I was catching up on my favorite podcasts in the car today, and the Ontological Argument was brought up, and I thought I would do a quick post about it, for those who are unfamiliar with it. Basically, it states that because we can conceive of a god, he must exist.
A little more in depth is Anselm of Canterbury's explanation, covering the following 4 points (taken from Wikipedia)
1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
There are a variety of problems with this, however, I will highlight a few of them:
1. Point 3 makes the bare assertion that "it is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding", however there is not necessarily any justification for this.
2. This same argument could be used to prove unicorns or any other being, as long as it is described as being perfect.
3. Just because nothing greater can be imagined now does not mean that will always be the case.
57 minutes ago
7 comments:
Hi, have added your blog to A World Beyond Belief.
http://aworldbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/
Thanks for adding your details.
As to the above post, step 1 reminds me of an old school game when kids first learnt to count. "What's the biggest number you can think of?" Of course, there is an infinite regress and there is no such number, even though it is possible to think of the question.
One problem I seem to have with these arguments is that a theist may jump into trying to prove the existence of their God without giving me an apt definition- one that is coherent. There are various definitions for God, but they're not always consistent with one another. They're also on equal footing. Why should I accept your definition of god before accepting another.
After we resolve this issue, I'd allow you to get back into attempting to prove god exists.
The definition of a God has long been a thorn in the side of atheists, being one of the main defense mechanisms that religion has evolved. There could be 1 million Christians with 1 million different exact definitions of God, but that doesn't hold any bearing on the truth of these gods. The various definitions of a God over the years has evolved to the point where it becomes technically unprovable. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, these are all concepts that the mind has trouble conceiving. They serve as smoke screens designed to confuse anyone actually trying to investigate the truth of these claims.
Rycharde, you also bring up a good point. What exactly does it mean that nothing greater can be thought? I can't think of a number higher than infinity, but that's because infinity isn't a number, its a concept. My inability to think beyond it does not indicate its existence or lack thereof, it exists independent of my ability to comprehend.
The ontological argument is distinct from an argument from unicorns because the unicorn is not something greater than which nothing else can be conceived.
The point is that God is whatever it is of which nothing greater can be conceived. It's not like God is a separately specified being (a man in the sky with a white beard for example) and then it is separately argued that as long as this man is perfect he must exist. The idea is that God refers precisely to whatever it is that we cannot conceive anything greater than.
I think it's possible that we cannot even conceive this something greater than which nothing else can be conceived. All that matters is that there is an idea of something greater than which nothing else can be conceived and that there is a paradox to say that we can conceive of this as not existing if what we are thinking of is that which is greater than everything else conceivable. How can the best thing which we can conceive of just be a fiction in our minds. Surely, we can think of greater things than mere fictions. So, if what we refer to by "God" is just a fiction in our minds, then that's not something greater than which nothing else can be conceived.
To your third point about conceivability, there seems to be no time condition relevant to the proof. It is about logical and ontological conceivability in principle. It has nothing to do with whether we think our idea of God right now is pretty great but it can be improved upon. The idea is that the being greater than which no other can be conceived (past, present, or future) must exist. And whatever that is is God, and it is God and exists as God wholly independent of our how good we happen to be right now or in the future at conceiving of its nature in details. Anselm is very careful to state his proposition in a very round about way, in terms of the negative relationship it is in to every other conceivable being---simply that they cannot be conceived of as greater than it. He is not presuming to speak too concretely and inaccurately about what this being greater than which no other can be conceived is exactly.
Thanks Dan, your philosophical knowledge greatly humbles my own. You are exactly correct when you say "if what we refer to by "God" is just a fiction in our minds, then that's not something greater than which nothing else can be conceived."
Although this logic is hard to completely understand, you seem to have got it down. Thanks for the input.
No problem, glad to be of some help.
Post a Comment
I welcome you feedback, comments, questions, ideas, opinions, views, arguments, anything you want, as long as it is mature and civil.