The OA: General Thoughts

[robrecht]

Neo-Platonic assumptions are almost universal and central with the monotheistic beliefs in God, ie Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Baha'i beliefs, the assumption of the universal 'One' or 'The Good'. Unfortunately it severely 'Begs the Question' in a logical argument, because the conclusion is the same as the priori assumption by definition.

That is not the Neo-Platonic assumption that I am thinking of here, but rather the extra-mental reality of Ideas.

With respect to the 'begging the question' some defenders of the ontological 'argument' would freely admit this and say that the existence of God is a self-evident 'perception' of the intellect and not actually intended as a logical argument.

[LaplacesDemon]

I like it. I like the new modal one by Plantinga. The most accessible discussion of it is in reasonable faith , by William Lane Craig.
Its not definitive proof of God , but its reasonable to accept the premises so its reasonable to accept the conclusion

[Paprika]

I like it. I like the new modal one by Plantinga. The most accessible discussion of it is in reasonable faith , by William Lane Craig.
Its not definitive proof of God , but its reasonable to accept the premises so its reasonable to accept the conclusion

Does Plantinga address the problem of the existence of the maximum?

The first premise is:

1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.

Is greatness necessarily upper-bounded? How does Plantinga rule out the possibility that greatness has no maximum like the positive integers?

[robrecht]

Does Plantinga address the problem of the existence of the maximum?

The first premise is:
Is greatness necessarily upper-bounded? How does Plantinga rule out the possibility that greatness has no maximum like the positive integers?

I'm not convinced this is necessarily a problem. It is possible I suppose that Anselm considered 'that than which no greater can be conceived' as a finite maximum, but I doubt that. At least he does not say that. What is limited is only that which we can conceive. God is greater than that, but not necessarily limited to a finite greatness.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the Neo-Platonic assumption that I am thinking of here, but rather the extra-mental reality of Ideas.

I simplified it as Jews, Christians and Muslims used the assumption, which is not much different. The main assumption would be something like that an ultimate apophatic Source of everything that exists, which in terms of the argument it is the ultimate 'One,' or maybe the '

With respect to the 'begging the question' some defenders of the ontological 'argument' would freely admit this and say that the existence of God is a self-evident 'perception' of the intellect and not actually intended as a logical argument.

The what is the purpose of the 'Ontological Argument' if it is not a logical argument? Likely nothing more then a boastful statement of faith.

[robrecht]

I simplified it as Jews, Christians and Muslims used the assumption, which is not much different. The main assumption would be something like that an ultimate apophatic Source of everything that exists, which in terms of the argument it is the ultimate 'One,' or maybe the '

Did you leave something out here?

The what is the purpose of the 'Ontological Argument' if it is not a logical argument? Likely nothing more then a boastful statement of faith.

I suppose those who hold such a view would believe the purpose is a clear description of a self-evident truth of their metaphysical/epistemological worldview, but it would be better for you to ask someone who holds such a view.

With respect to myself, my appreciation for the ontological 'argument' or, better, 'approach', is that it brings to light a dynamic that can and should result in an apophatic humility, not arrogance.

[Carrikature]

I like it. I like the new modal one by Plantinga. The most accessible discussion of it is in reasonable faith , by William Lane Craig.
Its not definitive proof of God , but its reasonable to accept the premises so its reasonable to accept the conclusion

I'm very pleased that Christians seem to have settled on 'reasonable' as 'good enough'.

[JimL]

As a young theist with a philosophy interest, I ask my fellow TWeb philosophers for your general thoughts on the ontological argument.
Does it work?
Is is logically valid? Does it beg the question? Is the whole notion just a 'charming joke?'

Those of you who accept it (or even if you just like the idea), what version do you prefer and why?
If you don't accept it, what are the biggest issues you have with it?

Lastly, for Christians, does the idea have any Scriptural merit?

The problem with it, in my opinion, is the assumption that that than which nothing greater can be concieved is in itself a being. Necessary existence need have nothing to do with a being, so there need be no necessarily existent being than that which no greater necessarily existent being can be concieved.

[shunyadragon]

Did you leave something out here?

the 'Good.'

[Carrikature]

The problem with it, in my opinion, is the assumption that that than which nothing greater can be concieved is in itself a being. Necessary existence need have nothing to do with a being, so there need be no necessarily existent being than that which no greater necessarily existent being can be concieved.

The claim is that existence is greater than non-existence. Hence, the greatest possible conception must also exist.

[robrecht]

I simplified it as Jews, Christians and Muslims used the assumption, which is not much different. The main assumption would be something like that an ultimate apophatic Source of everything that exists, which in terms of the argument it is the ultimate 'One,' or maybe 'the Good.'

That's fine, but it is still not the Neo-Platonist assumption I was speaking of above. Yours may not be much different, but it renders the 'proof' entirely circular, which is not the manner in which Anselm was claiming to proceed as far as I can see. He was supposedly willing to consider the fool's proposition that there is no God. To the extent that he begins with a prayer, however, one should not consider this to be all that rigorous. My point is still that those who hold to a Neo-Platonist epistemology are more inclined to find the 'proof' valid or convincing, and very few others.

[Paprika]

I'm not convinced this is necessarily a problem. It is possible I suppose that Anselm considered 'that than which no greater can be conceived' as a finite maximum, but I doubt that. At least he does not say that. What is limited is only that which we can conceive. God is greater than that, but not necessarily limited to a finite greatness.

A similar line of argument would apply: what justifies the coherence of "maximum of greatness that can be imagined"?

[shunyadragon]

A similar line of argument would apply: what justifies the coherence of "maximum of greatness that can be imagined"?

I do not believe it is justified as an argument though it is the belief of theists.

[Truthseeker]

Do you really believe that God can be defined?

One way would be to show a picture of deep space galaxies and say, God is the Creator of the whole universe including us and some of our laws. I admit, though, that is not entirely a satisfactory definition.

[robrecht]

A similar line of argument would apply: what justifies the coherence of "maximum of greatness that can be imagined"?

To me, that is a much less important (counter-)argument. The fundamental insight in this type of approach, as far as I can see, is that we are not able to comprehend an open-ended infinitely good source of all being. I don't think it is important to establish exactly what is the/a maximum greatness that can be imagined in order to acknowledge merely that our intellectual capacity is apparently limited at the present time. If one cannot even acknowledge one's own finite existence and intellectual capacity, no amount of reasoning is going accomplish much with such megalomania.