Ontological Argument: Understanding What is Meant by the Term 'Greatness' and How It's Applied to the Idea of God

[Speakpigeon]

Uh-ho.

There's a whole tribe of you, then!

Still, it's important to point out that there's a difference between positively believing some fantastic tale and just observing that it is a logical possibility.

And your tale is in fact less fantastic than the God one, if you want my opinion.
EB

Yes, it's a logical possibility. So is Superman getting his powers due to the radiation from a yellow sun. That's very distinct from having discussions of the nature of solar radiation include that it allows Kryptonians to fly.

No. Superman is less fantastic in my opinion.

Remember, God is greater, so He is also greater than Superman in being fantastic.

If there's not a method to associate the logical possibility to reality, it's no different than a nonsense statement, regardless of how internally consistent the logic may be.

First, if God exists, it's a fact, it's real, we don't need any better method than that. You are confusing the epistemological problem that we don't know whether God exists or not with the ontological problem of existence.

Second, clearly, it's no nonsense. We all understand it well enough. And, clearly, that's also why you are so vehement. I don't think you would bother if this was really all nonsense. Why do you care?

And of course, greatness is a very natural notion. Some people are greater than others in some respect. God is just that which is greater in every respect. No big deal. If there was such a thing I wouldn't know but nor would you and things might well look as they do in fact so no way to tell except if God Himself would decide to tell us.
Nah, He won't.

What you're saying in effect is that there's no way for a scientist to prove God therefore it's all nonsense. Ah, there it is again but, fortunately, things make sense to us mere mortal even when very unscientific. You can keep to yourself if you don't want to share into that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Pciasmo1 hasn't been back since 10/15.

And just for this one post.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, it's a logical possibility. So is Superman getting his powers due to the radiation from a yellow sun. That's very distinct from having discussions of the nature of solar radiation include that it allows Kryptonians to fly.

No. Superman is less fantastic in my opinion.

Remember, God is greater, so He is also greater than Superman in being fantastic.

If there's not a method to associate the logical possibility to reality, it's no different than a nonsense statement, regardless of how internally consistent the logic may be.

First, if God exists, it's a fact, it's real, we don't need any better method than that. You are confusing the epistemological problem that we don't know whether God exists or not with the ontological problem of existence.

Second, clearly, it's no nonsense. We all understand it well enough. And, clearly, that's also why you are so vehement. I don't think you would bother if this was really all nonsense. Why do you care?

And of course, greatness is a very natural notion. Some people are greater than others in some respect. God is just that which is greater in every respect. No big deal. If there was such a thing I wouldn't know but nor would you and things might well look as they do in fact so no way to tell except if God Himself would decide to tell us.
Nah, He won't.

What you're saying in effect is that there's no way for a scientist to prove God therefore it's all nonsense. Ah, there it is again but, fortunately, things make sense to us mere mortal even when very unscientific. You can keep to yourself if you don't want to share into that.
EB

First off, Superman is way better than God, so don't even go there saying that God is greater than Superman. That's just some bullshit is what that is and doesn't even consider the fact that there's frigging Batman out there too, so God maxes out no higher than third best.

Yes, I agree with you that there's no way for science to prove it. That's not what makes it nonsense, though. What makes it nonsense is that there's no connection between the internal logic of the thought exercise and external reality. This argument is used to come to the conclusion "and therefore God exists" and it's at that point that it falls apart and becomes nonsense.

Of the four points of the ontological argument:

1.God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2.God exists in this way at least in the understanding.
3.A God that exists in reality as well as in the understanding is better than a God that exists only in the understanding.
4.Therefore, God must exist in reality.

#1 and #2 are fine. It's #3 which makes the argument nonsense. While it's true that this would be true and an entity which exists in reality would be greater than one which only exist in understanding, that does not mean that you can therefore make the actual connection between the internal logic and external reality. This isn't because of science being able to prove it or anything like that, but simply because that's an illogical step to make and doing so is nonsense. That means you never actually get to #4, which is the entire point of the argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First off, Superman is way better than God, so don't even go there saying that God is greater than Superman. That's just some bullshit is what that is and doesn't even consider the fact that there's frigging Batman out there too, so God maxes out no higher than third best.

Yes, I agree with you that there's no way for science to prove it. That's not what makes it nonsense, though. What makes it nonsense is that there's no connection between the internal logic of the thought exercise and external reality. This argument is used to come to the conclusion "and therefore God exists" and it's at that point that it falls apart and becomes nonsense.

Of the four points of the ontological argument:

1.God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2.God exists in this way at least in the understanding.
3.A God that exists in reality as well as in the understanding is better than a God that exists only in the understanding.
4.Therefore, God must exist in reality.

#1 and #2 are fine. It's #3 which makes the argument nonsense. While it's true that this would be true and an entity which exists in reality would be greater than one which only exist in understanding, that does not mean that you can therefore make the actual connection between the internal logic and external reality. This isn't because of science being able to prove it or anything like that, but simply because that's an illogical step to make and doing so is nonsense. That means you never actually get to #4, which is the entire point of the argument.

So, in fact, #3 is unproblematic according to what you say. It's #4 which is the problem.

Sure, #4 is illogical, but you're not explaining why that is. You're merely asserting it is. Why should anyone believe you?
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, in fact, #3 is unproblematic according to what you say. It's #4 which is the problem.

Sure, #4 is illogical, but you're not explaining why that is. You're merely asserting it is. Why should anyone believe you?
EB

I'm saying it because it's a logical argument with no connection between step 3 and step 4, which means that it's not a logical argument at all. It has premises and it has a conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You're correct that I'm simply making an assertion. That's fine, however, because the assertion that I'm making is "The ontological argument does not prove God". I'm not making my own argument for why God does not exist, I'm simply pointing out this argument fails in doing so. My position in this thread does not speak to whether God exists or does not exist, just that the this method of proving God's existence is an invalid one.

 

[Treedbear]

How about this:



Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. Doesn't even come close. So although if there is a God it must exist by definition, the argument obtains no support from whatever may exist conceptually in our imaginations. Like what Tom Sawyer said in the parable about his aunt.

Ah! That's better. You're not quite there but close.

You're not quite there because there's nothing logical in saying that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. For example, suppose God does exist, then you would have to accept that God is everywhere and therefore in your understanding as well. So, no, there's nothing logical in your statement.

Still, you're getting nearer the truth of it.

As I see it anyway.
EB

The part that I bolded is not what I meant in the context of my argument. I just assumed you understood that when you refered to God as

...
And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.
...

I presented a logical argument for why a God of my understanding does not prove that there must exist a God in reality, which is what Anshelm argued. It was not an argument for why God cannnot exist in reality. For the sake of argument I'll agree that if there is a God in reality it's possible in some cryptic sense that the God of my understanding has been imbued with an actual reality. I'll go further and suggest that (given your avatar is a picture of Descartes) you're implying that the concept of perfection itself is beyond human understanding and therefore must be, and serves as proof-in-itself, that God exists in reality. That's all fine, but it doesn't address Anhelm's assertion. Your only hinting at a possibility. I have no argument against that.

 

[blastula]

The Ontological Argument may poof God into existence, but then Babel Fish Argument poofs it right back out.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, in fact, #3 is unproblematic according to what you say. It's #4 which is the problem.

Sure, #4 is illogical, but you're not explaining why that is. You're merely asserting it is. Why should anyone believe you?
EB

I'm saying it because it's a logical argument with no connection between step 3 and step 4, which means that it's not a logical argument at all. It has premises and it has a conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You're correct that I'm simply making an assertion. That's fine, however, because the assertion that I'm making is "The ontological argument does not prove God". I'm not making my own argument for why God does not exist, I'm simply pointing out this argument fails in doing so. My position in this thread does not speak to whether God exists or does not exist, just that the this method of proving God's existence is an invalid one.

I think there's a connection between step 3 and 4. Just claiming there isn't any won't do. I'm sure the argument is invalid logically, but you still have to show how exactly that is.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ah! That's better. You're not quite there but close.

You're not quite there because there's nothing logical in saying that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. For example, suppose God does exist, then you would have to accept that God is everywhere and therefore in your understanding as well. So, no, there's nothing logical in your statement.

Still, you're getting nearer the truth of it.

As I see it anyway.
EB

The part that I bolded is not what I meant in the context of my argument. I just assumed you understood that when you refered to God as

...
And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.
...

I presented a logical argument for why a God of my understanding does not prove that there must exist a God in reality, which is what Anshelm argued.

If your argument is "Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all", then it fails, because it assumes that the God in your understanding is not God Himself and yet, we don't actually know that.

Anyway, your last line here points indeed to the weak point in Anselm's argument that he assumes that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that either. So, it's an illogical step in this sense.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm saying it because it's a logical argument with no connection between step 3 and step 4, which means that it's not a logical argument at all. It has premises and it has a conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You're correct that I'm simply making an assertion. That's fine, however, because the assertion that I'm making is "The ontological argument does not prove God". I'm not making my own argument for why God does not exist, I'm simply pointing out this argument fails in doing so. My position in this thread does not speak to whether God exists or does not exist, just that the this method of proving God's existence is an invalid one.

I think there's a connection between step 3 and 4. Just claiming there isn't any won't do. I'm sure the argument is invalid logically, but you still have to show how exactly that is.
EB

What is that connection then? My reading of it is that the argument is saying "A god in reality would be greater than one in imagination, therefore there must be a god in reality". It's an invalid transition between a would and a must. What do you feel is the flaw in my reading and how do you view what it's saying differently?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think there's a connection between step 3 and 4. Just claiming there isn't any won't do. I'm sure the argument is invalid logically, but you still have to show how exactly that is.
EB

What is that connection then? My reading of it is that the argument is saying "A god in reality would be greater than one in imagination, therefore there must be a god in reality". It's an invalid transition between a would and a must. What do you feel is the flaw in my reading and how do you view what it's saying differently?

First time I see this particular line of reasoning. A 'must' is always implicit in any conclusion. It's included in the 'therefore'. Anselm certainly didn't put any explicit 'must' in his argument.

That being said, I agree with the basic idea. Anselm starts with a premise that contains a hypothetical subjunctive and yet concludes in the imperative.

The weakness of your interpretation is that Anselm does not explicitly use a subjunctive.

Anyway, I've given my own assessment, that Anselm's argument assumes "that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that". So, that's where the illogical step really is in my view. He should have said that a God X that exists is greater than a God Y that's just in the understanding and there you know there's no way to conclude to God X from God Y.

And, Anselm's argument is not the one given in this thread.

The following one, given by Wikipedia, seems much better to me:

Anselm Ontological Argument (reworded)
WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2.God exists as an idea in the mind.
3.A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4.Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6.Therefore, God exists.

Here the flaw is a bit different but there's still a flaw, obviously.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, the flaw in that one is that it recognizes the contradiction in its logic but instead of coming to the conclusion that this means the logic is invalid, it uses that contradiction to say "Therefore, God exists". If they're going to set up the argument like that, they may as well just write it out as:

1. God exists
2. Therefore, God exists

Save themselves the pretend thinking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anselm Ontological Argument (reworded)
WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God equals infinity
2.God exists as an idea in the mind.
Lets restate 1 in another way.
3.A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
If god really exists, that'd be greater than just a god existing in the mind... and books.
4.Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist)
A god that really exists equals infinity, but a larger infinity
5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
But Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!
6.Therefore, God exists.
*sigh*

Yeah, so compelling.

We posit this concept and say it is the greatest thing imaginable... then say in the argument that we can one up on the greatest thing imaginable. That is called bullshit.

1) A=5
2) I like Spain
3) A=3
4) OMG A equals 3 and 5 meaning you can't do math because variables can equal anything!!!

 

[Treedbear]

...
If your argument is "Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all", then it fails, because it assumes that the God in your understanding is not God Himself and yet, we don't actually know that.

Anyway, your last line here points indeed to the weak point in Anselm's argument that he assumes that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that either. So, it's an illogical step in this sense.
EB

My argument is that it's illogical to assume that any God that exists in our understanding is a God as the basis for a proof of the existence of a God in reality. I was less emphatic in my original statement because I thought you were treating the God in understanding as only that, i.e.; merely in one's understanding, because what exists in our minds is based simply on models the mind creates. They are models ... not the actual thing. And they can be quite apart from reality. There aren't even two different Gods. If there is a God in reality you still have one God and one model of a God. You make this far more complex than it needs to be in a seeming effort to accommodate Anshelm into my argument against his. But I'm in no way inclined to agree with the statement "that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that either." He's wrong, because he assumes the one in our understanding is in-and-of-itself a God at all.

 

[Speakpigeon]

...
If your argument is "Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all", then it fails, because it assumes that the God in your understanding is not God Himself and yet, we don't actually know that.

Anyway, your last line here points indeed to the weak point in Anselm's argument that he assumes that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that either. So, it's an illogical step in this sense.
EB

My argument is that it's illogical to assume that any God that exists in our understanding is a God as the basis for a proof of the existence of a God in reality. I was less emphatic in my original statement because I thought you were treating the God in understanding as only that, i.e.; merely in one's understanding, because what exists in our minds is based simply on models the mind creates. They are models ... not the actual thing. And they can be quite apart from reality. There aren't even two different Gods. If there is a God in reality you still have one God and one model of a God. You make this far more complex than it needs to be in a seeming effort to accommodate Anshelm into my argument against his. But I'm in no way inclined to agree with the statement "that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that either." He's wrong, because he assumes the one in our understanding is in-and-of-itself a God at all.

But I don't know how you could prove that. How could you prove that a god in your understanding is not really a god?

So, I think it just leaves the one flaw in Anselm's argument that he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove.

You're in the same situation, you and Anselm. You can't prove your assumption.

At the end of the day, we should accept both that we cannot prove that God exists and that we cannot prove that God does not exist. Is that a problem?
EB

 

[Treedbear]

My argument is that it's illogical to assume that any God that exists in our understanding is a God as the basis for a proof of the existence of a God in reality. I was less emphatic in my original statement because I thought you were treating the God in understanding as only that, i.e.; merely in one's understanding, because what exists in our minds is based simply on models the mind creates. They are models ... not the actual thing. And they can be quite apart from reality. There aren't even two different Gods. If there is a God in reality you still have one God and one model of a God. You make this far more complex than it needs to be in a seeming effort to accommodate Anshelm into my argument against his. But I'm in no way inclined to agree with the statement "that the two Gods, the one in reality and the one in the understanding are necessarily the same, and we don't actually know that either." He's wrong, because he assumes the one in our understanding is in-and-of-itself a God at all.

But I don't know how you could prove that. How could you prove that a god in your understanding is not really a god?

So, I think it just leaves the one flaw in Anselm's argument that he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove.

You're in the same situation, you and Anselm. You can't prove your assumption.

At the end of the day, we should accept both that we cannot prove that God exists and that we cannot prove that God does not exist. Is that a problem?
EB

Except that I'm not now or ever was in this thread trying to prove either of those things, and Anshelm is. He makes a bad assumption. So yeah, I'd accept your proposition. It is all I was ever saying. But it's you who seem to be the one making the assumption that the God in your understanding qualifies as an actual God when you say "he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove". It's not a matter of proving they are the same because you first have to prove the one in your understanding is actually a God.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But I don't know how you could prove that. How could you prove that a god in your understanding is not really a god?

So, I think it just leaves the one flaw in Anselm's argument that he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove.

You're in the same situation, you and Anselm. You can't prove your assumption.

At the end of the day, we should accept both that we cannot prove that God exists and that we cannot prove that God does not exist. Is that a problem?
EB

Except that I'm not now or ever was in this thread trying to prove either of those things, and Anshelm is. He makes a bad assumption. So yeah, I'd accept your proposition. It is all I was ever saying. But it's you who seem to be the one making the assumption that the God in your understanding qualifies as an actual God when you say "he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove". It's not a matter of proving they are the same because you first have to prove the one in your understanding is actually a God.

No. I'm not claiming that a god in one's understanding could be a god at all. I just don't know that it couldn't be the case.

I do assume that it's what Anselm meant but of course I can't be sure of that. It's just that it's the only way I can see for Anselm's argument to make sense.

If there is a god at all, he could, for all I know, choose my understanding as his adobe. Since I don't actually know that gods don't exist, it might be the case that there is one and that he is within my understanding. Even so, I wouldn't know that it would be the same god as another possible god that would be outside my understanding.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, and if the Flash wanted to make you late for work, he could zip into your house and hide the car keys between the couch cushions. Since you don't know that the Flash doesn't exist and this is something that he potentially has the power to do, you can't rule it out and therefore need to keep it as a viable possibility up there with other possibilities like they fell out of your pocket while you were watching TV.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ya, and if the Flash wanted to make you late for work, he could zip into your house and hide the car keys between the couch cushions. Since you don't know that the Flash doesn't exist and this is something that he potentially has the power to do, you can't rule it out and therefore need to keep it as a viable possibility up there with other possibilities like they fell out of your pocket while you were watching TV.

That Flash, if he exists, is the largest douche I can imagine...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But a great douche in reality would be much douchier than a douche you can only imagine.

Therefore, the Flash exists.