Ontological arguement

[Elemek]

Here's my summary of the ontological arguement. "God must exist, because if he didn't, he wouldn't be God, now would he?"

[pearlgirl]

[AshtonBlack]

Circular logic is circular.

"SpoggleWassits exist, because they wouldn't be SpoggleWassits if they didn't."

[Matthew Shute]

Indeed. We could make up lots of words with definitions that include "existence".

Uggolbog, n: an existent city-sized elephant-like creature with pink tentacles and razor-sharp talons, hovering above Bristol.

An uggolbog must exist, otherwise it wouldn't be an uggolbog.

[AshtonBlack]

Indeed. We could make up lots of words with definitions that include "existence".

Uggolbog, n: an existent city-sized elephant-like creature with pink tentacles and razor-sharp talons, hovering above Bristol.

An uggolbog must exist, otherwise it wouldn't be an uggolbog.

I'm scared. I'm only an hour's drive from Bristol. Not the Uggolbog!!!! SAVE THE CHEESE!!!! THEN SAVE YOURSELF!!!!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The ontological argument is slightly more complex than that. (But not much!)

Basically summarised: -

If there is a god, he is, by definition, perfect in every way.
If he did not exist, he would be less than perfect.
Therefore, he exists.

The first lemma is why it does not apply to squaaags, knoofleeps and levitating elephants. There is nothing in their definition that says they are perfect (and if there were, they would merely be god by another name.)

The argument breaks down on a number of levels. Most basically, on the point that who is to say that existence is better than non-existence? There are dozens of other refutations - Wikipedia list half a dozen of the best known.

[Clinton Huxley]

The ontological argument is slightly more complex than that. (But not much!)

Basically summarised: -

If there is cheese, it is, by definition, perfect in every way.
If cheese did not exist, it would be less than perfect.
Therefore, cheese exists.

Fixed......

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The ontological argument is slightly more complex than that. (But not much!)

Basically summarised: -

If there is cheese, Omnomnomnomnomnomnom

Fixed......

[Elemek]

More seriously, I have seen an argument, I believe from a philosopher named Plantinga. He argued that the Ontological arguement only applies to God. He imagined a concievable world that included a maximally great being. Somehow I don't understand, he concluded that such a being must exist in every concievable universe, including our own. I'll allow that for now. He also argued that maximally great tigers and unicorns don't count, because a maximally great tiger does not have properties that would allow it to exist in every concievable universe, such as a universe that is only a singularity. Great, I say. I argue that any concievable maximally great being, such as God, is likewise bereft of the properties that would allow it to exist in every universe. I am basing this on something I read in a Michio Kaku book (parallel worlds, I believe) so if your physics-Fu is stonger, please help me out. A universe can be so cold that any kind of information exchange would be impossible, including thought. An omniscient being could not exist in such a universe. So if god cannot exist in every concievable world, you cannot rely on the concept of maximal greatness to conclude it exists in our universe. 

[RuleBritannia]

I like Douglas Gasking's argument best:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its 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 an existent creator we can conceive a greater being —
namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I like Douglas Gasking's argument best:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its 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 an existent creator we can conceive a greater being —
namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

I like that one too.

[MissingNo.]

My counter-argument:

1. Perfection can be defined as a lack of flaws.
2. Something which does not exist has no properties, including flaws.
3. God does not exist.

[MrFungus420]

More seriously, I have seen an argument, I believe from a philosopher named Plantinga. He argued that the Ontological arguement only applies to God.

That's a standard tactic. It's called special pleading.

Basically, it's declaring a universal rule, and then making an exception for God that negates the validity of the original, universal rule.

It is most often seen when trying to use a "conplexity" argument for the exstence of a god.

[MissingNo.]

More seriously, I have seen an argument, I believe from a philosopher named Plantinga. He argued that the Ontological arguement only applies to God.

That's a standard tactic. It's called special pleading.

Basically, it's declaring a universal rule, and then making an exception for God that negates the validity of the original, universal rule.

It is most often seen when trying to use a "conplexity" argument for the exstence of a god.

Haha, I love that one.

"The universe is so complex! It needs a creator!"

"But wouldn't the creator need to be more complex than the universe its creating? Wouldn't the creator need a creator of its own?"

"But God doesn't need a creator!"

[Elemek]

More seriously, I have seen an argument, I believe from a philosopher named Plantinga. He argued that the Ontological arguement only applies to God.

That's a standard tactic. It's called special pleading.

Basically, it's declaring a universal rule, and then making an exception for God that negates the validity of the original, universal rule.

It is most often seen when trying to use a "conplexity" argument for the exstence of a god.

I agree, and was trying to specifically address that exception. In my mind, omnipotence would only allow phisically permissable actions. If god's existance becomes impermissable, then no mete wordplay can save him.