Ontological Arguement and God

The Ontological Argument is one of the most philosophically debated issues in history. What follows is two versions of it, as well as two replies, and counters to those replies. I welcome your thoughts on the argument, as long as they do not merely repeat what I have already said. The question is, does God exist?

Anselm's Argument:
The fool says God does not exist. Anselm says that if the fool has God in his mind, then God exists in his mind. Anselm then says that God is something than which no greater can exist. He says it is greater to exist in reality then merely in the mind, therefore God much exist in real life.


Reply to Anselm:

Gounilo:
He uses an analogous argument, showing how the same structure will prove a ridiculous claim. He says the idea of the greatest island in existence exists in his mind. For it to really be the greatest island, it must exist in real life too. Therefore, the island exists. The structure of the argument is the same, but the conclusion is a ridiculous one. Why should there be something special about God that differs it from the perfect island?

Reply to Gounilo:
There is something special about the case of god. In this case, we are talking about not a perfect something, but rather perfection itself. This is a matter of “greatest” vs. “greatest thing” Therefore, the two arguments are different in structure.

Descartes' version:

Argument: He has the idea of perfection. He says having an idea does not make it true. He says existence is in perfection, so existence is perfection. Perfection, therefore, exists.

Objections

Kant: he says the logic is flawed. You can’t use existence as a predicate. Saying “existence is” is essentially saying “is.” Saying “something is” should be different than saying “is,” but in the case of the ontological argument, it is not. He thought of having 100 thalers(currency), and actually having 100 thalers while thinking it, is the same thought. The presence of the thought does not change whether or not you have 100 thalers. Therefore, god does not need to exist for the thought of “perfection” to exist in the mind.

Reply to Kant: There is a difference between something existing necessarily and contingently. God is the sort of thing that could necessarily exist. 100 thalers contingently exist – it doesn’t always have to be true. A square with 4 sides, or god existing, by definition has to be true, because the definition of god is perfection, and perfection must exist to be perfect, while a square with 4 sides must always exist by definition.



Does God exist? Most will probably say no, even if the logic present above is sound. Discuss, but please try to prove either the proofs, the replies to the proofs, or the initial arguments right or wrong. Specify which argument you are replying too. Do not simply restate what has already been said.

 

In reply to Descartes, his trademark argument is contradictory. We have an idea of the evil genius as clearly as the idea of perfection. Therefore, he's no better off than he was before the trademark argument.

 

Correct, however, as Descartes would reply, there is a difference between the "evil genius" and "evil itself"

 

Surely this is only a pragmatic problem? The definition of God within your post is vague/none existent.

 

the definition of god, as Descartes says, is that he is, if nothing else, "perfection"

 

I still don't understand how you're (not you personally, your argument on another thread) justifying the existence of God by comparison to a human comprehension of a state of being; perfection. As I said before, perfection is not that simple. It isn't black and white, and is above all man-made, by that I mean it's not tangible as such, more of a notion.

Therefore perfection can exist in ones mind, or in their life. The same way that God can exist in someone's life if they chose to believe so. But, that doesn't mean that God must exist for all. It means the notion of God, or the theoretical understand of what God is, must exist.

But this doesn't really solve anything, all we're doing here is agreeing undoubtedly that some people believe God is real, some people don't. Nobody is disputing what God is as a theory.

 

Can you prove perfection does not exist separate from human existence? Even if perfection is man made, that does not mean that it is impossible for it to exist. Perfection does not have to be the same for everyone to exist. If perfection can exist in real life, than I can label it God; a supreme being to which there is no equal fits Descartes description of God, which is that he is "the most perfect being to which there is no equal." In other words, perfection itself.

This is not a matter of belief to me. It is a logical argument. The premises add up to the conclusion.

 

I don't need to prove or disprove perfection, because it is a concept - much like any other conceptual state of mind. It's a mere description of a state of being, not an answer to the creation of the universe. I really do not see how this is relevant.

 

Also, you're basing your connection between God/A god and perfection on a theory - not fact. A theory created by Descartes. A man. Man-made.

God/a God isn't perfection, if you don't believe in it/him. Argument invalid.

 

Descartes calls it perfection, Anselm calls it "that which no greater can exist," either one works in the arguments. Even if you believe perfection, or the greatest being, to be a concept, the argument still holds that it exists. Just because a theory is man made does not mean what it proves is not real. Even if you do not believe in God, you still have the idea of him in your mind. Reread Anselm's version of the argument.

 

Just because Descartes says God is perfection doesn't mean God is solely perfection. I can say this cup of tea that I'm drinking is perfection. According to Descartes, is my cup of tea then God? No. God's "perfection" is just one of his (I'll refer to God as a he to make this easier on myself) qualities. At your Anselm argument, yes, God exists as an idea but he might (not) exist as a being.

 

Clearly you don't understand God then. One of the tenets of being the "greatest being imaginable" would obviously be being perfect. If you can imagine a being greater than one that is perfect, than the argument falls. Describe one to me.

 

I'm not saying I can imagine a being greater. Although, I'm trying to say that him being the "greatest being imaginable" is still a quality. It doesn't explain him fully. Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists.

 

Why not? Based on Anselm's argument, if you can imagine a being than which there is no greater, he must exist.

 

He says that it is greater to exist in reality. Everyone thinks differently. I can say that it's greater to exist in the mind. Therefore, God only exists in the mind. You're also saying that according to Anselm, God exists. Anselm's beliefs don't represent everyone's beliefs.

 

This is not an argument that stems from belief, it is an argument based on logic. Everyone must follow the same logical rules, which is why if Anselm's premises are true, you must accept his conclusion as true if his argument follows logical rules.

Why would it be greater to exist solely in the mind? Surely perfect things (and, in Descartes case, perfection itself) would be greater existing in reality, because what could be greater than a greatest being who is real?

 

You're saying I must accept his conclusion if his argument follows logical rules. So do they follow logical rules or not? They don't seem very logical to me which is why I don't accept the argument.
If x is imagined, then x must exist. I can imagine a lot of things but that doesn't mean they exist. Although, they could have existed. So, God doesn't necessarily have to exist (according to Anselm's argument) but could have existed (I'm not saying he does or did).
Anyways, my point is still that God isn't ONLY the greatest being imaginable. He isn't ONLY perfection (the most perfect or whatever you want to say). Those are some of his qualities. What the "greatest being" or "perfection" is differs for everyone, so if a God exists simply because the "greatest being" exists and God is the "greatest being" then God is different for everyone.

I can imagine my ideal girlfriend/wife. Does that mean she exists? Say (for sake of argument) that my ideal girlfriend weighs 130 pounds, is 5'7", has brown hair, blue eyes, and a bunch of other specific qualities. These are all qualities. There are girls that weigh 130 pounds. My ideal girlfriend weighs 130 pounds. Therefore, my ideal girlfriend has to exist. That's basically the argument you're making. You're only looking at perfection or God being the "greatest being imaginable" and not at other qualities which are given to him (such as him creating the universe, etc).

 

If you would like to see why the argument is logically sound, see "The Logical Structure of Anselm's Arguments" in The Philosophical Review. You can access it at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2184310

God's other qualities, whatever you think they are, don't make this not work logically. Even if the Bible is pure fiction, this argument still proves the existence of God. Maybe you are having trouble separating The idea of God from Scripture and The Church. Based on this argument, they do not have to exist for God to exist. Furthermore, just because perfection, or the greatest being imaginable differs from person to person doesn't mean the being does not exist. If the being were really perfection, and was the greatest imaginable, it would be so for all, regardless of your personal idea of perfection; it would encompass that.

This is addressed in the original post, with the greatest island analogy.

 

Okay, well, saying God is perfection is just redefining perfection. God can't just be perfection. Perfection is a concept, not a being. God is a being (supposedly), therefore God can't be perfection, he can only be the most perfect or whatever you want to say. Saying God is perfection agrees with what I said about God existing only as an idea/concept.
With the greatest being imaginable idea, all you're doing is just saying that the greatest being imaginable exists and then slapping the label "God" on it. What happens when the greatest being imaginable seizes to exist? There will be a new "greatest being," no? Then is the new greatest being the "greatest being imaginable" or was the previous one? So, then, the "greatest being imaginable" doesn't have to exist. It could have existed. It could have never existed and could exist in the future.
Anyways, this is all based off of Anselm's definition of God. "And indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." That's what he believed. He's just labeling the greatest being imaginable "God." It is possible that his God exists.
I believe that God refers to a being that created the universe (and one that is omnipotent/omnipresent - the biblical God). I believe that my God isn't real (although no one knows).

 

I would say that the greatest possible being would never cease to exist, since it is so great. Since this is a monk giving the definition, Anselm and other religious people would say if you define God a different way it is not God. Therefore, the definition of God matters, but it is not changeable.