The ontological argument states that God is "Than which nothing greater can be conceived" and that that which is real is better than that which is not real. Therefore, since nothing is greater than God, He must exist. What are your thoughts?
2006-09-29 03:16:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
P.S:
I personally think this argument is very weak. It only proves that if we conceive of the concept of God, we must conceive of His existence, not that He actually must exist. Aquinas had it right, he just screwed up his logistics a bit.
2006-09-29 03:49:47 · update #1
Mea culpa - Anslem, not Aquinas
2006-09-29 03:51:00 · update #2
Does perfection predicate existence?
Nope... If it did then the perfect apple must exist and the perfect martini must exist... etc... etc.
Perfection is in the realm of archetypes.
2006-09-29 03:25:44 · answer #1 · answered by Pablito 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Weak. Very weak. It asserts from two principles, conception and real v. non-real, that something exists.
I can conceive of a purple cat the size of the sun, it does not make it exist.
We cannot conceive a deity -- such a thing would be infinite and unknowable by our finite minds. So even if God exists under this, something greater that could not be conceived would be the real divinity. Surprisingly, such a thing is at the core of Qabbalah... God did have a beginning.
The assertion that real is better than non-real is strictly a values decision. Prove it, and I will yield the ontological argument. However, such a thing cannot be proven, as it is axiomic. I do not agree with the axiom, so the ontological argument fails.
2006-09-29 03:29:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a weak argument. Just because something can be conceived of doesn't mean it exists. Otherwise we'd be awash with manticores, unicorns, bigfoots (bigfeet?), and three handled family credunzas. Making a special category labeled "nothing greater can be conceived" doesn't make it any more real than saying, "the bluest unicorn possible is the only true unicorn".
2006-09-29 03:25:12 · answer #3 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see what about God makes the concept the greatest thing that can be conceived. I could (and just did) conceive of God's conscience, which could be seen as greater than God himself; or a governing body who oversees God.
Am I understanding your argument?
2006-09-29 03:23:23 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the formal side of the argument I side with Kant & Russell on this. The problem lies with the qualities people like Anselm (& Descartes) attribute to "being" (or existence). They'd reduce it (gratuitously) to a property - like a shape or color - of an object. But that's lame in the sense that in order for something to have a "property," you must assume it already exist.
In short, they've turned it into a long-winded tautology - something like "all bachelors are unmarried."
However, for those of us who think about "objects," the part that always raises our antennae to potential rhetorical obfuscation are those "proofs" that eschew all possible empirical notions. And St. Anselm's does just that.
Mental gymnastics can be entertaining, but they don't necessarily shed a bit of light one reality.
2006-09-29 03:47:20 · answer #5 · answered by JAT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great argument. It took me a while to master this in my philosophy class. Unfortunately, then I dropped the class. lol.
The thing is, you have to get the person you're using this arguement on to agree that if God is real, that he is "that in which nothing greater can be concieved." If you can't convince them of that, then you can't use that arguement.
If the argument was explained better the people would probably think better of it.
2006-09-29 03:26:55 · answer #6 · answered by GLSigma3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting philosophical argument. But I prefer to base my belief in God on the evidence which has been presented by others and which I have witnessed first-hand in my own life. The witness in my heart which I have received countless times, is a very strong argument for my belief.
2006-09-29 03:20:20 · answer #7 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's **** poor weak. You can always conceive of something greater than something else.
Greater in what sense? All senses? Does that mean the greatest evil as well? The greatest nonexistent perhaps?
You simply can not prove Jesus died for your sins through semantic games.
2006-09-29 03:22:21 · answer #8 · answered by lenny 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.
2006-09-29 03:21:40 · answer #9 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
simple statements arguing that the deity exists because he or she is the greatest, doesn't constitute evidence. Your proposal is defeated.
2006-09-29 03:22:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋