The Ontological Argument Game!

[Philo]

(All you who know the answer, butt out )

God must exist. Why? Because God is a perfect being. Perfection must have the quality of existence. After all, what is more perfect as a diamond... A diamond that exists, or a diamond that doesn't exist? Furthermore, because God is a perfect being, He must be better than any other being that you can think of... If you can conceive of any being, God is more perfect than that being. If you can think of a being, than by extension, you are affirming that God exists, because whatever being you are thinking of is less perfect than God.

 

[Philosoft]

Hint: the ontological argument is mostly semantic trickery.

 

[Eudaimonist]

(All you who know the answer, butt out )

God must exist. Why? Because God is a perfect being. Perfection must have the quality of existence. After all, what is more perfect as a diamond... A diamond that exists, or a diamond that doesn't exist? Furthermore, because God is a perfect being, He must be better than any other being that you can think of... If you can conceive of any being, God is more perfect than that being. If you can think of a being, than by extension, you are affirming that God exists, because whatever being you are thinking of is less perfect than God.

If I were philosophically Platonist or neo-Platonist, I might agree. But fortunately I'm neither!

 

[tcampen]

The ontological argument represents the thinking of a four year old dressed up in collegiate language. Sure it makes sense if you reduce your intellectual level to that of a domesticated cat, but don't you think we can do better?

 

[Philosoft]

What is a "diamond that doesn't exist"? Isn't that the logical equivalent of nothing?

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

Seems that way. Hmm.... What exactly is the point of this whole thing? I'm confused. lol

 

[David Gould]

The point is to demonstrate that the argument is nonsense. The opening poster knows that it is nonsense and would like a discussion on why. (at least, that is what I got from it - I could be wrong)

No, diamonds that do not exist aren't nothing - they are a specific type of nothing that is less perfect than something. Really, as if anyone didn't know that!

Great point, philosoft.

 

[Philosoft]

No, diamonds that do not exist aren't nothing - they are a specific type of nothing that is less perfect than something. Really, as if anyone didn't know that!

Would that make non-existent diamonds an imaginary girl's best friend?

Great point, philosoft.

Hey, when it comes to knowing something about nothing, I'm your man.

 

[Philo]

The point is to demonstrate that the argument is nonsense. The opening poster knows that it is nonsense and would like a discussion on why. (at least, that is what I got from it - I could be wrong)

No, diamonds that do not exist aren't nothing - they are a specific type of nothing that is less perfect than something. Really, as if anyone didn't know that!

Great point, philosoft.

Yup.

Now, quick, everyone... Why is it nonsense? I know why, but I want to hear everyone elses perspective. It took some 400 years for people to finally realize the essential fallacy, btw. That staggers my mind.

 

[Jet Black]

what happens if God thinks of himself?

 

[tcampen]

what happens if God thinks of himself?

Now THAT is the best post in this thread I've seen. My head is swimming just thinking about it. DANG!

 

[jon1101]

I was sort of confused by the OP's request that all those who know the answer butt out, but I suppose I might as well add my two cents. Anywho:
The ontological argument fails on multiple levels. Basically, it says that "God exists because he is perfection" which rests on "perfection exists because, well, it just does." Of course, the latter statement is not only unsupported, it is also rather meaningless to anyone who refuses to accept "perfection" as the embodiment of their unsubstantiated intuition. The argument requires some form of objective perfection to be defined, but runs into a fatal flaw when we understand that the definer of this perfection is precisely what the argument is trying to prove exists. Hence, once we get past the conceited notion that our own common sense objectively defines perfection, we run into the circularity on which the unsupported assertion rests, which was only thinly veiled by the initial "semantic trickery."

-jon

 

[Philosoft]

Yup.

Now, quick, everyone... Why is it nonsense? I know why, but I want to hear everyone elses perspective. It took some 400 years for people to finally realize the essential fallacy, btw. That staggers my mind.

I thought I made the point. The OA purports to compare two "things" - an existent God and an non-existent God. However, "a non-existent God" is not a thing, and thus incapable of being described by modifiers like "perfect" or its variants.

Interestingly, the OA also shows the vacuity of "existence" as an attribute. Any "thing" that is said to lack the attribute "existence" is necessarily not a thing at all.

 

[tcampen]

the ontological argument results in the existence of essentially anything that can be imagined, when completely worked through.

 

[Jet Black]

it also results in either contradictory beings, or a set of beings of equal and opposite power who all cancel one another out.

 

[tcampen]

Yet it keeps rearing its ugly, irrelevant head. What's up with THAT?

 

[FordPrefect]

As Jet Black said. Can/did God create himself in a poof of ontology?

 

[armels]

Would that make non-existent diamonds an imaginary girl's best friend?
Hey, when it comes to knowing something about nothing, I'm your man.

Philosoft,
You had me laughing so hard I couldn't work my mouse. Thanks!

 

[Philosoft]

Philosoft,
You had me laughing so hard I couldn't work my mouse. Thanks!

Don't mention it. I have my moments. Then I sober up.

 

[ej]

LOL @ this thread