Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[PuerAzaelis]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

 

[Yttrium]

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

Why can't a being be possible, unnecessary, and not contingent?

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

You're going to have to explain what "perfect" means for a being. Without a good definition, I can't figure out whether it's nonsensical or self-contradictory or not.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Why can't a being be possible, unnecessary, and not contingent?

If a being is not contingent, it is either necessary or impossible. Is that not the case? The definition of necessity is that it is the mutually exclusive opposite of contingency.

You're going to have to explain what "perfect" means for a being. Without a good definition, I can't figure out whether it's nonsensical or self-contradictory or not.

Let's propose for now that a Perfect Being is a "maximally great" being, which is also omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Note: Not original with me. (Satire on Plantinga's version)

P1: It is possible that God doesn't exist.
P2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then there are some possible worlds wherein God doesn't exist.
P3: If God does not exist in some possible world, then God does not exist in any possible world.
P4: If God does not exist in any possible world, then God does not exist in the actual world.
P5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Note: Not original with me. (Modeled on Plantinga's version)

P3: If God does not exist in some possible world, then God does not exist in any possible world.

I don't think this follows.

Is a nonexistent God a "maximally great" God? If not, how can that nonexistent God exist in any/every possible world?

 

[Yttrium]

If a being is not contingent, it is either necessary or impossible. Is that not the case? The definition of necessity is that it is the mutually exclusive opposite of contingency.

In my mind, contingent means that it depends on the existence of something else. Necessary means that it is required for reality to function. I don't see why there couldn't be a being that is both unnecessary to reality and doesn't require the existence of others.

Let's propose for now that a Perfect Being is a "maximally great" being, which is also omniscient and omnipotent.

Well, let's look at the "omnipotent" part. The being would have to have some means to effect changes on the universe. If insufficient means exist to effect all changes, then the existence of an omnipotent being would be contradictory.

Similarly, an "omniscient" being would have to have some means of obtaining all knowledge. If insufficient means exist, then the being becomes contradictory.

Omnipotence and omniscience need some explanation on how they work, and we are currently unable to provide such an explanation.

 

[Yttrium]

Note: Not original with me. (Satire on Plantinga's version)

P1: It is possible that God doesn't exist.
P2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then there are some possible worlds wherein God doesn't exist.
P3: If God does not exist in some possible world, then God does not exist in any possible world.
P4: If God does not exist in any possible world, then God does not exist in the actual world.
P5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.

Good thing you said it was satire, or I might have had some things to say about it...

 

[PuerAzaelis]

In my mind, contingent means that it depends on the existence of something else. Necessary means that it is required for reality to function. I don't see why there couldn't be a being that is both unnecessary to reality and doesn't require the existence of others.

If a being is necessary it a) could not have been otherwise. If a being is contingent it b) could have been otherwise.

It's not possible for a being to be both a) and b) at the same time since they are mutually exclusive.

Well, let's look at the "omnipotent" part. The being would have to have some means to effect changes on the universe. If no means exist to effect all changes, then the existence of an omnipotent being would be contradictory.

Similarly, an "omniscient" being would have to have some means of obtaining all knowledge. If insufficient means exist, then the being becomes contradictory.

It is not self-contradictory to say "an omnipotent or omniscient being exists which is able to effect changes on the universe or to obtain all knowledge".

For that statement to be self-contradictory it would have to be like the statement "this circle is a square". It's not like that statement.

 

[Yttrium]

If a being is necessary it a) could not have been otherwise. If a being is contingent it b) could have been otherwise.

It's not possible for a being to be both a) and b) at the same time since they are mutually exclusive.

Okay, if it's necessary, then it must have happened. If it's contingent, it didn't have to happen. I think I get it now.

It is not self-contradictory to say "an omnipotent or omniscient being exists which is able to effect changes on the universe or to obtain all knowledge".

For that statement to be self-contradictory it would have to be like the statement "this circle is a square". It's not like that statement.

How do you know it isn't like "this circle is a square"? One would have to establish that it's possible to effect all changes on the universe, or obtain all knowledge, and we have no way to establish such things.

 

[Gene2memE]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

I'd argue that the possibility of the existence of a perfect and/or maximally great being has not been demonstrated, so P1, 2 & 3 aren't justified.

This is particularly so for a perfect/maximally great being with the characteristics ascribed to God of classical monotheism - as the traditional tri-omi deity gives rise to paradoxes that make its existence self contradictory and incoherent. Omniscience and omnipotence appear logically incompatible with each other and omnibenevolence appears internally self defeating (can a being be maximally just and maximally merciful at the same time?).

There's also the cheeky 'Devil's Corollary', which uses the same argument to point out that a necessary, maximally evil/maximally flawed (anti-God or nega-God) being exists.

To pinch from Plantinga (again, sorry Tinker Grey):

1. The concept of a maximally flawed being is self-consistent.
2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally flawed being exists.
3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally flawed being exists.
4. If a maximally flawed being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally flawed being (that is, nega-God) exists in every logically possible world.

 

[JohnClay]

I believe in a kind of God...

Here is my reasoning....

1. It’s likely we’re in a simulation

2. The simulation needs a creator

3. The creator could be called “God”

This being isn't necessarily perfect....

 

[Moral Orel]

The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

Why can't a perfect being be contingent?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Why can't a perfect being be contingent?

How can an omnipotent being be dependent on something else?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

If a maximally flawed being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.

Only if a maximally great being exists in some possible world can it exist in every possible world. A maximally flawed being is by definition imperfect therefore limited.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

I'd argue that the possibility of the existence of a perfect and/or maximally great being has not been demonstrated, so P1, 2 & 3 aren't justified.

This is rational. It's not irrational to deny that the existence of God is possible.

But now we are in a situation where both denying and affirming the possibility are both rational even though God can't both exist and not exist.

So it becomes a question on which side has the heavier burden of proof.

 

[Chriliman]

This is rational. It's not irrational to deny that the existence of God is possible.

But now we are in a situation where both denying and affirming the possibility are both rational even though God can't both exist and not exist.

So it becomes a question on which side has the heavier burden of proof.

Schrodinger's cat may have something to say about that.

Also, what about thoughts or imagined things? Do they go in and out of existence?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Schrodinger's cat may have something to say about that.

I think this could be an interesting point could you elaborate?

 

[Moral Orel]

How can an omnipotent being be dependent on something else?

Perhaps omnipotence and omniscience is attainable over time. Say we build a robot that is effectively immortal, and has the ability to learn and alter itself. Over the course of a billion years of existing it learns everything there is to know, and learns about the very fabric of reality and how to manipulate it at will. That robot would still be contingent on us building it in the first place even though it is now greater than us, no?

 

[Gene2memE]

Only if a maximally great being exists in some possible world can it exist in every possible world. A maximally flawed being is by definition imperfect therefore limited.

Perfection doest mean without limits.

A being would not be maximally flawed unless it can exist in all possible worlds.

Don't blame me, blame Alvin Plantinga. It's his modal logic formulation of the ontological argument.

Also, perfection is not a characteristic ascribed to God in the ontological argument. At least not in modern or traditional formulations I'm aware of.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

A being would not be maximally flawed unless it can exist in all possible worlds.

If that were true something "maximally hot" or "maximally green" would also exist in every possible world.

Or the "greatest possible island" as Guanilo said.

But only something that is maximally "great" exists in all possible worlds.