A Pair of Ontological Arguments

Nick Embrey writes,

Imagine I’m a brilliant and God-loving theologian, and I spend my days contemplating God. I, like Anselm, might come up with something like this:

1. I have a concept of that than which nothing more perfect can be conceived.

2. If this concept merely exists in my head, it is not a concept of that than which nothing more perfect can be conceived, since it can be conceived to exist in reality, and its existing in reality would be more perfect

3. Therefore, this thing exists in reality. We call it God.

If I’m misrepresenting Anselm’s argument, please let me know.

-

Imagine I’m possessed, and the diabolical powers that be are using me to twist proofs of God’s existence. I might say something like this to draw you away from God-loving theologians like Anselm:

1. I have a concept of that than which nothing more destructive*** can be conceived.

2. If this concept merely exists in my head, it is not a concept of that than which nothing more destructive can be conceived, since it can be conceived to exist in reality, and its existing in reality would be more destructive.

3. Therefore, this thing exists in reality. Ultimate evil exists, and is omnipotent.

If you find a problem with this argument, please let me know.

(***Destructive, as far as concerns this post, is defined as “powerful and evil”, or “negative perfection”. I know it’s not a perfect (heheh) word for the job, but it’s the best I could come up with in simple English.)

Posted at 5:36 pm EST on the 14th of February 2008 by N. E. Embrey.

Under Philosophy, Theology

There are 13 replies.
 
  1. Mark The Great says on February 19th, 2008 at 5:30 am

    You are using the weaker form of the argument. There’s a much better form of anselm’s argument.

    P1: A being or thing must fall into one of three categories: Logically necessary, Logically possible, or Logically impossible.

    P2: Our conception of the Greatest Conceivable Being tells us that God cannot be only Logically possible (contingent on another being).

    P3: God is, as far as we know, not a Logically Impossible idea or being.
    Therefore, God is Logically Necessary and exists.

  2. Cosmo says on February 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Ehhh. I’m not sure that works very well. I mean, given that the first premise is true, let me add some things to it:

    First, everything that does not exist is logically impossible

    Second, if God does not exist, he is not logically possible.

    (It is thus far not determined whether God is logically possible or not.)

  3. John R. Ahern says on February 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    No such thing as a third premiss in a syllogism. 2 premisses, and a conclusion.

    Thought I’d add to this conversation, which is materially waaaay above my head.

  4. Mark says on February 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    You haven’t established how it doesn’t work. You just restated what I said.

  5. Cosmo says on February 20th, 2008 at 2:34 am

    But… arguing strictly from the premises, how can you prove that God is *not* logically impossible?

  6. Mark The Great says on February 20th, 2008 at 2:50 am

    Well, Nick, feel free to positively disprove God’s existence. If you do, then I will concede the point. By positively disproving, I mean making an argument that shows that the idea of God is self-contradictory. Not knocking down an argument that purports to prove God’s existence.

  7. Mark The Great says on February 20th, 2008 at 2:51 am

    Oh, and John, I never said that I was making a syllogistic argument. :)

  8. Cosmo says on February 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Let’s step back to your first argument.

    P1: A being or thing must fall into one of three categories: Logically necessary, Logically possible, or Logically impossible.

    Okay. so God has to be one of these three things. And let’s assume, as you say, that God can’t be *only* logically possible.

    So God is either logically necessary or logically impossible. That’s as far as I get. How do you show that he’s one or the other?

  9. Mark The Great says on February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Well, Nick, there isn’t a positive proof for the logical impossibility of God. If there was, this whole discussion would be futile.

    You’ll notice that most atheistic arguments are either inductive, or refutations of theistic arguments. The only argument that claims to positively deductively refute the existence of God is the Deductive version of the Problem of Evil. This argument is not used much any more, as it has been shown to be invalid.

    I may be committing the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) logical fallacy, but I don’t think I am. There have been several atheistic philosophers through the ages who have attempted to outlaw the existence of God, you being one of them Nick (though I suspect that you are playing “Devils Advocate”). No one’s succeeded in bringing forth a deductive proof. I think that this is enough to say that I am not committing the Appeal to Ignorance.

  10. Cosmo says on February 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    I think you may be appealing to ignorance. You’re saying that because nobody’s proved that God doesn’t exist — because all the arguments for the nonexistence of God are invalid — we can toss out the idea that God is logically impossible. Ergo, God must exist.

    If (as I think) practically all — if not all — of the arguments *for* the existence of God are invalid, doesn’t that make an equally compelling case against the existence of God?

  11. Mark says on February 21st, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    The appeal to ignorance only occurs when you make a statement like, “We have never had proof that astrology is false, therefore it is true.”

    The following argument does not committ the fallacy, “Scientists have searched for evidence of the aether. They have never found such evidence. We may conclude that the aether does not exist.” In this case, qualified individuals have gone through a rigourous study and not found the object.

    Replace scientists with philosophers and replace the aether with the proof for the non-existance of God.

    Nick, you’re getting of the subject with that last comment, a red herring fallacy, I believe. I don’t need to, in fact, shouldn’t, have a premise in my argument for God stating that it is proven that God exists. That’s circular reasoning.

    To knock down the argument, you need to show that the idea of God is logically impossible. If you can, please do.

    Most logically contradictory ideas are quite obvious and uncovered quickly, (ie, a square circle). Historically, logically contradictory ideas have been exposed for what they are within, say, a century of their conception, (ie, Logical Positivism). The idea of God does not have anything in it that is like that.

    Again, if you have a positive proof, which is what the argument requires, please present it.

  12. Cosmo says on February 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    So Mark, you’re saying there’s not a shred of philosophical evidence that there isn’t a God?

    I agree.

    However, I also think there’s not a shred of scientific of philosophical evidence that God does exist. This is all part of my comprehensive philosophy of believing that there’s not a shred of philosophical evidence for anything. So, the question is…

    Are you ready to take on the awesome power of Hume’s favorite godchild? Me?

  13. Mark says on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    You are committing the Straw Man fallacy now, Nick. :).

    I am saying no such thing. The inductive Problem of Evil, for example, is quite powerful.

    I am saying that the concept of a God is not a self-contradictory idea.

    You’re related to Hume? Maybe that explains it… *g*