43
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This might seem biased to the uninitiated, but there's very little which can be said in defense of this argument. Feel free to have a go though!
The ontological argument is a failed attempt to argue for the existence of God. It is a [[deductive]] argument based on the [[defintion of God]], originally proposed by [[Anselm]] and later used by [[Descartes]]. Anselm's form runs as follows:
God is the most supremely perfect being- a being with all possible perfections
It is better to exist than to not exist
Therefore, God exists
Descartes' form is similar:
God is a being with all possible perfections
Existence is a [[predicate]] of such a being
Therefore, God exists
Its deceptively simple appearance often causes confusion and a 'mental double-take' when it is first presented. It has the advantage that even [[atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apprantly deductive fashion. Anselm also attempted to bypass [[Hume's Fork]], stating that 'God exists' is a unique type of statement, as it is analytically derived, yet states something about the physical world. He called this an 'analytic existensial' statement. The claim of a 'unique' statement exempt from the laws of reasoning often causes concern about the validity of any argument including it- see also [[Tillich]]'s [[symbolism]].
Even in Anselm's day, however, problems were identified with the ontological argument. [[Guanilo]], a contemporary of Anselm, used [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Guanilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists.
[[Kant]] weighed in against Decartes' version, challenging the second premise that existence is a predicate. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.
Finally, [[Davies]] identified the critical failing of the argument. As presented, the argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. Ie, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first premise correctly reads 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. The ontological argument is therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and [[fatally flawed]] in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
God is the most supremely perfect being- a being with all possible perfections
It is better to exist than to not exist
Therefore, God exists
Descartes' form is similar:
God is a being with all possible perfections
Existence is a [[predicate]] of such a being
Therefore, God exists
Its deceptively simple appearance often causes confusion and a 'mental double-take' when it is first presented. It has the advantage that even [[atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apprantly deductive fashion. Anselm also attempted to bypass [[Hume's Fork]], stating that 'God exists' is a unique type of statement, as it is analytically derived, yet states something about the physical world. He called this an 'analytic existensial' statement. The claim of a 'unique' statement exempt from the laws of reasoning often causes concern about the validity of any argument including it- see also [[Tillich]]'s [[symbolism]].
Even in Anselm's day, however, problems were identified with the ontological argument. [[Guanilo]], a contemporary of Anselm, used [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Guanilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists.
[[Kant]] weighed in against Decartes' version, challenging the second premise that existence is a predicate. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.
Finally, [[Davies]] identified the critical failing of the argument. As presented, the argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. Ie, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first premise correctly reads 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. The ontological argument is therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and [[fatally flawed]] in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]