The Ontological Argument

[Wiccan_Child]

Does any Christian believe the Ontological argument? Has any current theist ever converted due to the Ontological argument?

(For those who don't know, the ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God in four steps:

1. God is a perfect being; whatever property he has, it is maximal. His justice is maximal, his benevolence is maximal, etc.
2. Existence is a property, whose maximum is the state of existing.
3. Therefore, God's property of existence is maximal.
4. Therefore, God exists.)

 

[Chesterton]

Does any Christian believe the Ontological argument? Has any current theist ever converted due to the Ontological argument?

(For those who don't know, the ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God in four steps:

1. God is a perfect being; whatever property he has, it is maximal. His justice is maximal, his benevolence is maximal, etc.
2. Existence is a property, whose maximum is the state of existing.
3. Therefore, God's property of existence is maximal.
4. Therefore, God exists.)

I didn't convert because of it, but I do believe it. Or at least, I apprehend the logical difficulty involved in disbelieving it, and that gives me enough trouble that I can't say I disbelieve it. So for better or worse, I suppose I must believe it.

But I haven't seen the argument worded exactly the way you worded it. And the wording is important, because some objections to it I've seen revolve around the meanings of some words like "greatest" or "maximal".

 

[visionary]

My belief in God is from personal experience. I met Him. I "know" Him to be exactly what He says He is. I believe Him. He has been right so far in all that He says and does. I trust Him to continue to be "in the know" and what He says will come to pass, already is, and has been for eternity, and will be forever in Him.

Which doesn't fit ontological theory very well..

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't convert because of it, but I do believe it. Or at least, I apprehend the logical difficulty involved in disbelieving it, and that gives me enough trouble that I can't say I disbelieve it. So for better or worse, I suppose I must believe it.

But I haven't seen the argument worded exactly the way you worded it. And the wording is important, because some objections to it I've seen revolve around the meanings of some words like "greatest" or "maximal".

That's interesting, because I haven't seen semantic objections based on 'maximal', but on 'existence' and 'property' - namely, that 'existence' isn't a property of a de re existent thing, but rather a class of things.

The main objections I've seen - and that I agree with - are based on the validity of the logic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My belief in God is from personal experience. I met Him. I "know" Him to be exactly what He says He is. I believe Him. He has been right so far in all that He says and does. I trust Him to continue to be "in the know" and what He says will come to pass, already is, and has been for eternity, and will be forever in Him.

What would you say to those Muslims, Hindus, etc, who say the same thing about their respective deities?

 

[visionary]

What would you say to those Muslims, Hindus, etc, who say the same thing about their respective deities?

Will the real God stand up!

 

[Chesterton]

That's interesting, because I haven't seen semantic objections based on 'maximal', but on 'existence' and 'property' - namely, that 'existence' isn't a property of a de re existent thing, but rather a class of things.

The main objections I've seen - and that I agree with - are based on the validity of the logic.

What's your objection to the logic?

 

[salida]

God can already be proven by overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this)

 

[solarwave]

You can't define something into existance. In my opinion existance isn't a property, it is a property of properties.

 

[AlexBP]

Does any Christian believe the Ontological argument? Has any current theist ever converted due to the Ontological argument?

Not really. Even Anselm of Canterbury, the English friar who is most commonly associated with that argument, did not intend for it to be a convincing argument that would convert atheists into believers. Rather, the passage of his that is most often quoted was part of a larger meditation that he used to better grasp the nature of God.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addressed the ontological argument, or something close to it, in Question 1 of Article 2 of the Summa Theologica.

Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

So, yeah, what he said.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God can already be proven by overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this)

That link doesn't appear to work.

You can't define something into existance. In my opinion existance isn't a property, it is a property of properties.

Which would make it still a property, surely?

Not really. Even Anselm of Canterbury, the English friar who is most commonly associated with that argument, did not intend for it to be a convincing argument that would convert atheists into believers. Rather, the passage of his that is most often quoted was part of a larger meditation that he used to better grasp the nature of God.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addressed the ontological argument, or something close to it, in Question 1 of Article 2 of the Summa Theologica.

So, yeah, what he said.

Yea, it's pretty widely rejected across all camps. Some famous philosopher (Hume? Kant?) said that it's pretty obviously false, it's just a headache trying to pin down precisely why it's false

 

[solarwave]

Which would make it still a property, surely?

I dunno, maybe. But if ask what a triangle is the reply would include things such as it having three sides, inside angles that add up to 180 degrees, etc, but you wouldn't say even a perfect triangle has existance.

Existance tells you whether those properties actually are in the physical world but are not part of the description of the object itself.

I would say the same is true of God since one can easily imagine a world without God reguardless of His perfection.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I dunno, maybe. But if ask what a triangle is the reply would include things such as it having three sides, inside angles that add up to 180 degrees, etc, but you wouldn't say even a perfect triangle has existance.

Existance tells you whether those properties actually are in the physical world but are not part of the description of the object itself.

I would say the same is true of God since one can easily imagine a world without God reguardless of His perfection.

That's a novel position; I've never heard a theist say that God might not exist.

 

[solarwave]

That's a novel position; I've never heard a theist say that God might not exist.

Well what do we have 100% knowledge of? I would say only our own existance (yes a reference to Descartes).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well what do we have 100% knowledge of? I would say only our own existance (yes a reference to Descartes).

Pfft, Descartes didn't know what he was talking about . We know everything logical and mathematical with 100% accuracy (except for statistics, those numbers are tricksy).

 

[ToHoldNothing]

God can already be proven by overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Two problems I observe here

One is that proving God would logically reduce God to the laws of logic and proof thereof, whereas most Christians I think would value the choice of belief by virtue of faith instead of being convinced by logical proof(s)

The other is that there is no such thing as overwhelming circumstantial evidence, since it is in the nature of circumstantial evidence to admit of different explanations. You're arguing that it is more probable, which is incidental to any observation of circumstantial evidence.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That's a novel position; I've never heard a theist say that God might not exist.

It seems like this is a purely hypothetical statement to admit that the Christian perspective or even the theistic perspective is not something innate or absolutely necessary to perceive a world that is cogent and coherent.

People can imagine God not existing, therefore the argument fails on the premise in the argument that God cannot be thought of as non existent in any sense.

A quick look at criticisms of the argument are from Hume and Kant in particular. Hume says no being can be demonstrated to exist through an a priori argument.

Kant gets more detailed into it, the best criticism I find is his second one, saying that if we define existence as part of the definition of something, then asserting it exists is a tautology, or I believe in simpler terms, begging the question.

He also notes that the concept of God is not something we can put into explanations like we would give for say a unicorn. Therefore God as an object of pure thought is based primarily on our conception thereof through various considerations of formulations of the concept.

 

[solarwave]

Pfft, Descartes didn't know what he was talking about . We know everything logical and mathematical with 100% accuracy (except for statistics, those numbers are tricksy).

I dunno, I think Descartes makes some good points. It is possible to doubt that mathematics, maybe even logic is right. But I wouldn't like to disprove those to you so I wont try to argue that..... however unlikely it is.

ToHoldNothing: Cool avatar picture

 

[lawtonfogle]

Does any Christian believe the Ontological argument? Has any current theist ever converted due to the Ontological argument?

(For those who don't know, the ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God in four steps:

1. God is a perfect being; whatever property he has, it is maximal. His justice is maximal, his benevolence is maximal, etc.
2. Existence is a property, whose maximum is the state of existing.
3. Therefore, God's property of existence is maximal.
4. Therefore, God exists.)

If God does not exist, then His property of existence is not maximum, thus He does not exist.

It makes about as much sense as the following.

1. Bob is some being who is has the maximal of all properties that begin with the letter e and who lives under Lawtonfogle's bed.
2. Existence is a property, whose maximum is the state of existing (and whose name begins with e.
3. Therefore, Bob's property of existence is maximal.
4. Therefore, Bob exists.


Last I checked, there isn't anyone living under my bed.
Actually, one could run with this and prove anything exist as long as that thing had the maximal property of existence.

The end result is this is merely circular logic though. Given 2 and 3 of the original argument, we see that giving something the maximal of the property of existence is saying it exist. In one, we give God said property, basically meaning we start by defining that God exists.

 

[98cwitr]

Does any Christian believe the Ontological argument? Has any current theist ever converted due to the Ontological argument?

(For those who don't know, the ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God in four steps:

1. God is a perfect being; whatever property he has, it is maximal. His justice is maximal, his benevolence is maximal, etc.
2. Existence is a property, whose maximum is the state of existing.
3. Therefore, God's property of existence is maximal.
4. Therefore, God exists.)

I don't see how the conclusion found in point #4 is derived from the previous 3 points. It seems like a jump to a conclusion not based on the evidence provided. God, at this point in time, cannot be logically proven to everyone. It's personal realizations of not only God, but the probability of God working in my life that has brought me to Him.