Defense Of The Ontological Argument

[rkwright]

I've been debating the ontological argument for the past month or so and doing alright...

I've hit an objection on the premise that existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. The other person is saying 'prove it'.

I don't really know what to say other than this is implicit...

Help?

[rkwright]

bump bump.. where are all those philosophers from the other thread??

I responded with this... it seems weak to me but its all I could think of..

Existence in reality necessarily means existence also in
understanding. Therefore the 'thing' in reality has both existence
in reality and existence in understanding. Thus it is greater than
something that only has existence in understanding.

[qfnol31]

What type of proof is he looking for? Yours is a pretty good response and I don't think I could think of anything better.

A rock is always greater by existing than anything we can imagine by virtue of its existence. Through its existence it can make a difference in the world not possible for something only existent in thought.


On a side note, I defeated Anselm's ontological argument in my sleep two years ago...I just can't remember how. I just know I proved him wrong.

[WillT]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1460903' date='Feb 13 2008, 09:59 AM']bump bump.. where are all those philosophers from the other thread??

I responded with this... it seems weak to me but its all I could think of..

Existence in reality necessarily means existence also in
understanding. Therefore the 'thing' in reality has both existence
in reality and existence in understanding. Thus it is greater than
something that only has existence in understanding.[/quote]
The only thing I see here is that I'm not sure that existence in reality would necessarily entail existence in understanding, unless you're a phenomenologist which I don't think you are.

As an example, let's say there is a new germ out there that exists in reality, but is previously unheared of and has never been observed. In this case, the germ's existence in reality does not entail existence in understanding since it has never been observed etc.

With Anselm's ontological argument, you have to remember that it is a priori and therefore meant to appeal to reason alone. If your friend askes you to imagine that God doesn't exist, Anselm's argument says that's like asking someone to imagine a 4-sided triangle. It isn't possible. As soon as you attempt to imagine a non-existant "god" that "god" is no longer the God you were referencing in the first place. I hope that helps some.

[rkwright]

[quote name='WillT' post='1461009' date='Feb 13 2008, 01:02 PM']The only thing I see here is that I'm not sure that existence in reality would necessarily entail existence in understanding, unless you're a phenomenologist which I don't think you are.

As an example, let's say there is a new germ out there that exists in reality, but is previously unheared of and has never been observed. In this case, the germ's existence in reality does not entail existence in understanding since it has never been observed etc.

With Anselm's ontological argument, you have to remember that it is a priori and therefore meant to appeal to reason alone. If your friend askes you to imagine that God doesn't exist, Anselm's argument says that's like asking someone to imagine a 4-sided triangle. It isn't possible. As soon as you attempt to imagine a non-existant "god" that "god" is no longer the God you were referencing in the first place. I hope that helps some.[/quote]

This is a similar response that I got from my uncle (the guy I'm discussing with). He said 'is all reality known' - which is similar to your germ.

A few thoughts, does it matter if the germ hasn't been discovered? I think for it to exist in reality means that it exists in understanding also, or else we would have no way of talking about it. If we know it exists in reality, it must exist in understanding also.

Or.... does it matter that it exists in reality and not in understanding? Something that exists in reality and understanding is greater than something that exists only in reality. The HIV virus is certainly greater than the undiscovered virus.

[WillT]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1461037' date='Feb 13 2008, 02:40 PM']This is a similar response that I got from my uncle (the guy I'm discussing with). He said 'is all reality known' - which is similar to your germ.

A few thoughts, does it matter if the germ hasn't been discovered? I think for it to exist in reality means that it exists in understanding also, or else we would have no way of talking about it. If we know it exists in reality, it must exist in understanding also.

Or.... does it matter that it exists in reality and not in understanding? Something that exists in reality and understanding is greater than something that exists only in reality. The HIV virus is certainly greater than the undiscovered virus.[/quote]
It seems to me that it would matter. How can we understand something that we have never discovered? However, I agree that if we know it exists in reality then it would exist in understanding as well since we would at least know one thing about it, viz. that it exists in reality.

Second point: I'm not saying one is greater than the other, just pointing out that existence in reality does not necessarily entail existence in understanding. (At least not human understanding.)

[cathqat]

FWIW, I recommend the book [i]The Ontological Argument: From St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers[/i] edited by Alvin Plantinga. It explores different philosophical perspectives on the argument over time. Very interesting. It's not currently in print, but you can get it used pretty easily through a place like Amazon or Bookfinder.

Here's a brief excerpt from Richard Taylor's introduction:
------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]Richard Taylor, Introduction to Alvin Plantinga, ed., [i]The Ontological Argument[/i], Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1965; the remarks below are from pp. xv-xviii:[/b]

[i]The Transition From Idea to Thing [/i]

Can one, however, fairly pass from the conception of such a being, or its existence[i] in intellectu[/i], to either the affirmation or the denial of its real existence? The possibility of doing so is often dismissed out of hand, which amounts to dismissing the basic feature of the ontological argument.

Yet as a matter of fact all men are perfectly accustomed to making this transition when it comes to [i]denying[/i] the existence [i]in re [/i]of certain things. Thus, from one's clear understanding of what is meant by a plane four-sided figure, all of whose points are equidistant from the center, one can conclude with certainty that no such being exists in reality. The propriety of doing so is never questioned by anyone, and yet it is a clear instance of drawing a conclusion concerning what does or does not exist in reality solely from the clear conception of something in one's understanding. Nor is this a case of "defining something out of existence," which would be the reverse of what St. Anselm is often accused of doing. It is simply a case of showing, solely from the description of a thing, that the thing in question is impossible, and properly concluding from this that it does not, therefore, exist. Critics of the ontological argument who have deemed it obvious that one can never legitimately pass from the mere description of something to any conclusion concerning the existence in reality of the thing described have simply failed to note that this is not only a legitimate inference but a very common one when it is the non-existence of something that is inferred. One might maintain that God's existence cannot be proved by a consideration of the concept of God, but one cannot do so on the ground that no conclusions concerning what exists can be derived solely from our conceptions of things, for that is not true . . .

[i]God as a Necessary Being [/i]

It seemed to St. Anselm that the idea of impossible non-existence, or better, necessary existence, is also perfectly comprehensible. It is but the corollary of the foregoing, though he did not put it in these terms. We can apply this notion to anything that exists by its very nature, in case the clear conception of such a thing can be formed. One can form a clear conception of God, conceived as the supreme being, or a being of such greatness that none greater can either be or be conceived. St. Anselm had no doubt that such a being exists [i]in intellectu[/i], for anyone but a fool can understand a clear description of God, though of course no one can comprehend such a being any more than he can comprehend the idea of a square circle. And from one's understanding of it one can, it was clear to St. Anselm, be certain that such a being exists [i]in re[/i]. It is eternally and ubiquitously existent, and cannot fail to exist anywhere or at any time. For the proof of this, St. Anselm maintained, one need not find such a being; one need not go beyond the conception of it. God is not thereby defined into existence, any more than square circles are defined out of existence, for He can no more [i]gain[/i] existence than a square circle can lose it. Nor does one need, in proving the existence of such a being, surreptitiously to slip into one's proof the premise that it exists. Its existence is perfectly evident to anyone who really understands what is being described, and only a fool, St. Anselm said, or one who has no clear understanding of what is meant by God can fail to believe in Him.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/07/ontological-argument-for-gods-existence.html"]Read more excerpts from the book here.[/url]

Edited February 15, 2008 by cathqat

[rkwright]

My uncle has been arguing around the premise "For if it(God) exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater."

It took a while to get to this point but I asked him "This all comes to a question, is it conceivable that God exists in
reality? Is there any reason why it would be impossible for Him to exist in reality?"

He said "NO, you can to conceive of a God that exists. You only think you can." - I think theres a typo there, it should be 'cannot'.

My first reaction is 'that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard'. Nearly everything we conceive, we conceive as existing. The only reason why you cannot conceive of something existing is if its a logical impossibility, a 4 sided triangle.

So any more help on this?

[WillT]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1464245' date='Feb 16 2008, 12:50 PM']My uncle has been arguing around the premise "For if it(God) exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater."

It took a while to get to this point but I asked him "This all comes to a question, is it conceivable that God exists in
reality? Is there any reason why it would be impossible for Him to exist in reality?"

He said "NO, you can to conceive of a God that exists. You only think you can." - I think theres a typo there, it should be 'cannot'.

My first reaction is 'that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard'. Nearly everything we conceive, we conceive as existing. The only reason why you cannot conceive of something existing is if its a logical impossibility, a 4 sided triangle.

So any more help on this?[/quote]
Well, if he's thinking of a non-existant god, then he's not thinking of the God we are. God IS existence. Remember how He reveals Himself to Moses? I AM. That's all. Existence. Of course, later revelations will reveal more of God, but that is another topic. As soon as he conceves of God as not existing, you two are no longer speaking of the same thing.

[rkwright]

[quote name='WillT' post='1464462' date='Feb 16 2008, 06:42 PM']Well, if he's thinking of a non-existant god, then he's not thinking of the God we are. God IS existence. Remember how He reveals Himself to Moses? I AM. That's all. Existence. Of course, later revelations will reveal more of God, but that is another topic. As soon as he conceves of God as not existing, you two are no longer speaking of the same thing.[/quote]

Well the proof starts out with the assumption God exists in the understanding alone. I realize God IS existence, thats at the bottom of the proof. But we;re not that far into it.

[WillT]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1464531' date='Feb 16 2008, 11:24 PM']Well the proof starts out with the assumption God exists in the understanding alone. I realize God IS existence, thats at the bottom of the proof. But we;re not that far into it.[/quote]
Ahhh. Ok. You two are going point by point then. His question makes more sense now.

Ok, is he saying God can not exist in the understanding? Because I think he would be right to a point. We can not conceive of God in totality, therefore He does not not totaly exist in the understanding. The proof, however, does not need this to be the case.

[rkwright]

[quote name='WillT' post='1464571' date='Feb 17 2008, 12:16 AM']Ahhh. Ok. You two are going point by point then. His question makes more sense now.

Ok, is he saying God can not exist in the understanding? Because I think he would be right to a point. We can not conceive of God in totality, therefore He does not not totaly exist in the understanding. The proof, however, does not need this to be the case.[/quote]

He's saying you can't conceive of God existing in reality.

This is what he said which sums up his thoughts.

So the logic of the proof does not work for either. The real question that started this was can you construct a logical argument to prove God. Since the premise has the word “plus” in it (plus means “to add”) there must be and X to add to. An X “+” a Y. For you, X=0, for me Y=0, either way, the premise is flawed thus the proof is flawed.

The premise he is refering to is this...

A being having all of God's properties plus existence can be conceived.

Now I doubt he has in his mind the whole Kant 'existence is not a real property' idea (though he implicitly makes this argument with the Y=0). Lets assume hes not saying that...

Heres a big example I gave him...

I'll give you another example. If there is an error point it out.
A movie (discounting documentaries and based on true events movies) is merely a conceiving of something that exists in reality. It asks you to take in everything and assume that they exist in reality. Let's take Top Gun. It asks you 'imagine a fighter pilot that attends Top Gun and then breaks down'. To make things clear, Maverick does not exist in real life. He is a made up character; thus he exists in the understanding alone. The movie sets up who this character is, it gives you all the qualities. The movie also implicitly asks you to assume he has all the qualities plus existence. Thus we see Maverick on the screen. He is imagined as having existence; that does not mean because he is on the screen he actually exists and is flying jets. Not at all. But we are asked to imagine that he really exists. Now what if the producers says imagine a fighter pilot with all the qualities of Maverick, but he doesn't actually exist. So now we see 'nothing', even though the movie is telling us 'there's a fighter pilot with all these qualities' but there's no one in the the F-14. Top Gun's lead actor becomes Val Kilmer and the movie goes on to smell of elderberries forever.

Take the example and replace Maverick with anything you want. It still works. To contrast that, one more quick example.

Producers say 'lets make a fighter pilot movie with the main character as a man whose fully black and fully white at the same time'. Director says 'wha.. thats impossible, I can't conceive of such a thing existing in reality.' Producer - 'You understand what I'm saying right?' Director - Yes you want a fully black and fully white man. But I cannot conceive of this thing existing in reality. Its impossible. Its a 4 sided Triangle.

These are the only two options. God must be one of them. He must be a 'Maverick' or a 'Black-White Man'.

[rkwright]

ok my Uncle has finally made his position very clear. Latest email...

Per the premise, conceive a being, a Widget that has the properties of (i) smells like a skunk and (ii) a force that attracts objects together. That and only that define it. (think local gravity that smells)

Are there any Widgets? I have no clue, maybe, but I can conceive it.

Something is a Wodget if it has the properties of (i) smells a like skunk (ii) a force that attracts objects together and (iii) exists

(I assume that we can agree that the difference between these two concepts is existence (per your earlier statement that existence is a property))

For something to be a Widget, it does not need to exist. It is understanding of an imaginary object.

For something to be a Wodget, it must exist.

If it does not exist, it is a Widget not a Wodget.

Can one conceive of a Wodget? Not if there are no Wodgets. One might think they are conceiving of a Wodget, but if there are none, the most one can be conceiving is a Widget, as what one is conceiving of will not possess the further property of existence (though one may think it does).


THE BIG TWO POINTS:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) For God, since existence is one of the properties included in your concept of God, then one cannot prove God exists by supposing you can conceive of him.

2) The proof fails because the premise is that we can conceive of God. But since your concept of God includes existence, in order to know that you can conceive of such a being, you need to first to establish that God exists. But that is what his proof is supposed to establish. Moot, circular. It proves God exists because God Exists.

[rkwright]

This was my reply to his email...

Thanks Will for reading these and your help on them.

Thanks for finally making the argument clear. I'm not sure its ready to be sent to the professor yet, you haven't convinced me of anything (actually you may have convinced me you're crazy...)

The comparison is between existing in the mind alone and existing in the mind and in reality. Both of these are thought of as they are, not thought of as in the mind.

Your argument says 1 of 2 things. 1) If it can be thought to have the property of existence, it must exist. or the flip of it 2) Only things that exist can be thought of as existing.

Sounds ok, except that no one thinks that way. When we think, we are thinking of things with existence. You're trying to play word games and say 'no you're not really thinking of the thing, you're thinking of something else.' Easiest answer to that is BS. I'm thinking of the thing.

What does your widget look like? What is your conception of a widget?

When a painter sits down and imagines his painting, and then he paints it, you would tell him 'No thats not what you were thinking. You were thinking of a painting of a widget, but this is a wodget'. He'd say 'This painting is exactly what I was thinking, you're crazy.'

Your argument also has far more reaching effects. If what you say is true, you can make no deductive arguments about anything. Deductive arguments would always be about a widget, and never about a wodget. (Remember Deductive arguments are ones that can be made without any experience of the terms) Example. Say I make the following argument without ever finding seeing a P.

All P's are Q's
P
:.Q

Now I find a P and say 'this must be a Q!' You say 'No, you weren't actually thinking of P, you were thinking of a widget-like-P. Your proof only covers things without existence. This P has existence.'

That might be far fetched, but take this very real example. I have a girlfriend named Sarah, which you have not met. You have a conception of her though, you may have even seen pictures. She is 20 years old. The proof looks like this.
Sarah is 20.
Sarah
:. 20 years old.

This works fine, except that when you meet Sarah, you have no way of knowing shes 20. The Sarah in your mind is a widget. You don't actually know if she exists. And if you find out she does exist, well thats not really Sarah, thats Sarah the wodget. And now the proof doesn't work, so you don't know if shes actually 20.

Your arguments, if true, have effectively killed any form of deduction.

[WillT]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1464889' date='Feb 17 2008, 08:46 PM']ok my Uncle has finally made his position very clear. Latest email...

Per the premise, conceive a being, a Widget that has the properties of (i) smells like a skunk and (ii) a force that attracts objects together. That and only that define it. (think local gravity that smells)

Are there any Widgets? I have no clue, maybe, but I can conceive it.

Something is a Wodget if it has the properties of (i) smells a like skunk (ii) a force that attracts objects together and (iii) exists

(I assume that we can agree that the difference between these two concepts is existence (per your earlier statement that existence is a property))

For something to be a Widget, it does not need to exist. It is understanding of an imaginary object.

For something to be a Wodget, it must exist.

If it does not exist, it is a Widget not a Wodget.

Can one conceive of a Wodget? Not if there are no Wodgets. One might think they are conceiving of a Wodget, but if there are none, the most one can be conceiving is a Widget, as what one is conceiving of will not possess the further property of existence (though one may think it does).
THE BIG TWO POINTS:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) For God, since existence is one of the properties included in your concept of God, then one cannot prove God exists by supposing you can conceive of him.

2) The proof fails because the premise is that we can conceive of God. But since your concept of God includes existence, in order to know that you can conceive of such a being, you need to first to establish that God exists. But that is what his proof is supposed to establish. Moot, circular. It proves God exists because God Exists.[/quote]
No, no, no, no, no. You're missing the point. It is not circular. The proof defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be concieved", so you say you concieve of "god", but he is non-existant. Guess what, that is not God, because something greater than that can be concieved, i.e. a God with all those properties PLUS existance. None of that is circular. The fact that God's existence is implicit in the definition of God is the whole point of the argument.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1464930' date='Feb 17 2008, 10:16 PM']This was my reply to his email...

Thanks Will for reading these and your help on them.

Thanks for finally making the argument clear. I'm not sure its ready to be sent to the professor yet, you haven't convinced me of anything (actually you may have convinced me you're crazy...)

The comparison is between existing in the mind alone and existing in the mind and in reality. Both of these are thought of as they are, not thought of as in the mind.

Your argument says 1 of 2 things. 1) If it can be thought to have the property of existence, it must exist. or the flip of it 2) Only things that exist can be thought of as existing.

Sounds ok, except that no one thinks that way. When we think, we are thinking of things with existence. You're trying to play word games and say 'no you're not really thinking of the thing, you're thinking of something else.' Easiest answer to that is BS. I'm thinking of the thing.

What does your widget look like? What is your conception of a widget?

When a painter sits down and imagines his painting, and then he paints it, you would tell him 'No thats not what you were thinking. You were thinking of a painting of a widget, but this is a wodget'. He'd say 'This painting is exactly what I was thinking, you're crazy.'

Your argument also has far more reaching effects. If what you say is true, you can make no deductive arguments about anything. Deductive arguments would always be about a widget, and never about a wodget. (Remember Deductive arguments are ones that can be made without any experience of the terms) Example. Say I make the following argument without ever finding seeing a P.

All P's are Q's
P
:.Q

Now I find a P and say 'this must be a Q!' You say 'No, you weren't actually thinking of P, you were thinking of a widget-like-P. Your proof only covers things without existence. This P has existence.'

That might be far fetched, but take this very real example. I have a girlfriend named Sarah, which you have not met. You have a conception of her though, you may have even seen pictures. She is 20 years old. The proof looks like this.
Sarah is 20.
Sarah
:. 20 years old.

This works fine, except that when you meet Sarah, you have no way of knowing shes 20. The Sarah in your mind is a widget. You don't actually know if she exists. And if you find out she does exist, well thats not really Sarah, thats Sarah the wodget. And now the proof doesn't work, so you don't know if shes actually 20.

Your arguments, if true, have effectively killed any form of deduction.[/quote]
No problem, I enjoy it.
Just to warn you, he may be prepared to dump deduction etc. a la David Hume if he's ever taken any Philosophy courses that focused on such thinkers.