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…
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…
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bring Marilyn vos Savant along with you.
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.
So what was it for? An argument for the existence of God seems, by definition, meant to be a convincing argument for God.
I dunno. I think blindness from soap poisoning would be just as bad.
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.
Medieval is pretty ancient as far as I’m concerned.
So I’m not the only one to notice the flaw in his argument, then? 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.
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.
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.”
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.
Maybe Dr. Gonzalez is embarrassed by the argument and wants to downplay it as something associated with Christianity.
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.
An English translation of Anselm’s Proslogium is available here; 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:
But in the following chapters (beginning with chapter 5), he uses that framework to investigate the properties of God—compassionate, omnipotent, etc.