Ontological arguement

[pcCoder]

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.

A couple of other problems I can see, and I'm guess they've been mentioned a million times before.

If there is a god, he is, by definition, perfect in every way.

While this statement does not say that their is a god, it does state that the god is by definition perfect if it exists. Therefore the statement is void if a god does not exist.

If he did not exist, he would be less than perfect.

So what? It doesn't matter if it would be less than perfect if it does not exist, simply because it only has to be perfect by definition if it it exists. Furthermore, if it does not exist, it would not be less than perfect because it would not be at all.

The argument seems to assume that there must existing something that is perfect. For me the argument fails because it has not been shown that anything perfect must exist and for that matter that there is even such a thing as perfect.

It would be like me defining a squircle as a three dimensional object with 6 sides and 8 corners, and every point on the surface an equal distance from the center. I can define a squircle as such, that does not mean it exists. They can define god as perfect and existence as more perfect than non-existence, that does not mean a god exists. It's just word games.



Anyway, all you evil aleprechaunists know the Truth:

Leprechauns, by definition, are green.
If leprechauns did not exist, they would be less green.
Leprechauns exist.

[FBM]

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.

Ugg. I first read that as "pink testicles".

[Arcanyn]

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.)

It can be applied to levitating elephants, with no need for them to be perfect.

Let's say that Zob is defined as the maximally uggolbog-like being; there can be no being more uggolbog-like than Zob. Now if Zob does not exist, it is possible to conceive of a being more uggolbog-like than he, namely one that does exist. But that then would contradict our definition of Zob as being the most uggolbog-like being conceivable. Hence, there is an uggolbog, and his name is Zob.

[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.)

It can be applied to levitating elephants, with no need for them to be perfect.

Let's say that Zob is defined as the maximally uggolbog-like being; there can be no being more uggolbog-like than Zob. Now if Zob does not exist, it is possible to conceive of a being more uggolbog-like than he, namely one that does exist. But that then would contradict our definition of Zob as being the most uggolbog-like being conceivable. Hence, there is an uggolbog, and his name is Zob.

Why do we need to prove the existence of Zob? Surely we all feel her in our farts? Isn't that proof enough?

[A Monkey Shaved]

I have read up of so many of these ontological arguments and it is all gibberish to me and I do not know why I bother, especially with some of those ridiculous conclusions its proponents use in syllogisms.

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality.

[tytalus]

pcCoder summed up my objection to the ontological argument, and I think it's one of those mentioned on its wiki page. Making 'existence' a quality of 'perfection' doesn't follow. In the end, it's just another attempt to define some god-concept into existence. It sure is a shame that believers like Plantinga don't have any credible evidence to point to, and instead must rely on such rhetorical tomfoolery.

[Oldskeptic]

The ontological argument is simply defining God into existence while using a lot of words to make it sound intelligent.

[RuleBritannia]

The ontological argument is simply defining God into existence while using a lot of words to make it sound intelligent.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

[Animavore]

Doesn't this fall flat on its face because perfection is totally subjective?

I had an argument with a creationist friend of mine once. He was trying to explain The Fall.

Him: Before the fall everything was perfect.
Me: What do you mean "perfect"? Define it.
Him: It was "perfect".
Me. I don't get you. What is perfect? Perfect for me may not be the same as for you.
Him: It is perfect for anyone living in the Garden of Eden.
Me: Did Adam and Eve experience the garden differently based on their taste.
(he thinks about it for a few seconds)
Him (flatly): Yes.
Me: What do you mean "yes"? I just made that up and you're just saying "yes".
Him: Well perfect is perfect.
Me: The perfect ice-cream to me is not the same as for you.

...and so on. I had to bite my lip to stop myself from laughing at the quandaries he was getting himself into.