The OA: General Thoughts

[robrecht]

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.

Then we would be abandoning the realm of an ontological proof and attempting to construct a cosmological proof. The objection to a modern cosmological approach is always some form of the universe could be a cause of itself. A more classical cosmological approach that would entertain an idea of final causality, is really a kind of hybrid proof entertaining implicit goodness oriented toward ultimate good. It works for Aristotelians but not for modern worldviews.

[Paprika]

To me, that is a much less important (counter-)argument.

As you will. My point that it is a hole in the logic which needs to be established if the argument is to be made valid.

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.

That is not the point. The point is that many ontological arguments tacitly assumes that a chain of possible greater and greater beings, whether in reality or in the imagination must terminate with a greatest person. It isn't necessarily so.

[robrecht]

As you will. My point that it is a hole in the logic which needs to be established if the argument is to be made valid.

That is not the point. The point is that many ontological arguments tacitly assumes that a chain of possible greater and greater beings, whether in reality or in the imagination must terminate with a greatest person. It isn't necessarily so.

I think we just view it differently.

[Theistic-Student]

So basically, this argument begs the question and "maximal greatness" is not clarified?

[Theistic-Student]

Can some one lay out ontological argument in simple terms?

The simplest version I've heard given by one of its proponents would be a formulation by Peter Williams.

1. If it is possible that God exist, then God exist (the assumption here, like other versions is that God is a Necessarily existing being)
2. It is possible that God exist (I imagine some supporting points would be given here)
3. Therefore he exist.

So the basic issue in this version and also in Plantinga''s is the issue of whether or not God is possible. Any help?

[Carrikature]

So basically, this argument begs the question and "maximal greatness" is not clarified?

There's no begged question. It's more or less this form:


P1: God is the greatest thing.
P2: Being is greater than non-being.
C1: The greatest thing must exist (P2).
C2: God must exist (P1, P2, C1).

If you accept both P1 and P2, great. They're not premises that non-Christians generally accept. Without them, the argument is useless.

[seer]

The simplest version I've heard given by one of its proponents would be a formulation by Peter Williams.

1. If it is possible that God exist, then God exist (the assumption here, like other versions is that God is a Necessarily existing being)
2. It is possible that God exist (I imagine some supporting points would be given here)
3. Therefore he exist.

So the basic issue in this version and also in Plantinga''s is the issue of whether or not God is possible. Any help?

Yes, thanks

[Truthseeker]

A reason to accept that there is a greatest thing is that the alternative is, there is no greatest thing. I cannot believe that. Of course a hole in that argument is that "greatness" needs to be defined.

[robrecht]

A reason to accept that there is a greatest thing is that the alternative is, there is no greatest thing. I cannot believe that. Of course a hole in that argument is that "greatness" needs to be defined.

There is no greatest thing, because God is not a thing, meaning not an object/person/entity of our awareness like any other object of our awareness and he or his greatness cannot be defined. In my opinion, and that of lots of other good guys over the centuries. Any god whose existence we can prove is not really God.

[Truthseeker]

I see as one of the central problems of such arguments the implicit assumption that there exists a maximum, in this case a maximum of 'excellence' of whatever. Consider say the set of positive integers. There is always a positive integer greater than a specified one, thys there is no greatest positive integer.

Anselm in his arguments assumes that there is a being with maximum greatness or excellence or whatever. That there exists a maximum has to be shown.

Perhaps not necessary. We can accept the set of positive integers even though we can't realize the greatest positive integer. Similarly, we can accept something that is infinite in some way as God.

[Paprika]

Perhaps not necessary. We can accept the set of positive integers even though we can't realize the greatest positive integer. Similarly, we can accept something that is infinite in some way as God.

If all you can do is 'we can accept' the proof loses force, since one can "not accept" it.

[Carrikature]

If all you can do is 'we can accept' the proof loses force, since one can "not accept" it.

That was my point with 'reasonable' as 'good enough'.

[Paprika]

That was my point with 'reasonable' as 'good enough'.

[Truthseeker]

Some atheists are folks who reject any argument for the existence of God or refuse to accept any definition of "God." I think just shake the dust off our shoes and go on to other places.

[Paprika]

Some atheists are folks who reject any argument for the existence of God or refuse to accept any definition of "God." I think just shake the dust off our shoes and go on to other places.

I'm no atheist. That doesn't mean that I uncritically accept any and every logical argument for "God".