question raised by this argument is what is the nature of meaning. The proof asserts that it must come from having a standard or object of comparison, that a tree is a tree because it resembles some ultimate standard of treeness. But is this actually how meaning works? From our discussions I presume that you would take the position that meaning has no naturalistic explanation. Here it is important to distinguish 'in practice' from 'in principle'. That we do not currently have a naturalistic account of meaning is not evidence that no such account exists. That would be an argument from ignorance. So the proof relies on a gap in our knowledge to assert its conclusion. Is meaning supernatural in the way described in the proof? I don't think so, but opinions differ.

[Mystic]

You are not on point there^

You are straying off the premises It's not discussing whether or not there can be a naturalistic explanation to why we have a sense of value. It's saying for it to be accurate, and hence, justified and true, there has to be an objective perception and perfect standard of that. That is not an argument from lack of knowledge, that is not saying, we can't account for intrinsic meaning through naturalistic explanations, hence God is the answer.

It's saying a perfect standard and accurate objective perception is required to that value and merit. And I feel this is part of human nature to acknowledge, that imperfect perception can never be the full judge of value and maintain it. We at most estimate other people with some sort of distant scent, we don't ever claim to know exactly their value nor their inner beauty nor their rank.

We don't even know ourselves properly let alone others. But we do so with belief there is a true value there. That requires perception and a perfect standard.

It's sound argument. Not only are all the premises self-evident, but if we think about it truly, everyone acts and lives on the assumption of all these premises to be true. Sure we may heedless of them but we act according to them.

The reality is we all know something sees us as we truly are, the perfect being, and that is why we feel tranquility with having value and meaning. It's something else to not realize this knowledge.

At the very least, this should be admitted to be strong proof for God even if not 100% knock out argument.

This  notion that Theists have no arguments in their bags that have any merit, should be abandoned. This is a strong argument, and well done Thomas Aquinas!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jor, are not your conclusions suspect because the human capacity for logic is suspect? Did not brains evolve for survival rather than evaluating truth propositions? How can you be comfortable evaluating the validity of a logical argument while being skeptical of reason's efficacy? :-)

It seems obvious to me that logical arguments can only work for people with an intellectual commitment to the idea that reason works.

[chimp3]

ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

(1) We rank things and we disagree about perfection and value. Our ranking is subjective.
(2) If my ranking of perfection is not the ultimate truth then my soul has less perfection than a slug.     
(3) Therefore, my ranking of perfection must be the ultimate standard and all other value judgements must be meaningless.
(4) My standard of perfection is not meaningless, therefore it is the ultimate standard.
(5) My God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, only my God exists.

Aquinas : "Muhammad seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom."

[Neo-Scholastic]

...I presume that you would take the position that meaning has no naturalistic explanation...That we do not currently have a naturalistic account of meaning is not evidence that no such account exists. That would be an argument from ignorance.

From a purely scientific (in the most expansive sense of the word) point of view, it seems more rational to at least tentatively accept the theory that at appears to work rather than the one that doesn’t even exist. Naturalism has only a promissory note and no clue how to fulfill it. It seems to me that the only reason not accept the standing theory is a bias against it.

[Angrboda]

...I presume that you would take the position that meaning has no naturalistic explanation...That we do not currently have a naturalistic account of meaning is not evidence that no such account exists.  That would be an argument from ignorance.

From a purely scientific (in the most expansive sense of the word) point of view, it seems more rational to at least tentatively accept the theory that at appears to work rather than the one that doesn’t even exist. Naturalism has only a promissory note and no clue how to fulfill it.  It seems to me that the only reason not accept the standing theory is a bias against it.

Or perhaps this so-called standing theory depends on auxiliary hypotheses which themselves have become problematical. That a theory has a history is no reason to respect it. It must stand on its own merits. And one of the demerits of what I presume you are referring to is that the mechanism is unknown.

For what it's worth, I discount this 'standing theory' for several reasons, a) it's not so much a theory as an ineffable group of intuitions, b) I have the glimmerings of a naturalistic account, and c) there has been precious little support for magic theories of phenomena but plenty of support for naturalistic ones. Are those unreasonable biases? I don't think so.

[Edwardo Piet]

Regardless of if any ultimate objective meaning could be proved or not, it would still be a complete and utter non-sequitur to jump from that to the conclusion that a perfect supernatural creator created the universe.

[Neo-Scholastic]

ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

Could you please point me to the exact reference from which you pulled this version of the argument? I don't recall ever seeing a comparison between souls and slugs in Aquinas. The term ultimate standard of being doesn't seem very Scholastic, what translation are you using?

[chimp3]

ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

Could you please point me to the exact reference from which you pulled this version of the argument? I don't recall ever seeing a comparison between souls and slugs in Aquinas. The term ultimate standard of being doesn't seem very Scholastic, what translation are you using?

This is a quote from MysticKnight #207 in this thread.