A 21st Century Ontological Argument: does it work.

[awty]

Why should there be only one ‘necessarily existent being’? Why not two of them? Why not a zillion?

Even more difficult for the argument: why would ANY being necessarily exist? For all we know, the existence of every being is contingent on the existence of every other being.

Boru

Well, for one thing, Ockham's Razor would seem to "shave off" the necessity of postulating more than one.

Har, har, har.

[Angrboda]

Fail at step 2.  Conceivability implies nothing about possibility.

How so? Conceivability implies something exists in some possible world. In other words, it is possible.

A square circle is not possible. It exists in no possible world. It is not conceivable either.

Conceivability and possibility are basically synonymous terms imo. If it is conceivable, it is possible.

No, it doesn't. If it does, then I can conceive of a world without God. Since I can conceive it, it's possible. If it's possible, there is one possible world without God. Since God by definition, if he exists, exists in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist by implication. Thanks for playing.

[Astreja]

So here's my own version of the Ontological Argument, borrowed indeed from St. Anselm, and Alvin Plantinga, who's been dubbed "St. Al", at least partly for his work on this subject, though more broadly for his general philosophical expertise; and also, slightly moving beyond them. Time will tell if the argument succeeds. Now, without further ado, here it is.

1. God is Conceived as the One Necessarily Existent Being.
2. Now, if a Being can be conceived as existing necessarily, it possibly exists. (since conceivability entails possibility).
3. Next, if a Necessary Being possibly exists, it exists in every possible world. (by nature of Necessary Existence).
4. Then, if a Necessary Being exists in every possible world, it exists in the actual world. (since the actual world is one of many possible worlds).
5. Therefore, God exists in the actual world. Or, more simply, Therefore, God exists.

The universe doesn't have to be here.  Nothing has to be here.  Therefore, the concept of a "necessary being" is unnecessary.

And even if there were a necessary entity, why would it have to be sentient?

[brewer]

It appears that you actually started with 'god exists' then employed the completion backwards principle. The argument is useless and has zero credibility.

[JJoseph]

How so? Conceivability implies something exists in some possible world. In other words, it is possible.

A square circle is not possible. It exists in no possible world. It is not conceivable either.

Conceivability and possibility are basically synonymous terms imo. If it is conceivable, it is possible.

No, it doesn't.  If it does, then I can conceive of a world without God.  Since I can conceive it, it's possible.  If it's possible, there is one possible world without God.  Since God by definition, if he exists, exists in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist by implication.  Thanks for playing.

Well played. But incorrect. Why? Because if I'm right, then your second statement is incorrect. You may think you can, but you actually cannot. In other words, someone who doesn't know that Pythagoras' Theorem is a necessary Truth may think he can conceive of a right angled triangle where a2+b2!=c2 where c is the hypotenuse etc, but he actually cannot. He only thinks he can. Thus, likewise, you may think you can conceive of a self-creating world, or a self-existing contingent world, without a Necessarily Existent Creator, but in fact, since His existence is at least possible, therefore it is necessary; in other words, there is no possible contingent world in which the Necessarily Existent Being does not exist.

Thanks for playing.

[JJoseph]

So here's my own version of the Ontological Argument, borrowed indeed from St. Anselm, and Alvin Plantinga, who's been dubbed "St. Al", at least partly for his work on this subject, though more broadly for his general philosophical expertise; and also, slightly moving beyond them. Time will tell if the argument succeeds. Now, without further ado, here it is.

1. God is Conceived as the One Necessarily Existent Being.
2. Now, if a Being can be conceived as existing necessarily, it possibly exists. (since conceivability entails possibility).
3. Next, if a Necessary Being possibly exists, it exists in every possible world. (by nature of Necessary Existence).
4. Then, if a Necessary Being exists in every possible world, it exists in the actual world. (since the actual world is one of many possible worlds).
5. Therefore, God exists in the actual world. Or, more simply, Therefore, God exists.

The universe doesn't have to be here.  Nothing has to be here.  Therefore, the concept of a "necessary being" is unnecessary.

And even if there were a necessary entity, why would it have to be sentient?

Fair Argument, Astreja. But if I recall, Saint Thomas Aquinas answered it like this. Paraphrasing and adapting the archaic language of the Angelic Doctor slightly for our times: "If nothing ever existed, then even now nothing would exist, because nothing produces nothing. But this is impossible because it is absurd. Therefore, it is not true that nothing ever existed. Therefore, we cannot but arrive at the existence of Something - or Someone - that exists Necessarily. And this all men speak of as God", etc. Adapted/modified it a little, but that's the gist of the Thomistic Argument from Contingency and Necessity. St. Thomas, recall, was not convinced by St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, at least not in the form in which it was presented then. I think Plantinga's argument might have had a better reception in medieval universities, and perhaps mine too, lol. But let's see. Time will tell. I really don't think Atheism has any future, sorry. It's just about people realizing the arguments for Theism are sound and more reasonable than those for Atheism, and when they begin to see again Religion has value and makes life meaningful, they'll come back to God/Jesus. Jesus Christ is a Friend in need, and a Friend indeed. He is to all men and all women the Friend they want, and He gives them everything, if they but open their hearts to Him. He, even more than Saint Paul, could say in Truth: "I made Myself all things to all men/all women". Dawkins, Hitchens et al have nothing to offer in comparison. All they can offer, as they themselves say, "you'll die, you'll stink, you'll rot. The end". Lol, nope.

[Nay_Sayer]

To not be spammy; F minus

[Astreja]

Fair Argument, Astreja. But if I recall, Saint Thomas Aquinas answered it like this. Paraphrasing and adapting the archaic language of the Angelic Doctor slightly for our times: "If nothing ever existed, then even now nothing would exist, because nothing produces nothing. But this is impossible because it is absurd. Therefore, it is not true that nothing ever existed. Therefore, we cannot but arrive at the existence of Something - or Someone - that exists Necessarily.

I'm going with something, and that "thing" is "whatever basic substance comprises matter/energy."

I really don't think Atheism has any future, sorry. It's just about people realizing the arguments for Theism are sound and more reasonable than those for Atheism, and when they begin to see again Religion has value and makes life meaningful, they'll come back to God/Jesus.

I am incapable of religious belief. I cannot (and will not) "come back" to something that has registered as fictional in my mind since I was a child. (In other words, I can't come back to a place I never visited in the first place.) I have never possessed religious faith, and at the age of 66 I do not expect this to change.

Christianity has nothing that I want, and a great deal that I do not want. I do not want to live forever, and concepts like substitutionary atonement are utterly ghastly.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, it doesn't.  If it does, then I can conceive of a world without God.  Since I can conceive it, it's possible.  If it's possible, there is one possible world without God.  Since God by definition, if he exists, exists in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist by implication.  Thanks for playing.

Well played. But incorrect. Why? Because if I'm right, then your second statement is incorrect. You may think you can, but you actually cannot. In other words, someone who doesn't know that Pythagoras' Theorem is a necessary Truth may think he can conceive of a right angled triangle where a2+b2!=c2 where c is the hypotenuse etc, but he actually cannot. He only thinks he can. Thus, likewise, you may think you can conceive of a self-creating world, or a self-existing contingent world, without a Necessarily Existent Creator, but in fact, since His existence is at least possible, therefore it is necessary; in other words, there is no possible contingent world in which the Necessarily Existent Being does not exist.

Thanks for playing.

(Bold mine)

Of course he can. I'm doing it right now. It's called 'hyperbolic geometry'. The Pythagorean Theorem and Euclid's Fifth postulate were meant to apply only to plane geometry.

Since I can conceive of what you've just said can't be conceived, then it stands to reason that a world without God is also conceivable, possible, and all the rest of it.

I would thank you for playing, but you've just tried to raise with a busted flush.

Boru

edit: You'll forgive the off-topic, but I've been wondering - why did you choose Cesare Borgia for your avatar? Nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious.

[Deesse23]

2. Now, if a Being can be conceived as existing necessarily, it possibly exists. (since conceivability entails possibility).

Nope
Possibility must be demonstrated.
Now back to the drawing board for you