Explain the ontological argument to me

[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?

[Sage_Rat]

1. Sparkling vampires are something of which nothing awesomer can be thought.
   2. Sparkling vampires may exist in the understanding.
   3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
   4. Therefore, sparkling vampires exist in reality

[Ludovic]

@Der_Trihs

Another thing that’s always bothered me about these arguments is the assumption that “perfect being” or “greatest being” are actually objective or even meaningful terms. What does it mean for a being to be “perfect” ? What reason is there to think that there is even such a thing as an objective definition of “perfect” or “greatest” being"?

Simple: A perfect being would exist in all possible worlds, including ones in which this being was actively performing acts that would be sadistic and cruel in our worlds (it’s certainly imaginable to imagine a world with sadistic deities.)

[jayjay]

@Ludovic

(it’s certainly imaginable to imagine a world with sadistic deities.)

Not difficult at all…

[Askance]

@Der_Trihs

Another thing that’s always bothered me about these arguments is the assumption that “perfect being” or “greatest being” are actually objective or even meaningful terms. What does it mean for a being to be “perfect” ? What reason is there to think that there is even such a thing as an objective definition of “perfect” or “greatest” being"?

And, by what reasoning is existence assumed to be more perfect than non-existence? Only by self-referential circular definition of assumption. One could consider that non-existence is a more perfect state of being because of the impossibility of being defiled by the imperfections and corruptions of the real universe. The whole argument is stupid beyond description.

[Sage_Rat]

1. Santa Claus is something of which nothing kinder can be thought.
2. Santa Claus may exist in the understanding.
3. It is kinder to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, Santa Claus exists in reality

[Blut_Aus_Nord]

@Sage_Rat

1. Santa Claus is something of which nothing kinder can be thought.
2. Santa Claus may exist in the understanding.
3. It is kinder to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, Santa Claus exists in reality

Santa never gave me my official Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time. Fat lard.

[Sage_Rat]

@Chakra Nadmara

Santa never gave me my official Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time. Fat lard.

1. A Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock is something of which nothing better for Christmas can be thought.
2. A Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock may be received in the understanding.
3. It is better to be received in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, a Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock will be received for Christmas in reality.

Woohoo, this is fun!

Yeah, I’d have to say that I’m not going to give a lot of weight to the ontological argument.

[Knorf]

Indeed, the flaw of the ontological argument is that you can make up anything to apply it to.

[PBear42]

For those interested in detail and the history of the argument, here’s an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Bottom line, yeah, this dog won’t hunt.

[MrDibble]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

True, but it does “prove” the existence of some perfect being.

Only if you accept the premise that a perfect being is even possible.

[SentientMeat]

@CurtC

Didn’t we have a poster here, as recently as a year or so ago, who thought the ontological proof was a valid argument?

Yes, Lib. He sometimes speaks highly of my summary of the Ontological Argument, even though (or perhaps because) I’m an atheist.

And is is a valid argument, in that the truth of its conclusion follows from the truth of its premises. It is not sound IMO, because a Supreme Being is not synonymous with Necessary Existence, and a Being which exists is not necessarily more Supreme than one which doesn’t.

[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.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

I’ve always wondered – what’s the measure of ‘greatness’ or ‘supremacy’ to be used, anyway? When is a being greater than another – when it wins a deathmatch? What, precisely, does it mean for a being to be ‘the greatest’ or ‘supreme’?

[Der_Trihs]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

What, precisely, does it mean for a being to be ‘the greatest’ or ‘supreme’?

Nothing - since it’s undefined. Like Lantern says, you need some sort of definition or standard before a word like “perfect” has a valid meaning in the first place. We can talk about a perfect sphere because what makes something a sphere is defined; there’s no objective definition for what makes a being perfect.

[Snarky_Kong]

@SentientMeat

Yes, Lib. He sometimes speaks highly of my summary of the Ontological Argument, even though (or perhaps because) I’m an atheist.

Hmm. In the linked thread he vehemently disagrees with you on the point that NE is the only attribute that can be ascribed to the supreme being. It’d seem odd that he thinks highly of a summary that he disagrees with in the most important way possible.

[SentientMeat]

@Snarky_Kong

Hmm. In the linked thread he vehemently disagrees with you on the point that NE is the only attribute that can be ascribed to the supreme being. It’d seem odd that he thinks highly of a summary that he disagrees with in the most important way possible.

OK, try the second post in this thread 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.

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

So it is that dumb after all.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Sage_Rat

1. A Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock is something of which nothing better for Christmas can be thought.
2. A Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock may be received in the understanding.
3. It is better to be received in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, a Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock will be received for Christmas in reality.

1. Shooting your eye out is the worst thing you can imagine…

[jayjay]

@Malleus_Incus_Stapes

So it is that dumb after all.

Yep. “I’m going to prove the existence of something that may or may not actually exist in the real world, but that doesn’t matter because we’re just talking about my own little self-defined world of formal logic at the moment…at least until I wave my hands and transpose the entire thing to the real world with no explanation.”