Difference between revisions of "Ontological Argument"

From Smiting Shepherds
Jump to: navigation, search
(Inconceivability)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[File:Paine.png|center]]
 
[[File:Paine.png|center]]
 
  
 
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology Ontological] Argument for the Existence of God was first developed by St. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury Anslem of Canterbury] in 1078 CE, based off of ideas seeded by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato] and St. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo Augustine of Hippo]. There are several formulations of the Ontological Argument, but they are based on the notion that since God is the greatest thing imaginable, he must exist because existence is greater than non-existence.  
 
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology Ontological] Argument for the Existence of God was first developed by St. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury Anslem of Canterbury] in 1078 CE, based off of ideas seeded by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato] and St. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo Augustine of Hippo]. There are several formulations of the Ontological Argument, but they are based on the notion that since God is the greatest thing imaginable, he must exist because existence is greater than non-existence.  
  
This argument has been widely panned by critics, even by fellow clergymen in St. Anslem’s own time. [3] Despite its flaws, the Ontological Argument remains popular because it ''seems'' convincing, because it takes some time to explain, and it can confuse those without the courage to stand up to the clergy, and/or the critical thinking or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics discrete math] skills needed to dissect their arguments. This effect is often compounded by using obfuscating language.
+
This argument has been widely panned by critics, even by fellow clergymen in St. Anslem’s own time.<ref name="martin"> M. Martin, ''The Cambridge Companion to Atheism'' (Cambridge University Press, 2007).</ref> Despite its flaws, the Ontological Argument remains popular because it ''seems'' convincing, because it takes some time to explain, and it can confuse those without the courage to stand up to the clergy, and/or the critical thinking or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics discrete math] skills needed to dissect their arguments. This effect is often compounded by using obfuscating language.
  
The classic Ontological Argument takes the form of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction proof by contradiction]: [3]
+
The classic Ontological Argument takes the form of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction proof by contradiction]:<ref name="Martin"></ref>
 
#Assume the idea of God, which is defined as a “maximally excellent being,” for which no greater being can be conceived, and who possesses every form of perfection (e.g., [[Omnipotence_and_Omniscience_Arguments|omnipotence, omniscience]], omnibenevolence, and sovereignty).
 
#Assume the idea of God, which is defined as a “maximally excellent being,” for which no greater being can be conceived, and who possesses every form of perfection (e.g., [[Omnipotence_and_Omniscience_Arguments|omnipotence, omniscience]], omnibenevolence, and sovereignty).
 
#Assume the idea of such a being exists, and the possibility that such a being may or may not exist in reality.  
 
#Assume the idea of such a being exists, and the possibility that such a being may or may not exist in reality.  
Line 18: Line 17:
  
 
==The Island Argument==
 
==The Island Argument==
The most popular and damning response to the Ontological Argument is the “Island Argument” proposed by St. Anselm's contemporary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers Guanilo of Marmoutiers], in his book ''On Behalf of the Fool''. (Let that sink in; the Ontological Argument is so flawed what it could be openly mocked and derided during the height of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages Middle Ages] without the fear of being labeled a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGo41443iI heretic].) Guanilo argued the following: [3]
+
The most popular and damning response to the Ontological Argument is the “Island Argument” proposed by St. Anselm's contemporary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers Guanilo of Marmoutiers], in his book ''On Behalf of the Fool''. (Let that sink in; the Ontological Argument is so flawed what it could be openly mocked and derided during the height of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages Middle Ages] without the fear of being labeled a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGo41443iI heretic].) Guanilo argued the following:<ref name="Martin"></ref>
 
#Picture a tropical island, which we will defined to be a “maximally excellent place,” for which no greater being can be conceived, and who possesses every form of perfection (e.g., plentiful [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI food] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXnTbmPxv5g drink], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31xux981uE sunshine], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quyB8PMTD3o all your friends from school are there], [https://youtu.be/5GMoLENWsSk?t=1m12s innumerable disease-free sex partners to choose from], no travel costs, etc.).
 
#Picture a tropical island, which we will defined to be a “maximally excellent place,” for which no greater being can be conceived, and who possesses every form of perfection (e.g., plentiful [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI food] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXnTbmPxv5g drink], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31xux981uE sunshine], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quyB8PMTD3o all your friends from school are there], [https://youtu.be/5GMoLENWsSk?t=1m12s innumerable disease-free sex partners to choose from], no travel costs, etc.).
 
#Assume the idea that such a place exists, and the possibility that such a place may or may not exist in reality.  
 
#Assume the idea that such a place exists, and the possibility that such a place may or may not exist in reality.  
Line 27: Line 26:
 
#Therefore, this island necessarily exists in reality.
 
#Therefore, this island necessarily exists in reality.
  
'''The Ontological Argument is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur], which can be used to “prove” the existence of literally anything.''' As such, rather than spending time attacking the argument itself, you should accept the Ontological Arguments at face value, and use its form and structure to “prove” all sorts of absurdities. This turnabout can’t be turned back around against you, because you aren’t making real claims; only the clergyman is trying to making a case. By using their own argument in unintended ways, you force the clergyman into arguing against themselves, eroding their credibility. [1] For example:
+
'''The Ontological Argument is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur], which can be used to “prove” the existence of literally anything.''' As such, rather than spending time attacking the argument itself, you should accept the Ontological Arguments at face value, and use its form and structure to “prove” all sorts of absurdities. This turnabout can’t be turned back around against you, because you aren’t making real claims; only the clergyman is trying to making a case. By [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method using their own argument in unintended ways], you force the clergyman into arguing against themselves, eroding their credibility.<ref name="Barker"> D. Barker, ''Losing Faith in Faith:  From Preacher to Atheist'' (Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992).</ref> For example:
 
#[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78N2SP6JFaI Superman] is the greatest of the heroes.
 
#[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78N2SP6JFaI Superman] is the greatest of the heroes.
 
#A hero that exists is greater than one that does not.
 
#A hero that exists is greater than one that does not.
Line 41: Line 40:
 
Additionally, '''the Ontological Argument is invalid because it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent affirms the consequent]''' by assuming that exists confers greatness, and concluding that greatness confirms existence.  As a result, '''the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true, even if the premises are true.''' At most, '''the Ontological Argument only demonstrates that God exists while we are thinking about him'''; it does not prove that there is a being which actually fits this idea.  
 
Additionally, '''the Ontological Argument is invalid because it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent affirms the consequent]''' by assuming that exists confers greatness, and concluding that greatness confirms existence.  As a result, '''the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true, even if the premises are true.''' At most, '''the Ontological Argument only demonstrates that God exists while we are thinking about him'''; it does not prove that there is a being which actually fits this idea.  
  
These problems are what led [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell Bertrand Russell] to become a skeptic, and later to argue that all Ontological Arguments are cases of bad grammar. [1]
+
These problems are what led [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell Bertrand Russell] to become a skeptic, and later to argue that all Ontological Arguments are cases of bad grammar.<ref name="Barker"></ref>
  
Additionally, there is no justification as to why existence is considered to be “greater” than non-existence. Without such a justification, this assumption is an unsupported assertion. Furthermore, the term “greatness” is undefined. What constitutes “greatness”? Is a fat man greater than a skinny guy, or vice-versa? Does god have infinite mass? Because if not, larger, more massive gods could be imagined, and if God does have infinite mass, then his existence can be empirically disproven. [1]
+
Additionally, there is no justification as to why existence is considered to be “greater” than non-existence. Without such a justification, this assumption is an unsupported assertion. Furthermore, the term “greatness” is undefined. What constitutes “greatness”? Is a fat man greater than a skinny guy, or vice-versa? Does god have infinite mass? Because if not, larger, more massive gods could be imagined, and if God does have infinite mass, then his existence can be empirically disproven.<ref name="Barker"></ref>
  
 
==Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question==
 
==Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant] pointed out that the Ontological Argument does not prove the existence of God; it merely proves that if any entity were God, then they would exist, and vice-versa. The Ontological Argument says nothing regarding if there are or are not any entities which actually match this definition; it can only prove the existence of what is known to exist. '''The Ontological Argument is invalid because it is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning circular argument]''', which only proves its own assumptions. [1]
+
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant] pointed out that the Ontological Argument does not prove the existence of God; it merely proves that if any entity were God, then they would exist, and vice-versa. The Ontological Argument says nothing regarding if there are or are not any entities which actually match this definition; it can only prove the existence of what is known to exist. '''The Ontological Argument is invalid because it is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning circular argument]''', which only proves its own assumptions.<ref name="Barker"></ref>
  
 
==Inconceivability==
 
==Inconceivability==
 
The Ontological Argument assumes and requires man to be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA3dzBrXYtc able to fully comprehend the infinite power and wisdom of God’s nature], which most religious traditions deny. Such comprehension is arguably beyond human capability, since to do otherwise would require having [[Omnipotence_and_Omniscience_Arguments#The_Omniscience_Paradox|a mind as complex as God’s]]. As such, it is impossible for any being to truly imagine a maximally perfect being, given its [[The_Problem_of_Evil|incompatible attributes]].   
 
The Ontological Argument assumes and requires man to be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA3dzBrXYtc able to fully comprehend the infinite power and wisdom of God’s nature], which most religious traditions deny. Such comprehension is arguably beyond human capability, since to do otherwise would require having [[Omnipotence_and_Omniscience_Arguments#The_Omniscience_Paradox|a mind as complex as God’s]]. As such, it is impossible for any being to truly imagine a maximally perfect being, given its [[The_Problem_of_Evil|incompatible attributes]].   
 
Bibliography
 
 
[1] D. Barker, Losing Faith in Faith.
 
[2] V. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis.
 
[3] M. Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.
 
 
 
 
he Cambridge Companion to Atheism, by Michael Martin  Cambridge University Press, 2007
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 21:39, 31 July 2017

Paine.png

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God was first developed by St. Anslem of Canterbury in 1078 CE, based off of ideas seeded by Plato and St. Augustine of Hippo. There are several formulations of the Ontological Argument, but they are based on the notion that since God is the greatest thing imaginable, he must exist because existence is greater than non-existence.

This argument has been widely panned by critics, even by fellow clergymen in St. Anslem’s own time.[1] Despite its flaws, the Ontological Argument remains popular because it seems convincing, because it takes some time to explain, and it can confuse those without the courage to stand up to the clergy, and/or the critical thinking or discrete math skills needed to dissect their arguments. This effect is often compounded by using obfuscating language.

The classic Ontological Argument takes the form of a proof by contradiction:[2]

  1. Assume the idea of God, which is defined as a “maximally excellent being,” for which no greater being can be conceived, and who possesses every form of perfection (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and sovereignty).
  2. Assume the idea of such a being exists, and the possibility that such a being may or may not exist in reality.
  3. Assume that it is necessarily greater to exist in reality than it is to merely be an idea.
  4. If this greatest conceivable being were a mere idea, then it would be possible to think of even greater beings (i.e., one which also existed in reality). This is a contradiction, since a being greater than God cannot be imagined.
  5. Therefore, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
  6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
  7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

However, there are numerous flaws in this argument:

The Island Argument

The most popular and damning response to the Ontological Argument is the “Island Argument” proposed by St. Anselm's contemporary, Guanilo of Marmoutiers, in his book On Behalf of the Fool. (Let that sink in; the Ontological Argument is so flawed what it could be openly mocked and derided during the height of the Middle Ages without the fear of being labeled a heretic.) Guanilo argued the following:[2]

  1. Picture a tropical island, which we will defined to be a “maximally excellent place,” for which no greater being can be conceived, and who possesses every form of perfection (e.g., plentiful food and drink, sunshine, all your friends from school are there, innumerable disease-free sex partners to choose from, no travel costs, etc.).
  2. Assume the idea that such a place exists, and the possibility that such a place may or may not exist in reality.
  3. Assume that it is necessarily greater to exist in reality than it is to merely be an idea.
  4. If this greatest conceivable place were a mere idea, then it would be possible to think of even greater places (i.e., one which also existed in reality). This is a contradiction, since a place greater than this island cannot be imagined.
  5. Therefore, if this island exists in the mind as an idea, then this island necessarily exists in reality.
  6. This island exists in the mind as an idea.
  7. Therefore, this island necessarily exists in reality.

The Ontological Argument is a non-sequitur, which can be used to “prove” the existence of literally anything. As such, rather than spending time attacking the argument itself, you should accept the Ontological Arguments at face value, and use its form and structure to “prove” all sorts of absurdities. This turnabout can’t be turned back around against you, because you aren’t making real claims; only the clergyman is trying to making a case. By using their own argument in unintended ways, you force the clergyman into arguing against themselves, eroding their credibility.[3] For example:

  1. Superman is the greatest of the heroes.
  2. A hero that exists is greater than one that does not.
  3. Therefore, Superman is real.

Similar arguments can be used to prove the existence of unicorns, faeries, etc. Ontological Arguments can be made for the existence of other Gods, because there is nothing Christian-specific about the Ontological Argument; it “proves” the existence of every god. One could even assume the existence of a perfect void, and use the Ontological Argument to prove that nothing has ever existed!

The Greatness of Existence

The Ontological Argument invalid because relies on the use-mention error when the idea of God is equated with the greatest conceivable being. There are two independent ideas being discussed:

  1. The greatest possible thing is arbitrarily labelled God.
  2. God is greater when compared to every other object.

The Ontological Argument is essentially a rhetorical shell game which masks the change from the first statement about God to the second.

Additionally, the Ontological Argument is invalid because it affirms the consequent by assuming that exists confers greatness, and concluding that greatness confirms existence. As a result, the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true, even if the premises are true. At most, the Ontological Argument only demonstrates that God exists while we are thinking about him; it does not prove that there is a being which actually fits this idea.

These problems are what led Bertrand Russell to become a skeptic, and later to argue that all Ontological Arguments are cases of bad grammar.[3]

Additionally, there is no justification as to why existence is considered to be “greater” than non-existence. Without such a justification, this assumption is an unsupported assertion. Furthermore, the term “greatness” is undefined. What constitutes “greatness”? Is a fat man greater than a skinny guy, or vice-versa? Does god have infinite mass? Because if not, larger, more massive gods could be imagined, and if God does have infinite mass, then his existence can be empirically disproven.[3]

Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question

Immanuel Kant pointed out that the Ontological Argument does not prove the existence of God; it merely proves that if any entity were God, then they would exist, and vice-versa. The Ontological Argument says nothing regarding if there are or are not any entities which actually match this definition; it can only prove the existence of what is known to exist. The Ontological Argument is invalid because it is a circular argument, which only proves its own assumptions.[3]

Inconceivability

The Ontological Argument assumes and requires man to be able to fully comprehend the infinite power and wisdom of God’s nature, which most religious traditions deny. Such comprehension is arguably beyond human capability, since to do otherwise would require having a mind as complex as God’s. As such, it is impossible for any being to truly imagine a maximally perfect being, given its incompatible attributes.

References

  1. M. Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
  2. 2.0 2.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Martin
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 D. Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992).