# Explain the ontological argument to me **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098 "2009-11-02T21:08:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/41 "2009-11-03T15:07:01Z")
My favorite comment on the Ontological Argument is that you can use it to prove the _non_-existence of The DEvil. You see, The DEvil is the _least_ perfect being you can imagine… ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/42 "2009-11-03T15:09:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Only if you accept the premise that a perfect being is even possible. I’m not even sure that’s correct. Consider what Loftus said (paraphrasing from memory): Let’s say I have an IQ of 85 and I’m generally not very smart (not far from the truth, but I digress). The most perfect being I can imagine would seem to be inferior to the most perfect being that someone with an IQ of 160 and is very smart. How can it be that this argument can be used to prove the existence of two _different_ perfect beings, when by necessity, there can only be one _most_ perfect being… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/43 "2009-11-03T15:16:22Z")
> [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](#): > > So it _is_ that dumb after all. Yes. Your reaction to hearing it for the first time is normal. Most people with any sense read it, then say, “huh? That doesn’t sound right. It can’t be that stupid. I must have missed a step. What did I miss?” So they read it again, and there’s still no missed step. it really is that stupid. It can take a while for that to sink in, though. I too spent quite a bit of time assuming I must have misunderstood something the first time I encountered this in college. I cornered my philosophy prof about it and told him I though I was missing something. He told me that’s what everybody thinks the first time they see the OA, but that it really is as inane as it looks. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/44 "2009-11-03T16:20:57Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > OK, try the second post in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529653) instead (which I’m afraid I found too embarrassing to join in with!). > > And I agree that it seems odd that **Lib** and I can disagree as fundamentally as two people possibly can on almost any philosophical issue there is, yet think so highly of each other. Oh, I wasn’t doubting you, no need for a cite. I just thought it was odd. Not odd that you respect each other, but odd that he would point that out as a case of you summarizing his argument in that way. He claims that there are all sorts of necessary attributes that the supreme being would have beyond necessary existence. You claim, and I agree, that the only necessary characteristic is existence. So why point out your argument as a good summary of his viewpoint when there’s the disagreement on a fundamental point. ---
**Author:** ![Hallucinex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba9def/32.png) [@Hallucinex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hallucinex)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/45 "2009-11-03T17:00:51Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Basically the concept of perfection is only valid in a specific context. Getting a perfect score in a test for example. Applying the concept of perfection to something as nebulous as a “being” is meaningless. I find it amazing that philosophers take this kind of nonsense seriously. I think this is a biggie; even if the reasoning behind the argument was sound, I don’t think saying that something can be objectively ‘perfect’ makes any sense outside a given context. Something is perfect insofar as how precisely it conforms to some particular definition or specification. It’s not a property like mass or something that can just be applied directly to an entity (unless comparing that entity to how closely it fits the definition of that type of entity - a perfect sphere) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/46 "2009-11-03T20:37:45Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > He claims that there are all sorts of necessary attributes that the supreme being would have beyond necessary existence. If so, I don’t remember debating him on that (though I might be wrong). If I did, I’d argue that there’s an effectively _infintite_ number of such possible attributes, and that ‘existence’ is as arbitrary a choice as any of the others. > [@](#): > > You claim, and I agree, that the only necessary characteristic is existence. Actually, I claim that _no_ characteristics are more necessary than any other, ‘existence’ included. In that summary I present the rather different argument that Necessary Existence is not a useful synonym of Supreme _Being_, since ‘beings’ to me imply many more extra characteristics than are parsimoniously required by a mere logical state. > [@](#): > > So why point out your argument as a good summary of his viewpoint when there’s the disagreement on a fundamental point. To allow someone else to publicly summarise your position in a way which you feel represents you accurately is to pay them a powerful compliment, and such warm regards ought not be coldly analysed. But the fascinating thing about the Ontological Proof is that it acts as a base from which one can explore all kinds of different terrain in logic and philosophy, for which I offered only the most basic of maps. I would hope my mate **Lib** saw _value_ in it no matter how fundamental his disagreement with the content. ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/47 "2009-11-03T20:50:04Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I’m not even sure that’s correct. Consider what Loftus said (paraphrasing from memory): > > Let’s say I have an IQ of 85 and I’m generally not very smart (not far from the truth, but I digress). The most perfect being I can imagine would seem to be inferior to the most perfect being that someone with an IQ of 160 and is very smart. How can it be that this argument can be used to prove the existence of two _different_ perfect beings, when by necessity, there can only be one _most_ perfect being… The thing is, God’s perfection is said to be incomprehensible to the human mind. In other words, God’s perfection is undefined and undefinable, and I dare anyone to to find any difference in going on about God’s infinite imperfection. It’s meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/48 "2009-11-03T20:58:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > But if one God always lies and one God always tells the truth and you can only ask one question, how will you know which door is safe? Bring Marilyn vos Savant along with you. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/49 "2009-11-03T21:07:06Z")
> [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](#): > > No disrespect to all those ancient philosophers, Firstly, as already mentioned, it would be medieval philosophers, not ancient ones. Perhaps more significantly, at least in the case of Anselm of Canterbury, who is most often associated with the ontological argument, he did not intend it to convince anyone of the existence God any more than Blaise Pascal intended his famous wager argument to do so. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/50 "2009-11-03T21:24:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > … he did not intend it to convince anyone of the existence God … So what was it for? An argument for the existence of God seems, by definition, meant to be a convincing argument for God. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/51 "2009-11-03T22:43:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 1. Shooting your eye out is the worst thing you can imagine… I dunno. I think blindness from soap poisoning would be just as bad. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/52 "2009-11-03T22:44:27Z")
It was too supposed to be a proof of God. It’s one of the three classical proofs. Pascal’s Wager is not supposed to be a proof of God, just an argument (albeit a terrible one) in favor of _believing_ in God (there _is_ a difference) but the OA is explicitly formulated as a proof of existence. ---
**Author:** ![Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malleus_incus_stapes/32/3293_2.png) [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malleus_Incus_Stapes)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/53 "2009-11-03T23:40:42Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Firstly, as already mentioned, it would be medieval philosophers, not ancient ones. Perhaps more significantly, at least in the case of Anselm of Canterbury, who is most often associated with the ontological argument, he did not intend it to convince anyone of the existence God any more than Blaise Pascal intended his famous wager argument to do so. Medieval is pretty ancient as far as I’m concerned. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Pascal’s Wager is not supposed to be a proof of God, just an argument ( **albeit a terrible one** ) in favor of _believing_ in God (there _is_ a difference) but the OA is explicitly formulated as a proof of existence. So I’m not the only one to notice the flaw in his argument, then? What is it with all these crazy “logical” arguments? ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/54 "2009-11-04T00:03:33Z")
> [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](#): > > What is it with all these crazy “logical” arguments? Logic cannot be applied to illogical premises, no matter how convoluted and vague you get. Theology is mental masturbation with no climax. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/55 "2009-11-04T00:09:50Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > Logic cannot be applied to illogical premises, no matter how convoluted and vague you get. Theology is mental masturbation with no climax. To be fair to the ancient-ish dead guys, they were doing this when formal logic was relatively new. It’s not irrational to attempt to wrap the new paradigm around your old paradigm. And sure, all the arguments like this they created were crap. That’s because the ones that weren’t crap, didn’t claim to prove the existence of God, so we don’t remember them. It’s only the ones they screwed up and then convinced themselves were right that have stuck around. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/56 "2009-11-04T18:28:37Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > So what was it for? An argument for the existence of God seems, by definition, meant to be a convincing argument for God. I honestly have never read anything by Anselm, but am merely reporting from Justo Gonzalez’ _History of Christian Thought_. “[Anselm of Canterbury] did not intend the argument to serve as a proof of God’s existence, but rather for use as a philosophical avenue which could aid in exploring God’s nature.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/57 "2009-11-04T19:54:26Z")
It’s a proof. It follows every form of a proof. It’s referred to as one of the three classical proofs of God. It’s taught in college philosophy classes as a proof. It was formally taught to ME as a proof in a college philosophy class. I don’t care what Justo Gonzales says. It’s a proof. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/58 "2009-11-04T20:34:42Z")
Maybe Dr. Gonzalez is embarrassed by the argument and wants to downplay it as something associated with Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/59 "2009-11-04T20:39:21Z")
Incidentally, the original context of Anselm’s argument was specifically to refute atheism, and to try to prove that it was (in his mind) logically inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098/60 "2009-11-05T01:48:02Z")
An English translation of Anselm’s Proslogium is available [here](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html); it is not long (although it _is_ excruciating). From a cursory reading both points of view seem correct. Anselm frames the ontological argument explicitly as a refutation of atheism: > [@](#): > > Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms xiv. 1), since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool? But in the following chapters (beginning with chapter 5), he uses that framework to investigate the properties of God—compassionate, omnipotent, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-ontological-argument-to-me/516098.md?page=2)