# Ontological argument for the existence of God
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 30, 2000, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752 "2000-12-30T03:20:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/1 "2000-12-30T03:20:12Z")
In the GQ thread [Godel’s Ontological Proof](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52798), I made the following remark
> [@](#):
>
> I suppose if I told everyone what I think of all this it would be getting into Great Debates territory (or maybe even the Pit), so I shall refrain.
To which **eponymous** , the originator of that thread, responded:
> [@](#):
>
> Hmm…I’d be interested in hearing what you think. I have some problems with it as well. Want to start a new thread in GD?
Just to recap, here’s what the [_Catholic Encyclopedia_](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IBf) has to say about it:
> [@](#):
>
> This argument undertakes to deduce the existence of God from the idea of Him as the Infinite which is present to the human mind; but as already stated, theistic philosophers are not agreed as to the logical validity of this deduction.
>
> As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus: The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it.
>
> Descartes states the argument in a slightly different way as follows: Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.
>
> To mention a third form of statement, Leibniz would put the argument thus: God is at least possible since the concept of Him as the Infinite implies no contradiction; but if He is possible He must exist because the concept of Him involves existence.
The [_Britannica_](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,108306+8+105945,00.html?query=ontological) gives the argument thusly:
> [@](#):
>
> The ontological argument, which proceeds not from the world to its Creator but from the idea of God to the reality of God, was first clearly formulated by St. Anselm (1033/34-1109) in his _Proslogion_ (1077-78). Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived (_aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari possit_). To think of such a being as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction. For an X that lacks real existence is not that than which no greater can be conceived. A yet greater being would be X with the further attribute of existence. Thus the unsurpassably perfect being must exist–otherwise it would not be unsurpassably perfect.
Now, my reaction to this is that it’s pure word-games and circular logic. If I define the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be “the Great Holy Unicorn Who is both Invisible and Pink and Who really truly exists” then golly, _by definition_, the IPU exists, no?
The _Catholic Encyclopedia_ article goes on to say of arguments like mine that:
> [@](#):
>
> In St. Anselm’s own day this argument was objected to by Gaunilo, who maintained as a _reductio ad absurdum_ that were it valid one could prove by means of it the actual existence somewhere of an ideal island far surpassing in riches and delights the fabled Isles of the Blessed. But this criticism however smart it may seem is clearly unsound, for it overlooks the fact that the argument is not intended to apply to finite ideals but only to the strictly infinite; and if it is admitted that we possess a true idea of the infinite, and that this idea is not self-contradictory, it does not seem possible to find any flaw in the argument. Actual existence is certainly included in any true concept of the Infinite, and the person who admits that he has a concept of an Infinite Being cannot deny that he conceives it as actually existing.
I dunno. It still seems like a pretty smart criticism to me. I don’t see how throwing the word “infinite” in there negates the fact that it’s still a purely circular semantic games. (“The Invibile Pink Unicorn is a Great, _infinitely_ Holy unicorn, who is the perfect Platonic Ideal of both Pinkness and Invisibility, and Who really exists.”) Perhaps if a Great Debate actually gets going on this, more intelligent arguments will be offered both pro and con. I’ll go ahead and crib a much smarter sounding argument from that _Britannica_ article:
> [@](#):
>
> Putting their point as it has come to be further clarified by Bertrand Russell and others in the 20th century, to say that something with stated properties (whether it be a triangle, defined as a three-sided plane figure, or God, defined as an unsurpassably perfect being) exists, is not to attribute to it a further property, namely existence, but is to assert that the concept (of a triangle, or of God) is instantiated–that there actually are instances of that concept. But whether or not a given concept is instantiated is a question of fact. It cannot be determined a priori but only by whatever is the appropriate method for discovering a fact of that kind. This need for, in the broadest sense, observation cannot be circumvented by writing existence into the definition of the concept (“an existing three-sided plane figure,” “an existing unsurpassably perfect being”), for the need arises again as the question of whether this enlarged concept is instantiated.
I should also confess up front that I have no idea what that Godel guy was talking about; that stuff was way over _my_ head.
Truthfully, I don’t know if we’re going to get a Great Debate going here or not, since a Debate necessarily implies at least two sides. Does anyone still take the Ontological Argument seriously?
If no one is really interested in kicking the Ontological Argument around, I suppose we could take a shot at [presuppositionalism](http://www.chesco.com/~topcat/presup.html) instead.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/2 "2000-12-30T03:45:20Z")
Anselm’s style of argument smacks of “those sets that contain themselves” type conundrums. The resolution, I think, has to do with defining specific ‘types’ of sets and, in particular, prohibiting certain sets from containing themselves.
So, in the example at hand, the idea of “_aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari possit_” should not be allowed to also contain the necessity of a physically existing God.
BTW, do you know about heterologous and autologous words?
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/3 "2000-12-30T03:49:58Z")
No, and when I try to do a web search I get a bunch of sites talking about blood transfusions and tissue types. Enlighten me.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/4 "2000-12-30T03:56:44Z")
OK.
Autologous words describe themselves. So, short is short, polysyllabic is polysyllabic, and English is English. These are examples of autologous words.
Heterologous words don’t describe themselves. So, long is not long, monosyllabic is not monosyllabic, and German is not German. These are examples of heterologous words.
And, you will agree that for any word “X”, one of the following statements must be true:
1. X is X (eg. short is short)
2. X is not X (eg. long is not long)
How about heterologous?
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/5 "2000-12-30T04:06:08Z")
Hmmmm…clearly, the word “heterologous” does not exist.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/6 "2000-12-30T04:13:00Z")
The autologous/heterologous paradox is just a rephrasing of the barber paradox (in turn, a rephrasing of the set of those sets that don’t contain themselves paradox).
Do you know about the barber?
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/7 "2000-12-30T04:18:23Z")
Whoops! I should have been saying **autological** and **heterological**. Now try a search.
Sorry.
---
### Author:  [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/8 "2000-12-30T05:23:59Z")
I believe that Anselm’s Ontological Argument was pretty soundly refuted by Kant in the 1700’s. Not a bad run, I must say. I can’t think of many things which are clearly wrong, but which have taken six centuries to be refuted.
Basically, Kant’s argument againts AOA is that “existence” is not a property of an object, like “grayness,” or “softness,” or “smallness.” AOA basically breaks down to:
God is infinitely perfect.
Non-existence would be an imperfection.
Therefore, God must possess the attribute of existence.
But “existence” is not a normal property. We can say that the god who is infinitely good is better than the god who is finitely good, or the god who is infinitely good and knowing is better than the god who is just infinitely knowing. But we can’t say that the god who is existent is better than the god who is non-existent, anymore than we can say that the “small, soft, gray cat” who actually exists is superior to the “small, soft, gray cat” who only exists in my mind. The two things are not even comparable, because one of them isn’t even a “thing;” it just “isn’t!”
Basically, Anselm came up with a fancy word game that took 600 years to decipher. Maybe writing in Latin helped…
---
### Author:  [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/9 "2000-12-30T05:34:03Z")
MEBuckner,
What puzzled me, and the reason I asked the original question, was why Godel even attempted to provide an onotological proof in the first place? I’m sure he was aware of the criticisms/refutations provided by earlier philosophers (like Russell), so maybe his intellectual curiosity drove him to provide a more adequate proof. He was, after all, one of the premiere logicians of the twentieth century and possibly one of the greatest of all time.
I am not a philosopher nor a logician, so I don’t really know if Godel’s use of Modal Logic is a better argument in trying to prove the existence of God. Any mathematicians/logicians like to provide their take?
I do know (from what I’ve read), that he was a Platonist - he really believed in the actual existence of mathematical entities. That is, mathematical entities (such as numbers) exist in some timeless realm. For me, I don’t know - maybe we can jumpstart this debate by asking whether or not “numbers” really exist or are a creation of the human intellect.
---
### Author:  [@jb\_farley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jb_farley)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2000, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/10 "2000-12-30T17:53:31Z")
kind of a corollary to numbers:
What about a circle?
JB began with the concept of perfect circle as that than which nothing greater can be conceived (aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari possit). To think of such a circle as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction. For an X that lacks real existence is not that than which no greater can be conceived. A yet greater circle would be X with the further attribute of existence. Thus the unsurpassably perfect being must exist–otherwise it would not be unsurpassably perfect.
So does the perfect circle exist? Only in our minds, I would say.
Hence…
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/11 "2000-12-31T01:43:18Z")
My old pal MEBuckner says:
> [@](#):
>
> Now, my reaction to this is that it’s pure word-games and circular logic.
There are, I believe, three good refutations to this. Aquinas rejected it because he claimed we could not really concieve “perfection.” Others have suggested that there’s a little amphiboloy; a perfect being has to exist, just as a perfect baseball bat has to have certain “baseball bat” properties. However, this is the only property that being must possess, and it’s cheating to then change the defintion of perfect. Kant suggested that being wasn’t an intristic property, which has been explained elsewhere.
> [@](#):
>
> If I define the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be “the Great Holy Unicorn Who is both Invisible and Pink and Who really truly exists” then golly, by definition, the IPU exists, no?
You’re missing the point. A unicorn may or may not exist. A being has to, definitionally. A being which does not exist isn’t much of a being, is it? Thus, the most perfect being has to exist, an invisible pink unicorn doesn’t. In fact, I don’t think it can be invisible and pink at the same same time. Perhaps that’s one of your mysteries, I do not know, but if so you must admit you can’t present an ontological argument for it.
---
### Author:  [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/12 "2000-12-31T01:45:28Z")
Even after all these years, I still get a tingle of excited curiosity each time I hear that someone has a ‘proof’ or a ‘reason’ for believing in god. It’s like some guy saying he will now make water flow uphill… you know it’s not gonna happen, but I find it intriguing to see how, precisely, he goes about trying to do it.
Seems everyone has dismantled the ontological ‘proof’ adequately. It hinges on making ‘existence’ not only a property, but a property in the same set of properties as any other property that god might, or might not, possess. The flaw is that something must perforce exist before it can have properties ascribed to it. One cannot assess or comment upon the ‘properties’ of a god that does not exist.
Yes, one can admire AOA lasting 600 years or so… but then again, this _was_ before the invention of the SDMB, which would have put paid to it in about 6 hours.
The only thing one can say with certainty about god is that if it does exist, its properties are such that its existence cannot be tested or determined.
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/13 "2000-12-31T01:49:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Others have suggested that there’s a little amphiboloy; a perfect being has to exist, just as a perfect baseball bat has to have certain “baseball bat” properties.
Well, okay, for something to qualify as a perfect “being”, it would have to be. But, perhaps there _is_ no “perfect being”. That, after all, is the question we’re trying to answer, and trying to win the game via an argument from definition strikes me as being, well, “pure word-games and circular logic”.
…Yeah, that seems to make more sense than my IPU example. I think. I still don’t have the foggiest what idea what that Godel site was talking about, though.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/14 "2000-12-31T02:33:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Well, okay, for something to qualify as a perfect “being”, it would have to be. But, perhaps there is no “perfect being”.
well, or all beings that, you know, “be,” are equally perfect, at least as far as their “being-ness” goes.
> [@](#):
>
> That, after all, is the question we’re trying to answer, and trying to win the game via an argument from definition strikes me as being, well, “pure word-games and circular logic”.
Well, let’s not have a “niagra falls!” moment, but I think it’s more amphiboloy than circular logic, since you then change “fufills its essence” to “free-est from flaw.”
> [@](#):
>
> I still don’t have the foggiest what idea what that Godel site was talking about, though.
Huh. Godel appears to have restated the ont. arg. in fancy logical symbols. Presumably Copi and Cohen would help you out.
---
### Author:  [@jb\_farley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jb_farley)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/15 "2000-12-31T02:57:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> You’re missing the point. **A unicorn may or may not exist. A being has to, definitionally.** A being which does not exist isn’t much of a being, is it? Thus, the most perfect being has to exist, an invisible pink unicorn doesn’t. In fact, I don’t think it can be invisible and pink at the same same time. Perhaps that’s one of your mysteries, I do not know, but if so you must admit you can’t present an ontological argument for it.
Bolding mine.
That’s a pretty big logical hole, wouldn’t you say? The most perfect being has to exist, otherwise it’s not the most perfect being?
Why couldn’t one say a unicorn is a being? Therefore, they exist.
Superman is a being, yet he doesn’t exist.
> [@](#):
>
> **Well, okay, for something to qualify as a perfect “being”, it would have to be. But, perhaps there is no “perfect being”.**
> well, or all beings that, you know, “be,” are equally perfect, at least as far as their “being-ness” goes.
Could you run that by me again? How exactly did you refute the line “Perhaps there is no perfect being”?
In order to prove the logic, you have to prove that god “is”. The aim of the logic is to prove that god “is”. Seems like circular logic to me.
jb
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/16 "2000-12-31T09:19:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> That’s a pretty big logical hole, wouldn’t you say?
I think that part is the most sensible portion of the ontological argument, really.
> [@](#):
>
> The most perfect being has to exist, otherwise it’s not the most perfect being?
Right, and the most perfect toaster has to make toast, otherwise it’s not the most perfect toaster. making toast being part of the essence of toaster-ness. I might say it’s the hinge.
> [@](#):
>
> Why couldn’t one say a unicorn is a being?
Because they don’t exist. Boy, that was easy.
---
### Author:  [@jb\_farley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jb_farley)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/17 "2000-12-31T09:27:03Z")
Right, you goof. Now why can’t I say the same thing about the Perfect Being?
Can you show me the Perfect Toaster?
jb
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/18 "2000-12-31T10:13:11Z")
Not that I have anything against Kant outright, but using one philosopher to disprove another isn’t necessarily in the best of interests. Strictly speaking, a good philosophy is pretty consistent with itself, so it should come as no suprise that they will not necessarily agree with one another.
Kant, Aquinas, so-and-so, they’ve all got problems dealing with different philisophical issues. Descartes, for example, never figured out who “I” was. Aquinas felt infinite regression was impossible as an a priori assumption (no problem there) but that means that there was merely _a_ creator, not necessarily a perfect “god” being.
Its easy to poke holes in any particular philosophy if one doesn’t agree with the assumptions made throughout its exploration. Yeah?
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/19 "2000-12-31T12:52:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Right, you goof. Now why can’t I say the same thing about the Perfect Being?
You might think about the essence of being.
> [@](#):
>
> Can you show me the Perfect Toaster?
The perfect toaster doesn’t have to exist, it just has to toast bread.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2000, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752/20 "2000-12-31T13:03:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Not that I have anything against Kant outright, but using one philosopher to disprove another isn’t necessarily in the best of interests.
Why do you think that, especially when dealing with epistemological questions?
I am not at all sure epistemological questions aren’t more or less objective
> [@](#):
>
> Strictly speaking, a good philosophy is pretty consistent with itself, so it should come as no suprise that they will not necessarily agree with one another.
Before you can proceed any further, you’re going to have to show us how Russell and Wittgenstein disproved Rand’s favorite Aristotle passage, just to make sure you’re bringing certain knowledge to the discussion at hand here. If you’re not as tall as me, you’ll just get hurt on this ride.
> [@](#):
>
> Its easy to poke holes in any particular philosophy if one doesn’t agree with the assumptions made throughout its exploration. Yeah?
No; showing us the why’s as to why you disagree with the “philosophy,” (and the ont. arg. isn’t really a philosophy, anyway) is a bit trickier than just saying “well, I reject the premises.” Note the bad argument, unicorns and islands, and the good arguments, existence isn’t a predicate.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/47752.md?page=2)