Detached9

I'm sure everyone's heard Anslem's Ontological Argument by now. He asserts that the attribute of perfection entails existence and since God is defined as perfect, God must exist.

An object must first exist in order to hold any attributes. So my question is, does someone need to prove God exists before they can define God?

How do people define the divine; a being beyond mortal comprehension? If we can't define the being, is belief in the being meaningless?

Francois Tremblay

If "God" is undefined, or only defined negatively (as it has always been), then any statement about "God" is meaningless. It is the functional equivalent of "does fdsajsad exist ?"

I would suppose defining the supernatural would be a prerequisite to define God positively, for obvious reasons, but so far no such definition has been given either.

This is only a demonstration that theists are not interested in finding truth about their beliefs, but rather in supporting their own preconceived notions...

Draygomb

Yes.

bd-from-kg

Detached9:

Things aren't quite as simple as that. For example, suppose I define a "bwan" as a black swan. Do I really have to demonstrate that black swans exist before this would be recognized as a meaningful definition?

So far as the ontological argument is concerned, the only definition of "God" that seems to be needed is "that than which nothing greater can be imagined" or something similar. There's no need to define "supernatural" as such. Of course, whether this is actually a meaningful definition is one of the many controversial questions surrounding this argument.

If the Ontological Argument were as stupid as you seem to think, it's hardly likely that it would have lasted for over a millenium, that several famous brilliant philosophers would have found it convincing, or for that matter that Internet Infidels would maintain a <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/ontological.html" target="_blank">full page</a> of links to arguments against it.

If nothing else it's worth studying this argument to understand its structure, and as a logical exercise, to figure out what's actually wrong with it. You might learn something.

Although I have to admit that every time one version of this argument is demolished, another more complicated version is invented where the fallacy is hidden even more deeply. One might be excused for giving up in despair of ever refuting all versions of it after a while.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

That's a fallacy from authority (^_^)

Bookman

Hardly. Not every appeal to authority is fallacious. Appealing to philosophers to support a claim of a philosophic nature is perfectly reasonable.

Bookman

Detached9

Appealing to Authority, if I recall correctly, is when you say that since some authority source says that 'x' is true, 'x' is true.

If the Ontological Argument were as stupid as you seem to think, it's hardly likely that it would have lasted for over a millenium, that several famous brilliant philosophers would have found it convincing, or for that matter that Internet Infidels would maintain a full page of links to arguments against it.

I think the Ontological Argument is absurd. Anything that is perfect, must exist. Perfect table, perfect unicorn, perfect turd, perfect object. It would be better to exist in reality than exist only in the mind, therefore all perfect objects exist.

The first cause argument has lasted for quite some time also, doesn't mean it's a decent argument.

Francois Tremblay

Not when they are obviously and demonstrably wrong.

Bookman

Correct. However, not every appeal to authority is a fallacy.

I spend most of my time in the short end of the pool here at II, and even I know that.

Bookman

Devilnaut

Sorry bd, but I just have to chime in here and say that I personally find every incarnation I've ever seen of the Ontological Argument to be completely obviously erroneous.

1. God is perfect

2. Perfection entails existence

~3. God exists.


Why the heck would anyone grant a definition that implies that the subject of the definition has the qualities that are in dispute? Whether existence is a property or not (for this I also find intuitively obvious- existence cannot be a part of something's intrinsic definition!), one cannot claim that God exists simply because he is commonly defined as perfect, and that to be truly perfect he would need to exist. This seems blatantly ridiculous, to me at least.

Why so many philosophers have puzzled over this is something that maybe someone else can answer. I haven't the foggiest. Did they really think Anselm might have had something, and that maybe it was possible to just conjure things into existence by assigning them this property? Does this seem utterly laughable to anyone else??


I think I might've found a clue!

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/godel.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/godel.html</a>

With "arguments" this convoluted and overwrought, I suppose I can't blame people for puzzling over them. Puzzling over figuring out exactly what they're saying, mind you- not whether or not what they're saying is valid.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>