I heard a whopper today.

[Lord Kenneth]

Me and Scizerus were amazed at this kid's stupidity:

His "proof" of god went something like this...

God is the greatest thing possible.
Aquinus (SP???) proved that it is better to exist than not exist.
Therefore to be the greatest thing in the world you must exist.
Therefore, God exists.


Its "philosophy", he said. Me and Scizerus laughed at his stupidity.

[DangerousBeliefs]

I guess that shows how good some people are at logical solutions.

A is true
B is true
C = A + B
C is true

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Of course, I would state that "A" is unprovable and lacks postive or negative evidence.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Me and Scizerus were amazed at this kid's stupidity:

His "proof" of god went something like this...

God is the greatest thing possible.
Aquinus (SP???) proved that it is better to exist than not exist.
Therefore to be the greatest thing in the world you must exist.
Therefore, God exists.

I thought that was St. Anselm, not Aquinas.

Anyway. Even if it proved the existence of God, it doesn't prove the existence of Yahweh, who by His own words is a jealous God, and it is better to not be jealous than it is to be jealous.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's an old and silly chestnut, and when it was first published it was found unconvincing even by religious contemporaries.

Exactly the same argument "proves" the existence of the ultimately tasty hamburger, the ultimately evil and powerful demon, the ultimately perfect girlfriend/boyfriend and so on indefinitely.

There are other ways to analyse it and show it wanting, but you can pick up almost any first year philosophy textbook and find it discussed in detail if that's what you're after.

[Lord Kenneth]

Haha, so it is an old argument?

Just goes to show how well the average person thinks. :(

They honestly find that to be a "Good argument", yet it's wrong on so many levels... that has to be one of the worst I've ever heard.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Haha, so it is an old argument?
Not old... ancient. It's called the "Ontological" argument.

As Kevin pointed out, it was laughed at the day it came out.

Take this lesson to heart, Kenneth. From now until doomsday you will hear the same tired arguments, some thousands of years old, presented as fresh and exciting by people with very spotty educations.

[Eos of the Eons]

Therefore to be the greatest thing in the world you must exist.

I exist. Does that make me the greatest thing in the world?

No.

And who can prove god of any sort is the greatest thing in the world?

I think gods suck. It sucks if you suck and exist. Therefore sucky gods don't exist.

Meh. Very childish, but just as dumb as the other argument.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


I exist. Does that make me the greatest thing in the world?

No.I think the question is whether it makes you greater than someone who is exactly like you in every respect but who is purely hypothetical.

Anyhow, the ontological proof is intuitively unconvincing and I would be surprised if it had ever persuaded anyone to believe in God. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint precisely what is wrong with it, which is why even contemporary philosophers still devote ink to discussing it (mostly in efforts to disprove it). But there is disagreement among them as to where the fault lies.

[Dorian Gray]

This is the fault.
God is the greatest thing possible. Oh, wait. A god that gave me whatever I wanted whenever I wanted it would be even greater than that. Blah, blah.
Therefore a god that gives me whatever I want exists.

No, it doesn't.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
A god that gave me whatever I wanted whenever I wanted it would be even greater than that.Why?

[Checkmite]

I prefer the chicken sandwiches, but that's just me.

[Andonyx]

The original argument and yes, it was Anselm, was this:

If God is that than which nothing greater can exist, then he must exist.

That was the initial statement, and the reasoning went like this.

If God is that than which nothing greater CAN exist,

But he does not exist,

Then something greater than he can exist because one of the properties of greatness includes existence.

For example if you think of the greatest god that is possible, but it is only a concept in your mind, than an even greater god can exist, namely, that very same God with the additional property of actual existence.

Therefore God must exist.

Of course the major fallacy here is that you must buy into the given conditions that God is in fact that than which nothing greater can exist. The "If" clause that starts the argument is never shown to be self evident.

[gethane]

Best class i took in college wasn't philosophy (just couldn't stomach it) but logic. I loved logic class. Only night class I stuck with and didn't drop. It was a little like math, a little like philosophy and taught by this cute priest from the seminary in a neighboring town :).

I wish I still had my logic book, or that I remembered more of it.

[Checkmite]

All right, seriously then. Kenneth, I'm interested in how (or whether) you rebutted this person's argument. It's long been my opinion that, whether you're right or not, laughing and walking away is the lamest argument anybody can muster.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Of course the major fallacy here is that you must buy into the given conditions that God is in fact that than which nothing greater can exist. The "If" clause that starts the argument is never shown to be self evident. But "God" here is simply shorthand for "the being than which no greater can be conceived." That definition is really what starts the argument. Even if you object to identifying such a being as God, you are left with an argument for the existence of a being than which no greater being can be conceived. That essentially leaves the proof intact. The particular objection you've raised doesn't materially undermine Anselm's reasoning. Anselm's God is what he defines it to be, and it hardly seems fruitful to quibble over his definition - so I don't see it as the major problem with this proof. The real question is whether the existence of "that being than which no greater can be conceived" - whether you call it God or George - can be logically demonstrated in the manner Anselm suggests.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
But "God" here is simply shorthand for "the being than which no greater can be conceived." That definition is really what starts the argument. Even if you object to identifying such a being as God, you are left with an argument for the existence of a being than which no greater being can be conceived. That essentially leaves the proof intact. The particular objection you've raised doesn't materially undermine Anselm's reasoning. Anselm's God is what he defines it to be, and it hardly seems fruitful to quibble over his definition - so I don't see it as the major problem with this proof. The real question is whether the existence of "that being than which no greater can be conceived" - whether you call it God or George - can be logically demonstrated in the manner Anselm suggests.

Not exactly....

Because Anselm's defining God that way does not necessarily make it so.

Even if you take the word God out of the proof entirely the argument still boils down to this...

"If you believe in a being than which nothing greater can exist, you must also believe in its existence."

Which boils down even further to...

"If you believe in a being that exists, you must believe in a being that exists."

It's the self reflexive property of identity.

But you still haven't proven that there is anything with all those properties...

Which is the major condition of that "If" clause.

Which I guess I should calarify...Yes, Anselm's logic is a valid argument in that If A, then B. However it is not a valid proof in that A is not self evident and therefore we cannot conclude B to be true.

[Yahzi]

Logic is derived from reality, not the other way round. The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity. Of course, our idealist monists will find the argument compelling, but no one else will.

As well to use your brush to paint a picture of a car, and then insist that since you can paint it, the car must exist. You're not going to get a lot of mileage out of that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Logic is derived from reality, not the other way round. The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity. Of course, our idealist monists will find the argument compelling, but no one else will.

As well to use your brush to paint a picture of a car, and then insist that since you can paint it, the car must exist. You're not going to get a lot of mileage out of that.
Gotta disagree with you here, Yahzi. Logic can be used for ANYTHING, real or otherwise (Wizards are more powerful than Magicians and Magicians are more powerful than Clerics, therefore Wizards are more powerful than Clerics). It is the assumptions you bring to the table that should be derived from reality if you want your conclusions to deal with reality.

Or alternatively you could rely on the word of the Sage of Baltimore
Logic works by having people compare their explanations and seeing which is more logical. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=344372&highlight=Upchurch+explain+something#post344372)

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Yahzi
The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity. A popular but not universally accepted refutation is given by Kant and others, baldly stated "existence is not a predicate". That is, saying "X exists" adds nothing to the concept of X.

I have an idea of a circle, the geometric definition. It is a perfect circle, by definition. No such circle exists. Same with the perfect (or better, but still not good enough) "necessary being".

I have an idea of a logically necessary being. This idea has implications that make it superior to the idea of a being whose existence is not necessary. If this necessary being does not exist, then it is inferior than beings that do exist. But that contradicts the necessity inherent in my idea. Therefore that thing I have an idea of exists.

Here, I'd argue that you don't have an idea of a necessary being. Ask the person making the argument to state just what he means by "necessary" - without using that word, or the words "real" or "existing".

Bet they can't. Necessity is a loaded term. Logical necessity is purely formal. Physical necessity is more in the nature of "highly probable, other things being equal". Operations that are claimed to be "medically necessary" may not be. Otherwise I'd go to a logician for my heartbeat irregularity, rather than a cardiologist.

You might also say "why yes, I'll grant you that god has exactly as much existence as a perfect circle in euclidean geometry - just as much and no more".

Or "whatever exists is subject to coming into being and passing away. If God exists then he can cease to exist. If god cannot cease to exist, then his existence is quite different than the existence of everything else, and you are not entitled to use the word 'existence' to describe his manner of being."

[DanishDynamite]

I don't get the argument.

Firstly, what is meant by "greater"?

Second, the argument appears to have the form:

If concept X is "greater" than any concept having the property of existence, then concept X must have the property of existence.

How is this different from:

If a dog larger-than-the-earth is "greater" than any dog having the property of existence, than a dog larger-than-the-earth must have the property of existence.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
All right, seriously then. Kenneth, I'm interested in how (or whether) you rebutted this person's argument. It's long been my opinion that, whether you're right or not, laughing and walking away is the lamest argument anybody can muster.


Of course I laughed at him. This wasn't the first time I spoke with him. I did argue with him, of course.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]Logic is derived from reality, not the other way round.



Don't be silly



The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity.


Agreed.




Of course, our idealist monists will find the argument compelling, but no one else will.



Not at all. Not sure if I can put my finger on the problem with the argument though. I think that one would have to say that existence is not an attribute of things.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Tricky
Logic can be used for ANYTHING, real or otherwise
Yes, that's true.

I think I meant what Kullvero said.

[Lord Kenneth]

First of all, "greatness" is a purely subjective term. It's meaningless to try to apply it to objective things without it being a measured quality of something.

"Then something greater than he can exist because one of the properties of greatness includes existence."

A problem with this is not only that greatness is an odd subjective term, but also that it is plain bizarre in the way it states "something is greater because it exists".

No, that something effects the world because it exists. It effects the world more than the CONCEPT of the "greatest god", obviously, as it does exist, but it doesn't matter how many qualities to wish to attribute to a being, it exists or not in its form no matter how we view or conceive it.

The argument seems to do little more than say whatever the most "greatest" being is, it is God. Of course that falls apart if you wish to say God must be omnipotent or the like.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Yes, that's true.

I think I meant what Kullvero said.

That's a good road to take, because what he said was pretty sweet.

We must have taken the same classes way back when Kullvero, because I often find you typing my thoughts. That whitefork guy was like that too ;)

There is no doubt that argument in no way proves the existence of any god. It fails on many fronts.

But it's one of many such arguments (Teleogical, from Causation, etc...) that claim to logically prove the existence of God. They're worth investigating, worth studying so that you can easily dismantle them. Plus, it's fun! Logic, proofs, philosophy all wrapped into one! :D

Adam

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Yes, that's true.

I think I meant what Kullvero said.
s'Okay. I actually figured that you meant that, but we have to tread carefully here. There are too many people here that insist that because something is "logical", that it is true, even though their logic includes bizarre assumptions.

Of course, the fact that Interesting Ian agrees with me might cause me to rethink my position.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



Of course I laughed at him. This wasn't the first time I spoke with him. I did argue with him, of course.


...well? I'm waiting...

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Anyhow, the ontological proof is intuitively unconvincing and I would be surprised if it had ever persuaded anyone to believe in God. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint precisely what is wrong with it, which is why even contemporary philosophers still devote ink to discussing it (mostly in efforts to disprove it). But there is disagreement among them as to where the fault lies.

Indeed.

My opinion was always that the application of existence to a concept as a property is impossible. A concept is a mental representation of a thing which may or may not exist, and the conjecturing of necessary properties in the context of the world in your head will not carry over into the real world. Therefore, in the context of the theoretical world in your head, God 'does' exist, but this has no bearing on an actual God, just your conception of it.

It is a tricky argument.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Not exactly....

Because Anselm's defining God that way does not necessarily make it so.

Even if you take the word God out of the proof entirely the argument still boils down to this...

"If you believe in a being than which nothing greater can exist, you must also believe in its existence."

Which boils down even further to...

"If you believe in a being that exists, you must believe in a being that exists."

It's the self reflexive property of identity.

But you still haven't proven that there is anything with all those properties...I'm not sure I agree. What Anselm seems to say is this: let X = a being greater than which nothing can be conceived; if X exists in the understanding (i.e. as a mental concept), then X must also exist in reality. X obviously exists in the understanding, or we wouldn't be talking about it. I think the problems with the ontological argument are located in the proof itself, not in the definition of X.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
We must have taken the same classes way back when Kullvero, because I often find you typing my thoughts. That whitefork guy was like that too ;)That should be a warning to all three of us.

To Kenneth's original point - I don't think the ontological argument is stupid or obviously flawed. If it was, then there would be one clear and universally accepted refutation. It brings into question the concepts of existence and necessity, neither of which has a clear definition.

As an example, take the logical operation called "material implication" or IF-THEN. One might think that this is a logical representation of physical causation ("material", get it?) but don't go down that road. After all, the implication is true when the antecedant is false, meaning that a contradiction implies anything at all - IF (p AND NOT-p) then Q. I've heard people argue that the existence of the universe is the result of a contradiction in the divine mind.

Now everybody go read something by G. E. Moore. http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/moor.htm

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Kullervo
A popular but not universally accepted refutation is given by Kant and others, baldly stated "existence is not a predicate". That is, saying "X exists" adds nothing to the concept of X. From Kant onwards, most of the attempted refutations of Anselm's ontological argument have focused on the notion of existence as (non-)predicate. Alvin Plantinga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga) has argued influentially in response that "No one has produced ... a sense for the term 'predicate' such that in that sense it is clear both that existence is not a predicate and that Anselm's argument requires it to be one." (Although Plantinga believes that the usual formulations of the ontological argument fail nonetheless.) For what it's worth, here's the abridged version of Plantinga's take on Kant's objection (from God and Other Minds (Cornell University Press)):"By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing - even if we completely determine it - we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is." [Kant, from Critique of Pure Reason.] This sentence provides a clue. We might note that to every existing object there corresponds its whole concept: the concept whose content includes all (and only) the properties the object in question has. ... Suppose ... that the Taj Majal is pink and let C1 and C2 be, respectively, the whole concept of the Taj Mahal and the whole concept of the Taj Mahal diminished with respect to pinkness [i.e., roughly speaking, C2 is what remains of C1 when pinkness is deleted from its content]. Evidently there are possible circumstances in which C2 but not C1 would be exemplified by some actually existing object: perhaps these circumstances would obtain if the Taj Mahal were green, for example. ... Now perhaps Kant means to point out that existence differs from pinkness in the following respect. If C3 is the whole concept of the Taj Mahal diminished with respect to existence, there are no possible circumstances in which C3 but not C1 has application; it is a necessary truth that if C3 is exemplified, so is C1. Since the converse is also true, C1 and C3 are, we might say, equivalent concepts; in annexing existence to C3, we don’t really get a different concept. And if we add that a predicate (or property) P is a real predicate (or property) only if it is not the case that any whole concept diminished with respect to P is equivalent to the corresponding whole concept, we may conclude that existence, unlike pinkness, is not a real predicate; it "is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing."

Giving a clear explanation of the claim that existence is not a real predicate, this interpretation also shows an interesting respect in which existence differs from other predicates or properties. Unfortunately, it seems to have no particular bearing on Anselm's argument. For Anselm can certainly agree, so far as his argument is concerned, that existence is not a real predicate in the explained sense. Anselm maintains that the concept the being than which none greater can be conceived is necessarily exemplified; that this is so is in no way inconsistent with the suggestion that the whole concept of a thing diminished with respect to existence is equivalent to the undiminished whole concept of that thing. Anselm argues that the proposition God exists is necessarily true; but neither this claim nor his argument for it entails or presupposes that existence is a predicate in the sense just explained.

What does Kant's argument show then? How could anyone be led to suppose that Kant's claim did dispose of the ontological argument? This last question is not altogether easy to answer. What Kant’s argument does show, however, is that one cannot "define things into existence"; it shows that one cannot, by adding existence to a concept that has application contingently if at all, get a concept that is necessarily exemplified. For let C' be any whole concept and C be that concept diminished with respect to existence. ... Kant's argument shows that the proposition There is an object to which C applies is logically equivalent to There is an object to which C’ applies. ... From a concept which has application contingently - for example, crow, we cannot, by annexing existence to it, get a concept that necessarily applies; for if it is a contingent truth that there are crows, it is also a contingent truth that there are existent crows.

But of course Anselm need not have thought otherwise. Schopenhauer describes the ontological argument as follows: "On some occasion or other someone excogitates a conception, composed out of all sorts of predicates, among which, however, he takes care to include the predicate actuality or existence, either openly or wrapped up for decency's sake in some other predicate, such as perfection, immensity or something of the kind." If this were Anselm's procedure - if he started with some concept that has instances contingently if at all and then annexed existence to it - then indeed his argument would be subject to Kant's criticism. But he didn't, and it isn't. And Kant's objection shows neither that there are no necessary existential propositions nor that the proposition God exists is not necessary - any more than it shows that There is a prime [number] between fifty and fifty-five is a contingent proposition.

[whitefork]

I should have recommended Plantinga's The Ontological Argument. It has excerpts from most of the major players and is a classic.

As to existence - who knows exactly what Anselm intended to convey in using that word? Did he mean that god necessarily has physical existence? Or is he the ghost in the machine of the universe?