quote:The Ontological argument for the existence of God is no doubt one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God there is. It was originally proposed by St.Anslem. He said that God is the 'being than which no greater can be conceived'.

This was a very solid foundation to the argument because even an atheist will admit that if a God did exist then he would by definition have to be a 'being than which no greater can be conceived'.

So Anslems Ontological argument can be divided into 6 distinct parts or steps.

1. There are two states of existence. In the mind and in reality

2. Existence in reality aswell as in the mind would be greater than existence in the mind alone.

3. God exists within peoples minds.Whether they choose to believe in God is irrelevant because he is still concievable in peoples minds

4. God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved of by definition and is perfect

5. Because of this God can not exist only in peoples minds and so must exist in reality because God by definition is the greatest being of which can be concieved and a being like this most exist in both to maintain this status

6. Therefore God exists

The main criticism of this argument is that I could concieve of a perfect island. It exists in my mind as perfect. Because it is perfect it must exist because such a perfect island could not only exist in my mind but must also exist in reality.

The point is that anyone can concieve of something perfect and in Gods case Anslem claims that because of this perfection in our mind he must exist in reality. Obviously this completley negates the argument because people can use it to prove the existence of anything perfect they want.

The Ontological argument works very well on paper more so than any other argument however when put into practice we see the same logic can be applied to whatever we want.



Maybe its just me, but this argument seems really flawed.

"God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved of by definition and is perfect"

Aren't all arguments for the Christian\Catholic God, that are based on the Bible automatically false....

Doesn't the proof have to come from another source?

quote:Originally posted by Nidias_91:

[b]

Doesn't the proof have to come from another source?

The only "proof" is that which you discover for yourself.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

well i've never heard of it as anslems argument... rather as Descarte's.

Descarte's argument basically says

- God by definition is perfect.

- a perfect God is a God who exists.

- therefore existence is a property of god

- therefore god must exist

however, who ever critiqued this argument completely missed the point... he made examples of perfect islands and what not. perfect islands by definition does NOT have to exist, because a perfect islands are subjective created, where as a perfect GOD encompasses all properties of perfection.

in a sense, that can also be subjective, but descarte refers to the christian god.

First, define reality and existence. THEN continue with the debate.

Nidias_91, this line of reasoning is completely distinct and seperate from the Bible. Nowhere in any of the premises do you see the Bible being cited as a source.

SmokingSalmon got it right with his criticism of the perfect islands scenario. The line of reasoning applies only to God.

I know this is a hard line of reasoning to grasp. I had trouble with it at first, even when a philo prof was lecturing me on it.

A quick word on terminology, a 'proof' is different than the pieces of information that you base an argument on. An argument is made up of premises that (hopefully) back up a conclusion.

Wait a minute, so saying something is perfect makes it exist? I think aliens are perfect, therefore they exist. I think a perfect universe does not require a god, and I can think of a perfect universe, therefore god does not exist. That argument is stupid.

Raw_Power, you just missed the whole point of the argument. God is the only being who, by definition, is perfect. This line of reasoning doesn't apply to other things, even if you imagine them as perfect. "Perfect aliens" doesn't work.

So because you can imagine something that is perfect, and a perfect being requires existence, it exists? I dunno why, but it just seems really dumb to me.

And this pretty much refutes it anyway: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_ontological.html

Critical Appraisal (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/) is where ya want to be.

Wouldn't any absolute objective measure be considered as perfect, being as it is the standard by which all subjectives are to be measured? Whether you call the objective measure a god or not is an entirely different matter.

Couldn't this argumnet be used on geometric shapes?

A cube or a circle and so on are all perfect objects, plato even made up a new universe for them to be perfect in for christ's sake.

But then a circle is perfect with out existance... because it's only perfect in terms of shape, not perfect in terms of anything else....whereas god is completely perfect on everyfront, including perfect existance...



Right, gocha.

quote:Originally posted by Niceguy:

Couldn't this argumnet be used on geometric shapes?

A cube or a circle and so on are all perfect objects, plato even made up a new universe for them to be perfect in for christ's sake.

But then a circle is perfect with out existance... because it's only perfect in terms of shape, not perfect in terms of anything else....whereas god is completely perfect on everyfront, including perfect existance...



Right, gocha.

No, you were right. If existance is a perfection, then obviously you cannot have a perfect circle without it existing. Therefore, a perfect circle must exist somewhere... except you can't have a perfect circle.

The problem with Anselm's argument is that it doesn't distinguish between the conceptual and the real. When you think of "a being than which no greater can be concieved", existance is included in this thought. To think about it, you must assume a kind of hypothetical existance for it: if this existed it would be a being than which etc. It has the same conceptual power as an actually existant BTWNGCBC. It doesn't have the same "real" power, but that doesn't matter because it's just a concept and we're only considering the conceptual part - the power it would have.

My link explains it better, really. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) I hope I get my point across with one of the two.

All the argument is evident of is a perfect ideal; not the manifestation of the ideal in actual existence.

If God is perfect, He would have been able to create the universe in less than the blink of an eye. Instead, it took him six days, and he even needed to rest afterwards!

Anything that can be improved upon is not perfect.

quote:Originally posted by Absentis:

Nowhere in any of the premises do you see the Bible being cited as a source.

Not cited as a source, however, the bible does say God is perfect. Therefore the entire argument is based on something said in faith, therefore doesn't that make the argument pointless?

Not at all. The idea of God as perfect is a notion that is independent of the Bible--it's an accepted part of the definition of a supreme being.



Entheogenic

Observe, the ontological argument without meaningless vaguery

1. god by definition is omniscient,omnipotent, omnibenevolent and exists.

2. therefore god exists

what's circularity?

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 10-20-2006).]