Proof of the existence of God

1. 2017-04-09 at 1:06 AM UTC

   #21
   

   Lanny Bird of Courage
   The ontological argument is fun, some people like to dismiss it as trivial garbage but I think there's more subtlety to it than people like to admit. Even modern professional philosophers can't quite get on the same page as to what exactly is wrong with it. It's also worth saying Anselm himself wasn't really convinced by the argument, he himself it was more of a rhetorical exercise.
   
   

   Originally posted by Captain Falcon Also the "proof" is a cleverly hidden tautology. The argument is essentially "God exists cuz he's perfect, so he's gotta exist trust me my nigga".

   
   That's neither a tautology nor Anselm's argument.
2. 2017-04-09 at 2:57 AM UTC

   #22
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Originally posted by Lanny The ontological argument is fun, some people like to dismiss it as trivial garbage but I think there's more subtlety to it than people like to admit. Even modern professional philosophers can't quite get on the same page as to what exactly is wrong with it. It's also worth saying Anselm himself wasn't really convinced by the argument, he himself it was more of a rhetorical exercise.
   
   
   
   That's neither a tautology nor Anselm's argument.

   
   You're right, it's not a tautology. I often substitute "circular reasoning" with "tautology".
   
   That being said, Anselm's argument is circular and does essentially boil down to my overly simplified statement if you're looking to make it do so.
   
   The argument is:
   
   - God is perfect
   - God exists in the mind, as a concept
   - To exist is more perfect than to not exist
   - Therefore God must exist
   
   It must sound very arrogant of someone to dismiss an argument that so many esteemed philosophers have wrestled with, but I don't see the issue; it seems obvious and clear that the argument is conflating the idea of God with the existence of God, and assumes the nature of perfection to force the idea that existing is more perfect than not existing.
   
   And as a general note, this argument does not really give us any useful information, even if we take it to be true; the argument essentially tries to establish that the most perfect thing exists (and that thing is called God).
   
   But nobody is really arguing whether or not "god" exists, so to speak. The argument is actually about whether or not there is a personal god, who listens to prayers, who has set up a heaven and a hell and if there's an afterlife and all that shit. Whether or not done conceptual idea of perfection is real, doesn't really matter. "Perfection" is something that is really very contextual, and even the idea of some overarching, utter perfection on a universal scale can be argued as being illogical.
   
   So I don't think the argument really holds any theological value. I can accept it as true, accept the existence of a perfect being, and still carry on my life as usual.
3. 2017-04-09 at 4:38 AM UTC

   #23
   

   Lanny Bird of Courage

   Originally posted by Captain Falcon it seems obvious and clear that the argument is conflating the idea of God with the existence of God

   
   That is a valid avenue of criticism although I don't think it's obvious. It does seem like we can have ideas about existent and nonexistent things. If we consider thoughts as potentially referential to something out in the objective world, and having this property of reference to a thing out in the world makes one idea greater than the same idea except without said refrence, then I think the argument is successful. I mean that's a leap on at least two points (actual existence of a thing increases the greatness of its corresponding idea, and idea can have this property of external refrence) but neither seem trivially and incontrovertibly false, many reasonable people would hold both to be true.
   
   

   assumes the nature of perfection to force the idea that existing is more perfect than not existing.

   
   Yee, I think this is the strongest argument, but I still don't think it's trivial. I mean "it's greater to exist than not" seems pretty intuitive, and making a conclusive call one way or another seems to commit you to a fair number of statements about the nature of existence and perfection.
   
   

   And as a general note, this argument does not really give us any useful information, even if we take it to be true; the argument essentially tries to establish that the most perfect thing exists (and that thing is called God).

   
   Anselm does go on to try to establish that the most perfect being is the abrahamic god, although it's not nearly as satisfying as the ontological argument. But I mean even if that fails entirely, "an ultimately perfect thing exists" seems like a pretty significant finding.