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

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/13/09 - 09:34 AM: Subject: The Ontological Argument	#1
The Onotological argument that has been put forward by many philosophers is not a convincing way of trying to prove the existence of God. Rene Descartes tried to establish the existence of God by putting forward the idea that God is a "perfect being" Premise 1 : I have an idea of God, that is to say, an idea of a perfect being. Premise 2: A perfect being must have all perfections Premise 3: Existence is a perfection Conclusion God exists Most people when they hear this argument are inclined to think that there is something fishy going on. Descartes assumes that existing is more perfect than non existing which can be argued of course but this is not the main flaw with this argument. He explains that subtracting existence from God is like taking away the 2 right angles which make up a triangle. He explains God is a necessary condition for existence. My input into the Ontological Argument : Establishing the definition of a concept does not mean this concept exists in reality. Unicorns by my definition have one horn, this does not prove their existence nor give empirical proof. Descartes evaluation of the existence of God is vague; there are so many different historical disagreements concerning the significance of the term. Its like saying yellow sheep exist, yellow sheep are yellow, therefore they must exist. I could go into Anselm's cosmological argument but I wanted to discuss Descartes. I'd like to see some opinions on the Ontological Argument and see whether anybody can perhaps either argue alongside me or against me. (I am only a student so go easy on me if you are a experienced professor or what not.)
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/13/09 - 10:04 AM:	#2
An idea of a "being" presupposes existence in the first premise. Or you could notice he drops the notion of "idea" in the second premise and assumes we are already discussing a "being". So, the question begging really starts in premise 2 with the omitting of the term 'idea'.
Or not.

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/13/09 - 10:31 AM:	#3
Cheshire wrote: An idea of a "being" presupposes existence in the first premise. Or you could notice he drops the notion of "idea" in the second premise and assumes we are already discussing a "being". So, the question begging really starts in premise 2 with the omitting of the term 'idea'. Yes I agree, Schopenhauer explains Descartes method is unfair being that at the start he comes to the conclusion that God exists but then at the actual conclusion he arrives at the same answer. There really is no concept of God throughout his argument. Does he even need Premise 2 and 3?
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/13/09 - 11:01 AM:	#4
Nihilism wrote: Yes I agree, Schopenhauer explains Descartes method is unfair being that at the start he comes to the conclusion that God exists but then at the actual conclusion he arrives at the same answer. There really is no concept of God throughout his argument. Does he even need Premise 2 and 3? My first impression of premise one is similar, but I think Descartes escapes question begging in premise one by qualifying his notion as an "idea". Premise 2 is where he establishes the notion there is a perfect being without the qualification that the perfect being is an "idea" of a perfect being. Saying the perfect being has all perfection is presupposing there is a such a being. He ought to have the "idea of a perfect being" to avoid question begging in premise 2. Premise 1 pretends to accept the notion we are discussing just a "concept of God" without presupposing the existence of God. So, I agree with Schopenhauer's complaint, but I disagree that the first premise is where it occurs. Yes, he needs premise 3 to establish a bridge between perfection and existence. He could have used any adjective to do so, because stating that "God is.." presupposes the existence of God. 1. I have an idea of God, An idea of a very tall being. 2. A tall being must have great height. 3. To have great height a being must exist. A tall being that is God has great height and to have height God must exist. It really is a "Madlib" style argument. Edited by Cheshire on 10/13/09 - 11:08 AM
Or not.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 721

Posted 10/13/09 - 11:25 AM:	#5
The child's ontic proof: 1. I conceptualize one-horned unicorns (yes, I'm quite childish, should anyone ask) 2. for something to be cute and pink and have one horn, it must exist, because if it doesn't, it can't be cute and pink and have one horn 3. the most perfectly cute creature with one horn is a pink unicorn 4. thus, unicorns exists Ok, that's actually not quite analogous to Descartes' argument, but closer to Anselm's. A variation of Descartes' ontic argument: 1. I conceptualize God, a perfect being 2. something that exists is more perfect than something that does not exist 3. thus, God exists For this to have any ontological content, I think an existence clause (2) is required. The idea behind the argument is to maximize a quality into existence, and attach God for the ride. Not quite convincing though. What constitutes a perfect concept anyway (other than writing down words in a language, or thinking about qualities)?
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

CygnusX1
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

Posted 10/13/09 - 11:50 AM:	#6
@ Nihilism... Should the ideas and notions of perfection be used as an argument to profess the existence of God? Maybe not and perfection is such a constricted term? Descartes' ideas regarding perfection and God were not really new, and Plato proclaimed the same direction of reasoning with his contemplations of perfection, of ideas and forms. (Thus we may also deduce that these notions and arguments of perfection may also be attributed to concur with Socrates also. For example in the "meno", where Socrates sets out to prove that ideas of perfection, the soul, and the perfect ideas and laws of geometry and arithmetic exist within us all apriori). Descartes says.. 14. "Now, it is manifest by the natural light that there must at least be as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect; for whence can the effect draw its reality if not from its cause ? And how could the cause communicate to it this reality unless it possessed it in itself? And hence it follows, not only that what is cannot be produced by what is not, but likewise that the more perfect, in other words, that which contains in itself more reality, cannot be the effect of the less perfect; and this is not only evidently true of those effects, whose reality is actual or formal, but likewise of ideas, whose reality is only considered as objective. .... And although an idea may give rise to another idea, this regress cannot, nevertheless, be infinite; we must in the end reach a first idea, the cause of which is, as it were, the archetype in which all the reality or perfection that is found objectively or by representation in these ideas is contained formally and in act. I am thus clearly taught by the natural light that ideas exist in me as pictures or images, which may, in truth, readily fall short of the perfection of the objects from which they are taken, but can never contain anything greater or more perfect." So here, Descartes was arguing as much for causality as with the origin of the first perfect idea or notion as proof of the existence of God. And I feel this is of more importance, the common stance of theists – that some thing cannot originate from no thing? Whilst Descartes' reasoning was sincere perhaps his contemplation's of perfection were somewhat misguided? Is God perfect? 1. Did God choose to create …the Universe, life, man etc etc.? If so… this choice implies the act of freewill, and thus follows the contemplation's of "shall I create the Universe yes or no?"…. Which thus implies speculation and perhaps even procrastination and doubt of reasons for and against the act of creation, and maybe even speculation regarding its outcomes and consequences. All of these notions would thus imply that God is not perfect, as a perfect being or entity would have no need of choice or choices, or speculations regarding any acts of creation. In fact, to overcome these problems and reconcile the notion of a perfect God or creator, (or even the notion of the existence of perfection itself), perhaps we should eliminate the idea altogether, that the creation was an act of freewill. Or moreover contemplate that God may be the perfect agent or potential for the existence of creation, yet the act of creation or its apparent manifestation is not due to the act of God? That God merely exists as the potential for all things – These are some of the philosophical ideas and tenets proclaimed in Hinduism, specifically relating to Brahman – absolute reality. 2. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic monistic faiths frequently proclaim the acts of God's judgement and vengeance upon so-called heretics and the sinful. This, if taken literally, would also imply the existence of an imperfect God, who is subject to jealousy, anger and wrath and other human like emotions, which are certainly far from perfect. Thus Man is created in God's image? As I recall, Marcion of Sinope was excommunicated as a heretic by the early Roman church for claiming that there was in fact two God's - A lower God proclaimed by the Jewish faiths, (Yahweh or Jehovah), who due to his jealousy, wrath and vengeance could not possibly be perfect, and the more perfect higher God proclaimed by Christ, the God of love and forgiveness. I do not feel myself that the notion of "perfection" is a relevant argument for proof of the existence of God. Yet all encompassing potential is a far more valid reasoning, (such as regarding Brahman). If we are to seek to prove the existence of God, it will not be through argument or with descriptions or semantics, as God must ultimately be total unfathomable potential and beyond all definitions or terminology. Therefore the truth of God must be a personal goal, and we can only seek to find God within, by contemplating exactly this question – "who am I?" Here is a rather intriguing notion to contemplate regarding creation… If in fact, God does not exist, yet we exist as conscious entities, (Descartes – " I think therefore I am, I am I exist"), And thus we are merely comprised of "star stuff", of particles, energies, strings and matter and forms etc. Then the miracle is that "we" the Universe, has evolved as a consciousness that contemplates the origins of its own existence - The Universe has evolved to contemplate and speculate upon its own origins? Something to think about? Apologies for the length of this reply – hope it was worth the read. ;0]
You are neither earth, water, fire, air or even ether. For liberation know yourself as consisting of consciousness, the witness of these. [The Song of Ashtavakra (Ashtavakra Samhita) Chapter 1.3]

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/13/09 - 12:31 PM:	#7
Thank you for your reply, I believe Descartes does contradict himself. Doesn't the idea of the perfect island presented by Gaulino explain how Descartes is wrong? Something along the lines of "I have the concept of a perfect island, it has perfect features, food etc. Now he then goes on to the say the fact we can conceieve the perfect island makes this island imperfect? I think I have got that wrong but Gaulino tries to use Descartes form reasoning to show we should be able to prove the existence of a perfect anything. But it is unlikely that the perfect anything does exist and so it follows there is something wrong with the reasoning leading to the conclusion. I think the perfect island shows Descartes method cannot work for Gods existence nor Anselm's argument. That passage does show Descartes was arguing cosmologically also, I agree most theists will use the "unmoved mover" as their first cause it goes sometihng like this: 1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The Universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause 4.This cause is God. I refute this argument, If you notice it contradicts itself. Saying everything in the universe has a cause then excluding one thing and labelling it "God" begs the question what created God? The argue just attempts to prevent the infinite regress but in doing so defies logic. A theist would say God exists outside time and space. Well then I say how can it have any influence in our universe. Does God just creep in and out? This is like saying a square can be a circle at the same time. God is redundant.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 721

Posted 10/13/09 - 02:06 PM:	#8
There are a few angles on these types of arguments. 1. I can conceptualize something infinite (e.g. math, or just unending spacial extent for that matter) 2. something actually existing, that is infinite, would be greater than just my concept alone 3. thus, something infinite exists There's a disconnect between conceptualization and actuality. (forget for a minute that "infinite" and "greater than" does not go well together, which would be yet another angle) Kant argued that existence is not an actual property/quality that something can possess or not possess, regardless of anything else. Well, if that were the case, then you could claim, for example, both that (1) G doesn't exist, and (2) G has the property of existence, which seems rather absurd. It is, however, possible for a concept to exist (in the head of someone), but that concept not having any referent (nowhere else does (an instance of) the concept exist). Is G an exemplified concept (with referent), or a pure concept (without referent), and does either of those two possibilities change anything about the concept itself?
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

CygnusX1
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

Posted 10/13/09 - 02:07 PM:	#9
@ Nihilism… You say "God is redundant", and I accept the atheistic point of view, (I presently position myself as agnostic, or as someone recently corrected me, that I am agnostic-theist – not sure that God is not real). Yet a common atheistic position is that God must necessarily react within his creation, and thus his absence, (and abstention to act out within), proves his non-existence, yet why? As you say a theist would proclaim that God is beyond time and space, and I say further that if God was the prime mover for creation, it does not necessarily follow that he resides or even interacts within this reality. Why must God interact with this Universe, with us? Yet the way I see it is that it is not this simple, it is MORE simple, and a complete unified theory of every thing and every potential resides in the philosophies regarding Brahman. You may wish to checkout this wiki link for a concise description regarding the philosophical ideas of Hinduism regarding Brahman. Advaita is one of six schools of philosophy which is atheistic and which promotes Brahman as absolute reality, (as potential for creation itself). Wiki quote – "Brahman.. In the Hindu religion, Brahman (Sanskrit: ????????, brahman, nominative brahma, ??????) is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe.[1] The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools." More here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman This does not however eliminate the possible manifestation of a personal God, within a Universe or creation of infinite and immeasurable potential and possibilities. In other words, it all depends on you, your consciousness and your perceptions, as to whether you realise, (and not merely believe), God as perfect, with a white beard and a deep voice etc. or as creation of quantum realities? We must contemplate the question… is the Universe manifest and real, or does it merely appear as apparently real? It is all-subjective to mind and conscious perception, (as Descartes correctly observed). If you reason that your consciousness is real, this is the first step to success. If you subscribe to "I am I exist", then creation must be real, the terms creation and creator are merely different views to disagree on the same acceptance of reality, (or the relatively real). Creator and creation are different sides of the same coin, the coin is real, (or relatively real). Off course a Buddhist would say that the spoon is not real, (winks). As far as ideas are concerned, then I question whether any idea is "free" from causality, which thus brings into play the whole idea or notion of the reality of freewill. I would say, (like Descartes), that not one single idea or conception is my own, and furthermore that I am merely perceptive, I am receptive only, to ideas that are manifest and apparent everywhere. That the possibility for all things, that all matter and energies and ideas already exist and always have?
You are neither earth, water, fire, air or even ether. For liberation know yourself as consisting of consciousness, the witness of these. [The Song of Ashtavakra (Ashtavakra Samhita) Chapter 1.3]

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/13/09 - 05:44 PM:	#10
I wonder if "existence" has an implied subjective observer to the state of existence. I've previously considered whether an object which had no causal relationship can be said to exist. Say, Russel's teapot, floating around in space near a star beyond the farthest reaches of observable space, and only came into existence just now, (relatively speaking). It would be so small, so distance and physically unobservable for at least another 14 billion years that we can easily treat it as if it doesn't exist without fear of contradiction until long after we are dead. This throws some flies at the ontological ointment. Even if we accept all the premises, that I can conceive of a perfect being, and that a perfect being would exist, by definition, I can note that to "exist", we are implying, "within the range of observation of anyone who would care to listen to us". A perfect being would, by definition, not need to be observed or be within our capability to observe, meaning that within this model, we would be redundant and superfluous. Then the question becomes anthropomorphic. We exist unnecessarily next to a perfect being, so it is extremely unlikely that such a perfect being existed. I could play false equivocation with the word "perfect" anyway. What is a "perfect dog" or a "perfect beer" or a "perfect day"? It couldn't be perfect in itself, but would be "without flaw or need" in its relationship with the observer. Perhaps this would argue more toward Spinoza's universe, that "perfect" has to include the observer in it's model as well.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2

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