Why has it been historically so difficult to prove that this argument is invalid? I admit I've had a difficult time wrapping my mind around this argument, but nevertheless, I think I should, at the least, feel some of the force of this argument. Regretably, I don't.
2007-04-05 16:45:01 · 6 answers · asked by marc 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Wikipedia's summary of the argument:
1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 an entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
In "reality" this is just a word game.
1. Assumption 1 is true only for this particular argument. It defines God by not defining God as anything other than the greatest thing imaginable. This is in fact no definition at all. It is the equivalent of defining water as that which is more like water than anything else is like water. The definition is circular; you have to know what your referring to before you understand it.
2. Various concepts of God exist in human understanding. Under this argument they all may be true, or none of them may be true, but not any single one of them is proved true.
3. N/A
4. Granted.
5. This is a value judgment that is the crux of the trick. Greater or lesser are only judgments of human thinking. A concept that exists in the brain is in fact a reality in the brain that holds it. A pink dragon may awaken at night if it appears in your dreams, but it does not exist in the material world. Existence is neither perfect nor imperfect.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-04-05 17:07:13 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's wordplay. I can twist it like this: Imagine the most smelliest being in the Universe--the most peerless stinker, whose presence clears not only an entire room, not only an entire house, not an entire city, not an entire state, not an entire nation, but the whole world. This would be the most smelliest being, of whom no other more smelly being can be conceived. But it would be a more smellier being if it actually existed. Thus, if the smelliest being can exist in our minds, it must exist in reality, to be the real smelliest being in the world, or else we have a contradiction. (And we can't have that, can we?) Does this smell being actually exist? No. It's wordplay. Substitute "smelly" for "evil," and you get an evil being. Substitute "evil" for "orange," and you get a being oranger than a traffic cone! The Ontological Argument proves nothing but that by stating that "existence" is "better" than nonexistence, something exists. I wouldn't say that wishing or thinking something exists makes it exist...otherwise, I would be riding flying dragons right now! (They sure are cool in the movies.) So, St. Anselm proved nothing but that he knows how to make a proof that this 18-year-old high school student can see through!
2016-05-18 02:25:11 · answer #2 · answered by laquita 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that - while it's quite cunning and slippery - the ontological argument is not that convincing. There seems to be some slippage midway through about what the 'greatness of God' actually consists of or means.
I am reminded of a line I read somewhere in a novel, where a character reflects that "perhaps God is so great that he doesn't even have to exist."
2007-04-05 16:49:10 · answer #3 · answered by completelysurroundedbyimbeciles 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like it. It makes sense. God is that of which nothing greater can be imagined. Makes sense to me. God is Ultimate Reality.
2007-04-05 16:51:06 · answer #4 · answered by tonks_op 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its compelling because its indisputable, (unless one thinks not being is greater than being) and its not totally valid because it is based more in linguistics and logic than fact.
Its my favorite because it is based on logic and "proves" a supreme deity.
2007-04-05 16:49:36 · answer #5 · answered by Annie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
where is the argument?
you expect me to look it up?
2007-04-05 16:50:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋