Disprove the Ontological Argument
Posted on: September 6, 2008 - 6:36pm
Offline
Disprove the Ontological Argument
I'm finally in a formal philosophy class, and our first goal is to write a paper on the Ontological Argument:
1. We can conceive of something that is the "greatest."
2. Existing adds to "greatness", while not existing takes away from "greatness"
3. Since God is the "greatest", God must exist.
I think this argument is complete and utter bullshit, and I highlighted this in my paper with
1. We can conceive of something that is the "smelliest"
2. One cannot be smelly if one does not exist.
3. Since the troll under the bridge in the billy-goat gruff story is the "smelliest", he must exist.
- Login to post comments
Nobody defends the OA anymore, and everyone has their own refutation. It's like a fun word game. Here's one of mine:
(1) The moment I attempt to conceive of a being that no greater can be conceived, I can then conceive of a still greater being
(2) By (1) it follows that I can never concieve a being that no greater being can be conceived
(3) By (2) it follows that the first premise of the OA is internally contradictory
To me, the sentence "concieve of a being greater than any which can be concieved" is somewhat like asking me to "concieve of a number that no greater can be concieved". The moment I concieve of such a being (or number) I can immediately concieve of a being which is greater than the being I just concieved. This makes P1 of OA false.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Quick and dirty:
Subjective imagination has no bearing on objective reality, save through the actions of the thinking being. When someone learns how to build a God than which no greater God can be conceived, I'll check back with the Ontological Argument and see where I stand.
Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.
Funny philosophy. Hey, as simple as this sounds, "god is everything" period, including whatever can be "imagined". G-o-d, the unmeasurable infinite eternal comes to mind. In this sense, isn't that why when a story buddha was asked about god, he laughed and simply said "who cares ..... we have impotant things to think about instead of day dreaming endlessly about the unanswerable." Pretty cool folklore.
Atheism Books.
If that which can be imagined *must* be true, then Superman is real.
Even when I *was* a theist, this argument didn't cut much ice with me.
Conor
this might be the worst arguement for a god. I like Douglas Gaskings parody of it.
1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable
2. The Merit of an acheivement is the product of (a) its instrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of the creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of a existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God who did not exist
Ergo:
7. God does not exist
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens
Paraphrasing we get:
1. That which is the greatest is imaginary
2. Something can be the greatest iff it exists
3. God is the greatest
Therefore God must exist
The conclusion is a naked assertion.
This argument is also invalid because the greatest is imaginary and doesn't exist.
Also, the word 'greatest' is equivocal. The greatest in what way? In power, benevolence, size?
In premise 1, is what is imagined being the greatest the same greatness attributed to god?
1. The smelliest is imaginary
2. Something can be the smelliest iff it exists
3. The troll is the smelliest
Therefore the troll is imaginary
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Yep, superman is g-o-d too ! All you can imagine is g-o-d. I am of course playing the word game of "irony", I think it's called .... Say god I laugh, say religion I frown.
Atheism Books.
My professor clarified the argument a bit today.
1. God is the greatest idea which can possibly be conceived (by any measure).
2. Assume god does not exist.
3. If you can think of something, you can think of something "more perfect" if you also conceive of it existing. For example, thinking about having a million dollars when you do not is not as "perfect" as thinking you have a million dollars when you do.
4. From 3 and 2 we can conclude that god does not exist, and is the greatest thing which can be conceived.
Contradiction: The god you conceive cannot be the greatest thing conceivable because it would be greater to conceive of a god that is the greatest and also exists.
Therefore: Proposition 2 is false.
However, in class I attacked proposition 1 and 3. What if existence is a negative quality? In that case, god would be "greater" if he did not exist. And also, is it really possible to have something which is "the greatest thing that can be conceived?"
The biggest problem is it confuses "great in concept" with "great in reality. "
One good equivalent I saw was in (I think) "God is Not Great. "
1. The universe is the greatest thing there is
2. the greater the creation the greaer the creator
3. God must be the greatest creator there is
4. The greater the handicap of a creator the greater he is for the same creation (ie a blind painter would be considered greater than a sighted one who did an equivalent painting, and a blind one with no arms or legs greater still. )
5. Non existence is the greatest handicap possible
6. The greatest possible creator would be one who created the universe while not existing (from 1, 2, 4 and 5. )
7. Therefore, from 3 and 6, god must not exist.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
My criticism is that "great" and "perfect" are both subjective terms. And according to this argument, if proposed to me, God would look like Serena Williams. Or Scarlett Johansenn, depending on my mood.
Unless "great" just refers to size, in which deluded God's response is perfect. Bah. It's such a lame argument, whoever thought of it deserves a bad ear infection, with the vertigo and the unsteadiness.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
Exactly. Religious apologists create these obscure arguments to delude from the obvious fact that everything in terms of "great" is entirely subjective.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
If it is a matter of scale, then even its own logic wouldn't follow, since existing rather than not existing doesn't add to its dimensions. The hypothetical thing doesn't become bigger or smaller contingent on its actuality. This is simultaneously the glaring weakness and central premise of the actual argument, though, and applied to a qualitative "greatness" or perfection, is still tipped over on the launch pad.
The irony being they appeal to human emotions while philosophically trying to write them out of the picture. So you get self-contradictory ideas like objective morality and ultimate meaning.
How about: Conceive in one hand and shit in the other and see which one makes people say "Oh God!" first.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
Bleh.
Double bleh.
I guess there's nothing wrong with this. It seems a more difficult way to go, though. You're going to have to answer the question, "What does 'negative existence' mean?" Also, where does this scale of greatness come from?
All you really need to do to defeat proposition 1 is say, "Fine. I conceive of "Godness" plus one. For any creature exhibiting any degree of "godness" there is the existence of godness plus one. It is the burden of the person proposing (1) to demonstrate the necessity of an endpoint to this apparently endless increase of godness.
There's a neat equivocation in this. Perfect can be used two ways. If you take a test and get all the answers exactly right, you have acheived a perfect score. However, if you get only one question wrong, even in the slightest way, your test score is imperfect. Ninety percent is not "more perfect" than eighty percent. It's closer to perfection. On a scale with an endpoint, there are only two states with regard to perfection. Perfection and imperfection. It's binary. One or zero. On or off.
On the other hand, there are some scales that do not have ends. Numbers are a perfect example. For any number, I can conceive of N+1 or N-1, and so extend numbers without end in either direction. On such a scale, there is no such thing as perfect in the way it was used in the previous example. There is only greater and lesser.
Insist that "perfect" be defined as either existing on a scale with an endpoint or an endless scale. The two are not the same, and should not be used interchangably in an argument.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Alright, our class utterly destroyed the ontological argument, but my professor still insists that it is "the most powerful argument for God ever conceived." This is true. Let me clarify this: the Ontological Argument is the only argument for god that is apriori, so it can never be refuted by science or experience (if and only if it is true, though). The argument is full of so many holes and undefined terms that I would never take it seriously though.
Now we are on Thomas Aquinas and doing the Cosmological Argument. The cosmological argument is so ridiculously bad that when the professor laid it out for us, we couldn't help but laugh.
Cosmological Argument number 3:
1. Obviously, things exist today that are dependent upon other things.
2. Things that are dependent upon other things must have a point at which they did not exist.
3. Assume all things in the universe are contingent upon other things.
4. Therefore there must have been a time in which everything ceased to exist.
5. If something ceases to exist, then it ceases to exist forever.
6. Therefore, nothing exists, because everything ceased to exist in the past.
6!. This is a contradiction! It is obvious that things exist!
7. Therefore 3 is false. There must be at least one "necessary thing".
8. There cannot be an infinite chain of necessary things, because that would make all things contingent and 4, 5, and 6 would come into effect.
9. Therefore there must be one and only one necessary thing that does not have a cause.
10. Since all things in the universe are contingent, then the universe is contingent too. This means the universe is not a necessary thing.
11. The necessary thing must be outside of the universe (supernatural).
12. Everyone understands this necessary thing to be God.
13. God Exists.
YUCK!!
2. Is a faulty assuption.
6. Is an obvious absurdity.
8. There are no grounds for this claim.
10. Is a fallacy of composition.
11. Is an appeal to magic.
12. Is an argument ad populum
13. Is a non-sequiter.
Friendly tip, theotherguy:
Learn to spell "non sequitur" correctly. It's a phrase you're going to be using quite a lot when discussing "religious philosophy".
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy