Defense Of The Ontological Argument

[rkwright]

[quote name='WillT' post='1465495' date='Feb 18 2008, 10:49 PM']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]
He is effectively saying you cannot conceive of a God with properties PLUS existence, unless it actually exists. Which in that case would be defining God into existence in one line. That is where he is objecting to the proof, that it is circular because to conceive of something with existence means it actually exists to him.

[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.[/quote]
Oh I hope not... that seems quite dumb to me...

Actually this debate has been dragging on for a good week or so, and its getting tiring. All because he understands the premise 'A being having all of God's properties plus existence can be conceived' as God actually exists. Will, you're right thats where the proof eventually goes, but for now we're stuck on you can't conceive something as existing unless it really exists (and if you don't know if it exists, then you aren't actually conceiving it). It sounds so foreign to me, I've never heard anyone read the premise this way.

[WillT]

So how are things going? Still debating the same point here?