What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

This particular form of the argument is using modal logic.

If you say so. I prefer not to make assumptions about what outside concepts an arguer might or might not be attempting to imply, because it invariably leads to confusion. But, as I have already pointed out, I explicitly stated that this was a distinct possibility even in my original post, so your objection here is rather pointless.

How do you think that this is incoherent at all given this information.

I don't. That was rather the point of the clarification. The rest of the argument is still incoherent, because it fails to establish that it is possible that a maximally great being exists, or even that "a maximally great being" has a functional definition, but if one assumes the tie-in to modal logic, this premise is fine.

EDIT: Upon rereading, my initial phrasing was rather poor (saying "slightly less incoherent" in reference to the weakness of the rest of the argument, because I have Opinions about it, rather than just clarifying on that premise). I apologize for the confusion. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I am not perfect.

[Cyberman]

This particular form of the argument is using modal logic. How do you think that this is incoherent at all given this information.

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

I'm always bewildered that people feel the need to reject every premise, and go out of their way to do it. Often looking foolish doing so. Perhaps you would like your critique.

Would you rather we swallowed it all without question? Do you know the term for someone like that?

[Nonpareil]

This particular form of the argument is using modal logic.   How do you think that this is incoherent at all given this information.

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

I'm always bewildered that people feel the need to reject every premise, and go out of their way to do it. Often looking foolish doing so. Perhaps you would like your critique.

Would you rather we swallowed it all without question? Do you know the term for someone like that?

While I appreciate the attempt at assistance, I do actually have to point out that RoadRunner was not entirely off the mark here. I spoke poorly and carelessly, and the fault is mine, not his - at least insofar as pointing out that my post still indicated a flaw with Premise Two that would not actually be there if the argument was intending to make use of modal logic (though, again, I did actually point out that the use of modal logic was a distinct possibility).

The ontological argument is still bunk for every other reason I listed, as premise two being coherent is not at all equivalent to the rest of the argument being correct. But I did phrase my post poorly, and he was right to point out the incorrect implication there.

[Cyberman]

Thank you, but I was addressing a different angle to yours.

[RoadRunner79]

This particular form of the argument is using modal logic. How do you think that this is incoherent at all given this information.

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

I'm always bewildered that people feel the need to reject every premise, and go out of their way to do it. Often looking foolish doing so. Perhaps you would like your critique.

Would you rather we swallowed it all without question? Do you know the term for someone like that?

I don't believe I said anything that would result in your last sentence.... where did you get that from?

[Godscreated]

I was referring to the OP's ability to paraphrase the original

Which, as I said, is fair enough, but I really don't think anyone could be blamed for concluding that you reject the argument based on you saying that you reject the argument as phrased.

If you do accept the ontological argument, perhaps you could explain what merits your preferred version of it has that solve the issues you had with the original post.

Okay, I do not believe in the argument stated or otherwise​, the argument as it pertains to the God of creation doesn't take into account that He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning we cannot​ determine what is possible with God. Those three things are outside of any understanding we could have about them other than the basic, He has no limits. However when one studies the scriptures we find that God is limited to who He is, but then that covers a vastness that is inconceivable for man. That argument and all arguments about God by man in the end puts limits on a limitless God. Because God is limitless to our mortal minds any limits God might have would be inconceivable to us. With that said I do not believe God has limits when it comes to his powers yet those very powers can not override who God is. Some may call this a philosophy, but when one studies the scriptures they will see this is our God, unexplainable except for what we glean from the scriptures. The argument was formed before evolutionary science or astrological science (l do not believe in the first and reject some of the second) and both of those are in the back of the minds that would argue against the argument today. Those being non-profit believers. I on the other hand do not consider either, what we "know" of God comes from the scriptures and thus our arguments should not be developed outside of them.

GC

[Nonpareil]

Which, as I said, is fair enough, but I really don't think anyone could be blamed for concluding that you reject the argument based on you saying that you reject the argument as phrased.

Okay, I do not believe in the argument stated or otherwise

Then I am doubly confused as to what your objection to my post actually was, but I think that we can let the matter lie.

As a bit of information, though, in case you didn't know already:

the argument as it pertains to the God of creation doesn't take into account that He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning we cannot determine what is possible with God. Those three things are outside of any understanding we could have about them other than the basic, He has no limits. However when one studies the scriptures we find that God is limited to who He is, but then that covers a vastness that is inconceivable for man. That argument and all arguments about God by man in the end puts limits on a limitless God. Because God is limitless to our mortal minds any limits God might have would be inconceivable to us.

This is almost exactly Thomas Aquinas' first objection to the argument. God is inconceivable, and thus Anselm's original formulation - which was of the "God is necessary if conceivable" type - fails because the human mind cannot actually comprehend the concept of a "maximally great being".

[Godscreated]

I'm surprised you did not take this on.

....He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, ....Those three things are outside of any understanding we could have about them other than the basic, He has no limits. However when one studies the scriptures we find that God is limited to who He is, but then that covers a vastness that is inconceivable for man. ....

This is almost exactly Thomas Aquinas' first objection to the argument. God is inconceivable, and thus Anselm's original formulation - which was of the "God is necessary if conceivable" type - fails because the human mind cannot actually comprehend the concept of a "maximally great being".

No wasn't familiar with it, l try to keep my studies within the Bible and allow God's truth to guide my thoughts. Though I do read somethings pertain to the Bible specifically.
Like I said I'm surprised you did not comment on God being limitless yet having limits, just was surprised, no need to reply if you haven't anything to say.

GC

[SteveII]

1- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

"Greatness" is a value judgment. Value judgments are inherently subjective. "Maximally great" is a nonsensical contradiction in terms, even ignoring its complete lack of an actual, coherent definition (it never supplies any way to actually measure "greatness", so it's a complete non-starter).

This is also where the ipse dixit comes in, and why I mentioned bare assertion when examining this premise above. There is no reason to accept that it is possible that a "maximally great being" exists.

While greatness might be subjective, maximal greatness is not.

Unfortunately, this is utterly nonsensical. "Greatness" is not an objective quantity, and no actual coherent method of measurement can be supplied. Simply asserting that "maximal greatness" is not an incoherent concept does not actually make it so. Nor does trying to say that it is objective rather than subjective.

Also note the way that Steve's chosen "real" variation of the ontological argument fits into the condensed version that I supplied at the beginning of this post. "God" is defined as "a maximally great entity"; the rest of the argument, then, is spent trying to show how a "maximally great entity" is defined as existing, without at any point even attempting to establish that a maximally great entity is actually possible. It simply asserts that it is, and expects to be taken at face value.

It's the same issue every time, in every variation of the ontological argument. There is always, at one point or another, a complete ipse dixit moment, whereupon it collapses on its face. And, again, that's without getting into the completely incoherent mess that is the actual premises. This is why the ontological arguments have never been relevant in philosophy outside of theistic circles that refuse to let them die because they're desperate for anything that they can lay their hands on.

The ontological arguments are always, invariably, regardless of specific wording, worthless.

Consider these three premises from Robert Maydole's Moral Perfection Argument:

M1: A property is a perfection only if its negation is not a perfection.
M2: Perfection entails only perfection
M3: The property of being supreme is a perfection of that property.

Maydole defines a perfection as a property which is better to have than not to have and something is supreme if there is nothing which is even possibily greater or as great as.

Suppose that it is not possible (necessarily so or as you say 'nonsensical) that there exists a being with supreme (maximally great) properties . In that case, for any property x, it is necessarily the case that property x is not an example of being supreme. Well, if that is the case then, necessarily, for any property x, if x is supreme, then x is not supreme.

Now suppose being supreme is a perfection (M3) and that only perfection entails perfection (M2).

If these premises are true, and being supreme is not possible, it follows that not being supreme is a perfection. But if we accept M1, it is also the case then not being supreme is not a perfection. Now we have a contradicion: not being supreme is a perfection and not being supreme is not a perfection. Which one do you want to reject and why? If you can't, you must concede that a supreme property is possible and by extension, that it is possible there is a supreme (maximally great) being.

Now, all I have done (with help) has been to summarize the argument. The actual formal logic is 12 steps long. It then fits into the Ontological Argument, which is another 16 steps long. Since you probably don't have my book, you can get a copy of the argument in the link below.

So, it seems your claim of ability to refute the Ontological Argument "in a couple of sentences" is entirely based on your lack of understanding of the argument. Perhaps if you didn't lecture us like a condescending prick, this wouldn't be so funny.  

Adapted from Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Wiley-Blackwell 2012 pg. 580 ff. with additional commentary from https://calumsblog.com/apologetics/argum...-argument/ (to help me with some of the symbology)

[Nonpareil]

Like I said I'm surprised you did not comment on God being limitless yet having limits, just was surprised, no need to reply if you haven't anything to say.

It's another of the issues, yes, but I think it kind of falls under the umbrella of "'a maximally great being' is a nonsensical non-definition", so I didn't really feel the need to make an entirely separate comment on it.

Maydole defines a perfection as a property which is better to have than not to have

Which is a value judgment, and therefore not objective, and not something that can have a "maximal" value.

and something is supreme if there is nothing which is even possibily greater or as great as.

There is still no coherent basis for positing a "greatest possible" value. See above.

Suppose that it is not possible (necessarily so or as you say 'nonsensical) that there exists a being with supreme (maximally great) properties . In that case, for any property x, it is necessarily the case that property x is not an example of being supreme. Well, if that is the case then, necessarily, for any property x, if x is supreme, then x is not supreme.

Yes, that is what happens when you have non-functional definitions. You end up making nonsensical, contradictory statements like this.

This isn't a refutation, Steve. This is saying "let's take two contradictory positions - that X cannot be supreme and that X is supreme - and mash them together, and show that it doesn't work, and therefore prove, once and for all, that you can't use two contradictory premises in your argumentation, only let's pretend that this somehow showed that X is supreme". It's completely pointless and banal, and does nothing to actually show that X is supreme, or that "supreme" is even a coherent concept.

It addresses exactly none of the issues with the argument. It just doubles down on how wrong it is.

So, it seems your claim of ability to refute the Ontological Argument "in a couple of sentences" is entirely based on your lack of understanding of the argument.

It's really, really not.