Do you think the Ontological Argument is valid? Why or why not?

Question

I'm writing a roughly 25 page paper on the Ontological Argument for God's existence as a writing sample for my graduate school applications. I think I have all of my bases covered in my argument, but I want to make sure. For those familiar with the argument (any version- Anselm, Descartes, Kant, Plantinga), what do you think? Is the argument valid or invalid? If valid, how? If invalid, what's the fallacy?

Note: I am NOT asking whether or not God exists, so please do not answer this question. My question is ONLY about this one specific philosophical argument.

Thanks for your input!

Answer 1

Sadly, the ontological argument is completely invalid. You seem pretty familiar with it, but for the sake of argument, let's very simply restate how it goes:

- God is perfect.
- Existing is more perfect than not existing.
- Therefore, God exists.

The logic seems fairly sound, but the premises need a lot of work.

Both Anselm and Decartes try to support the first premise by saying that they can IMAGINE a perfect God, so it must be so. But if this were true, we might easily replace 'God' with ANY perfect thing we can imagine (this is sometimes referred to as 'Guanilo's Island refutation). In other words, I can imagine a perfect hot fudge sundae... does that mean this perfect sundae MUST exist? (Hm... right about now I'm beginning to wish that it did...)

Indeed, we might easily prove premise 1 NOT to be true by just imagining a perfectly large God. Infinite in largeness. So large, in fact, that nobody could possibly miss seeing it. Since we do not see such an entity, there must be no such thing.

We might likewise attack the second premise. Why is existing necessarily better than not existing? Things that are real are usually prone to wear, decay, deterioration, and everything else the universe can throw at it. Indeed, I personally find that ONLY imagined things remain perfect in any way. I have never see a real perfect anything. Further, the set of imagined objects is obviously much, much larger than the set of real objects... might this too not be a sign that imagined things are more successful and 'better' than real ones?

And these are just some of the most glaring of problems. There are other logicians who have used arguments similar to the ontological one to prove that God could not exist. But I like Hume's refutation of the whole argument style best of all. He suggested that only when the opposite of an a prori argument is impossible is the existence of something proved. And since it is possible to imagine ANYTHING not existing, it is therefore impossible to prove anything exists with such an argument. 'Nuff said!

Answer 2

I'm sorry.. I'm not well versed in Apologetics...

This is the one where, "There is a creation, there must be a creator" correct?

If so the typical argument is then who created the creator?

I checked into this and I like Descartes version, but someone would probably say, "Then how could a perfect being create imperfection?"

My response to this would most likely be, "By creating choice, there must also therein be sin."


The logic in the statement is sound though... as an imperfect being (this is the only flaw, what if society defines imperfection) how could I imagine perfection on my own?

It's similar to the idea of spontaneous generation. Getting maggots from bread, two things with no similar substance besides existence and atoms. Without some outside force, the bread will not have maggots on it. Thus, there must be an outside force (in this case the flies laying eggs in the bread) causing maggots to appear on the bread.

Answer 3

It has been a while since i worked with Anselm; however, if I recall correctly, Anselm's definition, for the purposes of his argument, of God is, "The greatest conceivable being." When using this definition, the argument is valid; however, it also ceases to be an argument for the existence of "God". Since the definition is so vague, anything could theoretically be the "greatest conceivable being".

Answer 4

The Ontological argument is not valid. Our definitions (however you dress up the argument it is arguing that God exists because we define it so) do not have any effect on any aspect of ontology.

I define the X-beer as a

"pint of Real Ale that has the following predicates:
- its tasty
- its in a straight glass
- its purple
- it exists and is in your hand right now"

Is it there? No.

Answer 5

this argument does not initiate with the thought that God exists. replace "superman is defined because of fact the ideal American Hero"... you're complicated an "thought' or a "concept" it is being defined as a "premise"... which this is not.. we could make it extra convey by using asserting the fictitious character of superman is defined because of fact the ideal american hero, and you will bypass from right here.

Answer 6

I think it holds up in the sense of order being an inherent result of creation. You see a neatly stacked pile of stones in the desert. You know someone has been there. You can't see them, but you see their work.

So Descartes goes into a bar and the bartender says, "The usual?"
Descartes says "I think not"
and disappears.