The Ontological Argument: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Ontological Argument » The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument

Page: 1 2

The Ontological Argument

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 460

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 10/13/09 - 05:50 PM:	#11
Nihilism wrote: The Onotological argument that has been put forward by many philosophers is not a convincing way of trying to prove the existence of God. Even were the OA sound, it would in my opinion still leave a gaping empirical hole to be filled. (Though this is bordering on heresy to say on a philosophy forum, I don't think a priori arguments for the existence of God are particularly convincing without some empirical proof).
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:44 PM:	#12
Descartes's argument, as presented, is invalid. If he's imagining a perfect being, and he imagines that perfect beings exist, then he's imagining that a perfect being exists. But is it true that if Descartes imagined that it exists, then it really exists? An evil demon says so. I also wonder if premise (3) is false. It says, "things are worse if they aren't there," which looks like an existential fallacy. If I say that something has an attribute, such as being worse under conditions x than under y, then I'm presupposing that it exists; so it's inappropriate to say that something doesn't exist and would have been better if it had. However, the cosmological argument, as presented, is consistent. It's not self-contradictory to say that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that God doesn't have a cause, as long as you say that God didn't begin to exist.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:50 PM:	#13
Arkady wrote: Even were the OA sound, it would in my opinion still leave a gaping empirical hole to be filled. (Though this is bordering on heresy to say on a philosophy forum, I don't think a priori arguments for the existence of God are particularly convincing without some empirical proof). I'm interested. Are you saying that even if you knew that God was proven to exist, you still wouldn't believe unless it was an empirical proof? What's the train of thought behind this?

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 460

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/17/09 - 05:51 AM:	#14
Incision wrote: I'm interested. Are you saying that even if you knew that God was proven to exist, you still wouldn't believe unless it was an empirical proof? What's the train of thought behind this? I wouldn't consider an a priori argument (no matter how good) to have "proven" the existence of God, any more than I would accept an a priori argument for the existence of, say, atoms without some empirical proof to that effect. The train of thought is that I can accept a priori existential arguments in instances in which empirical confirmation is either not possible or would do nothing to strengthen the conclusion (as in logic and mathematics). For instance, I would be swayed by an a priori argument that there exists a prime number greater than 142,569,451,187 because numbers are abstract entities and don't necessarily refer to anything "concrete." Any empirical test of such a fact in the "concrete" world (even assuming such a thing were possible) wouldn't increase the believability of the conclusion for me. God, however, is not an abstract object in this sense. Moreover, suppose we did have a slum-dunk a priori argument for the existence of God. What then? Would we not begin searching for some empirical confirmation, some effect(s) which God has wrought? If there are no such signs, we'd be left with the conclusion that there exists a being of maximal greatness who has not actually done anything, or be left with a sneaking suspicion that, rather than proving the existence of God, we've merely been playing with words and definitions all along.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Nil Desperandum
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/18/09 - 11:55 AM:	#15
To be conceived of as existent is not the same as to exist; and to be conceived of as having existence-implying properties does not itself imply existence. I conceive of a unicorn as white, as maned, as horned, as physical, as solid--all of which are existence-implying properties--but that doesn't mean I have to affirm the unicorn's existence. I can even conceive of a unicorn as nonfictional--as playing in the side yard with my quite real nephew--and still not affirm the unicorn's existence. How an idea is conceived is one thing; how it is is another thing. If the concept of God includes the concept of existence, that doesn't mean there is a God, any more than the concept of a physical unicorn implies the unicorn's existence. Nil Desperandum

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:09 PM:	#16
Sorry about the late response, Arkady; I got a flu, and then, uh, kinda forgot about it. I can accept that it would be more natural to look for a a priori proof in logic or mathematics and to look for an empirical proof in the sciences. But I personally am not sure there couldn't an empirical argument for a mathematical conclusion or vice versa (in light of, say, Quine's coherentism). And either way, it seems to me that if we have a proof, then there's a good epistemic reason for accepting the conclusion.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 460

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:37 PM:	#17
Incision wrote: Sorry about the late response, Arkady; I got a flu, and then, uh, kinda forgot about it. Well, the flu is a drag, but at least it beats being forced to drink hemlock. Hopefully you're feeling better...I'm due for a flu shot in a few days, myself. Incision wrote: I can accept that it would be more natural to look for a a priori proof in logic or mathematics and to look for an empirical proof in the sciences. But I personally am not sure there couldn't an empirical argument for a mathematical conclusion or vice versa (in light of, say, Quine's coherentism). This is an interesting topic in and of itself. I believe that in most instances, a priori investigation in science and empirical investigation in logic aren't merely "unnatural" in some way, they're largely impossible. The only scientific field which has a substantial body of a priori theorizing independent of empiricism is theoretical physics. And, in a sense, theoretical physicists are only dividing the labor with the experimentalists, as physical theories are generally not accepted until there is empirical confirmation (which is why CERN embarked on the massive headache of building the LHC, for instance, and why the lack of testability of string theory causes such a dust-up). And in nearly every other scientific field, the phenomena simply cannot be predicted to any significant degree; there just is no substitute for observation. And as for logic and mathematics being subject to empirical confirmation, I simply don't see how this could be done. Basic arithmetic can be tested "experimentally", but when one speaks of the more abstract and higher-level mathematical theories (e.g. set theory), I don't even know what an experiment would look like (though I am open to suggestions). Also, I have difficulties with logic and mathematics as experimental disciplines because it would place them on inductive rather than deductive footing. If these subjects are to be regarded as discovering necessary truths, this methodology simply isn't tenable. And, if deductive confirmation is methodologically available, why "settle" for inductive confirmation? This raises the point of whether the existence of God must be a scientific or philosophical question. I think there's at least as strong an argument for considering it a scientific question as a philosophical one. (Of course, every scientific problem has its philosophical aspects, but I think you understand my point.) Incision wrote: And either way, it seems to me that if we have a proof, then there's a good epistemic reason for accepting the conclusion. Perhaps. But, again, suppose we did have what we believed to be a watertight a priori proof. Wouldn't you be at least curious to begin searching for some physical trace of God's handiwork? It seems that no theological/philosophical inquiry could be complete without this stage, because it has important implications for just exactly what God is, and how it acts in the world. A highly interventionist, "personal" God has very different implications from a "hands-off" God in the deist sense. Edited by Arkady on 10/30/09 - 11:44 PM
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Maxvilly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2009

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 210

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:08 PM:	#18
I am god-s, look-a-like. If there's any creator to our world. He surley can't have been alone. There's a theory going on in a few forums, that we are inhabitants from another planet, located behind our sun. Well, that sounds fishy, allright. Still more likely that we are some type of second breed. Than a "god" master. So what association do we have to a "God". Is it a invisible ghost sort of. Does our God have feelings...and if not. Why not. I know- "Somebody on this board in their head, "well how do U know we have feelings rada-rada-rada---we might just be a fluke to human name.."" Then, correct. I can argue, against a god. But it depends on the face of "what a god" is.
I had details here, ones.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.