The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The Problem with the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
Posts
Because golf courses are designed so that every hole is not a hole in one. A perfect score, however, would be an 18. Some superhuman being who could drive a ball 500 yards could conceivably get an 18.
Actually, it has nothing to do with theism. The problem is, rather, for the atheist to deal with the concept of existence as absolute presence. Existence is, in a sense, perfection. If existence is what sustains beings, then existence functions in the way that God has for human society. This is what Heidegger (an atheist) called the Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics.
Existence doesn't sustain beings, it's just a slightly voodoo-ish noun to describe how the universe works as a single entity. It's not a thing in and of itself, it's just kind of an all-encompassing label.
Indeed, it's not a thing in itself because it is not a thing or a being at all. However, any attempt to talk about ontology always boils down to positing existence.
Wouldn't the "complete actualization of possibility" in golf be all scores between 18 and infinity? Every possible score would be actualized.
Your definition of perfection, as explained by your examples, seems also to require a goal - in golf the goal is to minimize the score; in pitching in a baseball game the goal is to minimize hits, walks, and runs. What is the goal in being? Does it even make sense to speak of a "perfect being," using your definition of perfection, if there is no such goal?
It must be posited that existence is "univocal" -- that there is either being or not-being, and that there is an absolute difference between.
I was using sports as an analogy, because they are easy. Aristotle talks about the possibility of a tree being contained in an acorn. But is the tree every perfectly actualized? Most likely not. Perhaps God is the only [strike]being[/strike] capable of perfection?
I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se
I hate to sound like a parrot, but actualization of what? If God is just perfect existence in general, then it doesn't really say much. We've effectively boiled the ontological argument down to saying that existence exists.
Shouldn't the bolded be replaced with "completely actualized?" It doesn't make sense to use the word "perfect" in explaining the concept "perfection."
As far as the tree example goes, no tree is completely actualized, because each tree only undergoes one of its multitude of possible lives. On the other hand, if we are to think about God in the same way, it strikes me that the "complete actualization of possibility" of being is "everything that could exist." I don't think it makes sense to call "everything that could exist" God.
That makes no sense. Perfection or completeness only makes sense in relation to something else.
Victory is yours.
It's a bit hard to visualize. Imagine that a tree has the possibility of having a branch ten feet long. However, it only grew to have a branch nine feet long. The actualization of the branch is imperfect, because there is still the possibility for another "foot" of branch.
For God, this is never the case. Every possibility of his existence would be actualized.
Exactly. Perfection of a branch only makes sense in relation to the tree. It would only make sense in the context of the argument if God is a huge animal-vegetable-mineral monster consisting of thousands of perfect things.
God could be that. Spinoza held that god was everything. For instance, a mind is the mode of god under the attribute of thought.
Not only that, but an infinite thing cannot be considered perfect because there are no bounds for its actualization to take place. If God is limitless, then it could not ever fulfill these limits, meaning God could not achieve perfection.
This whole stupid argument would have been finished if philosophers didn't call certain shit they liked God just because it was kind of, sort of similar to a concept of god if you looked at it sideways with squinty eyes.
If God's essence is existence, then the infinity is a sort of modal infinity. Wherever there is being, there is existence, and there can be no being without existence. It is absolutely present.
So depending on whether you think that the universe is infinite or not, I suppose that you have to say that existence is both absolutely perfect and infinite.
You are coming at it from the wrong angle. I don't care about the theological elements of the ontological argument -- as I said in the OP, I think it is a terrible theological proof. Rather, I am interested in the ontological problems that the argument presents.
For instance, do you think that there is existence?
This is cool and all, but I still don't get why I should really care. It seems like regardless of whether the ontological argument is true or not, it doesn't really effect me in any tangible way besides whether or not I can impress people by talking about it.
This is like the silliest semantic question ever.
The process of asking that question indicates the acting of something on something else. Regardless of how true our perception of the details of existence is, the fact of that perception indicates the existence of something.
If you do not believe in God, it is hard to account for believing in "existence" which covers most of the definitions of God. Someone like Ricouer will argue that this was the origins of religion.
The problem is that it doesn't cover most of the definitions of God, and if it does, it does so only in an allegorical sense. "Existence" only provides for us because we consume things that exist.
I repeat what I've said earlier; if this is what the ontological argument boils down to, then all it says is that existence exists. This is a ridiculous conclusion, because I know I exist already, which immediately proves the conclusion. I get the strong feeling that this isn't the nature meant by the formulation of the ontological argument.
I don't think most atheists have a huge issue with the idea of an unknowable, impersonal moving force in the universe. I don't, at least. Hell you could call gravity God if you wanted to. Or the first law of physics. Whatever.
If you're going to be that broad what's the point? It seems like calling it "God" opens up an entire other can of worms given the common definition of the word, i.e. hates gays and abortions.
This is if you read "existence" as some sort of being -- which I would argue that it is not. If existence is not a predicate of something, than it is separate from beings, and yet present wherever there is being. It has nothing to do with causes.
Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon, disagree with you.
Is that a type?
Indeed, but it is not a being in itself.
To know that you exist, you have to do a Cartesian reduction. If being is not a predicate, how do you know that you specifically exist?
Then I guess I'm confused. Why does God relate so closely to the concept of being? the concept of existence does nothing to accomplish the things that all religions claim their God(s) have done. Existence isn't a force.
Again, I don't understand. I have a conscious experience, therefore I exist. I know I exist.
Being is absolutely present. Being sustains beings. Being is infinite. Being is eternal.
Those are the essential traits of God.
No, dude. Being doesn't sustain anything. Being does not provide. "Be" is just a thing that things do. Being isn't necessarily eternal, either.
How do you know that you "exist?" What does your consciousness prove as regards to existence? Existence has nothing to do with actual predications, though all actual predications exist necessarily.
Read the link to Kant's "Table of Categories" I posted in the OP.
Basically, Descartes Cogito is not a proof because it commits a category error. That I think does not prove that I am, because in saying "I" you are already positing your existence. You cannot really "prove" your existence in this way.
Can you have beings if there is no Being? If so, how?
No, because that doesn't make sense. Being does not come before a thing that is. Things exist. What you have done is effectively ask "Can something run if there is no Running?" Running only exists when something runs. This is absolute nonsense.
So you are just saying that "things exist?" How do you know that?
If things don't exist, there's no point in this discussion. I think that means it's a good time for me to just stop.
Right. But what do you mean when you say "exist?"
Major Premise: All that can exist, by its concept, is the most perfect being.
Minor Premise: Existence belongs to the concept of the most perfect being.
Conclusion: Therefore, all that can exist exists.
This is obviously utter nonsense.
You're side stepping the issue.
I ask you, once again, is there such a thing as "existence?" If not, how can something exist?