The Ontological Argument (The existence of God)

[Nirvana-Eld]

For a little background information, the ontological argument is a claimed proof for the existence of God. It was originated by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterburry in the 11th century and was developed and expanded upon by philosophers such as Rene Descartes. Now here is the argument to my understanding and so far I only find one potenital flaw.

1) God is the greatest possible being. (perdect, absolute, infinite)

2) A greatest possible being has the greatest form of existence - this could be equated with existence in all possible circumstances.

3) It is at least possible for God to exist in any given circumstance. (this is the one I find a potential flaw in and i will go into greater detail later)

4) A God, following the accpeted definitions, that exists in any circumstance, exists in all.

THUS

5)God exists under our circumstances.

Ok, so here is the flaw I see, since the others are pretty self explanitory. In step 3 it is stated that under any circumstance (fictional or not) it is at least possible for God to exist. This is obviously the linchpin that holds the argument up. If this logic is followed then all the others fall into place.

The problem is that who says God is possible? In what circumstance is God possible? If these questions are sufficiently answered, then the only way for God not to be possible is if there was a contradiction or paradox in his existing. In a perfect being, a contradiction or paradox obviously cannot exist. I would like sufficient steps in logic and reason taken in answering this question. I appreciate the time.[/list]

[juliod]

this is just a semantic argument where you have taken one particular meaning of unsurpassable and stuck rigidly to that definition.

Not at all. The word "unsurpassable" means "cannot be surpassed". If I can show a single example where the being in question has been surpassed then that being is not "unsurpassable".

And since god is surpassed by humans in every area where we have information, the claim that god is "unsurpassable" is a nonsense.

I forward the argument of a pantheistic God

But you're a christian, not a pantheist. I'll worry about that problem if I every encounter an actual pantheist.

To be better at something means that you are more able at that particular activity. It makes no difference whether or not you have ever attempted the activity.

Bunk. It's results that count. Potential is a wonderful thing to have, but if you never perform you still get zero points.

you would also need to attempt the activity to be WORSE than somebody else.

No. If you never try you are automatically at the lowest level.

If, as you say, God has never made a music video, it would be impossible to say that God was worse than Ms. Spears as you would have nothing to compare.

Merely counting the videos is sufficient. Ms. Spears has surpassed god.

DanZ

[Curious]

this is just a semantic argument where you have taken one particular meaning of unsurpassable and stuck rigidly to that definition.

Not at all. The word "unsurpassable" means "cannot be surpassed". If I can show a single example where the being in question has been surpassed then that being is not "unsurpassable".

As I said, this a semantic point. I could say there has been no greater general than Hannibal but you could point out that Ariel Sharon was at least 4 stones heavier when he commanded Israel's troops. Anyway, this is beside the point as I refer you to my next point.

I forward the argument of a pantheistic God

But you're a christian, not a pantheist. I'll worry about that problem if I every encounter an actual pantheist.

So you are pleading a special case here? Is this argument not worthy of consideration because a Christian makes it? By the way, it is possible to be a Christian and not claim to know everything about the nature of God and I am quite open to the possibility of a pantheistic God, the two need not necessarily conflict.

To be better at something means that you are more able at that particular activity. It makes no difference whether or not you have ever attempted the activity.

Bunk. It's results that count. Potential is a wonderful thing to have, but if you never perform you still get zero points.
...No. If you never try you are automatically at the lowest level.

The word better is comparative and so if one has never attempted an action it is unreasonable to say someone is better as it impossible to compare. If I was to fire a gun at a piece of tissue paper it would be very ineffective at stopping the bullet. I could make a very good guess that my desk would be better at stopping the bullet even though this has never been tested by me. A bird might struggle to build a nest but an untried architect could no doubt build a better one given the inclination to do so. A copper wire is a better terminal in my torch than a piece of rubber, even if that particular piece of copper has never been tried before. It makes no difference whether or not it has been tried, it only needs to be more suited. If I first tested the rubber, it would be foolish to suggest that the rubber was better than the copper simply because the copper was as yet untested. According to your reasoning, although the rubber failed dismally, it was still better than the copper as the untried copper is automatically at the lowest level.

If, as you say, God has never made a music video, it would be impossible to say that God was worse than Ms. Spears as you would have nothing to compare.

Merely counting the videos is sufficient. Ms. Spears has surpassed god.

DanZ

Merely counting the videos AND completely ignoring the pantheistic possibility is sufficient in your eyes. Simply saying that doesn't count is a bit of a cheat.

[juliod]

So you are pleading a special case here?

No, I'm avoiding a red herring.

The word better is comparative and so if one has never attempted an action it is unreasonable to say someone is better as it impossible to compare.

Unless we compare people in terms of completion. Ms. Spears surpasses god in the number of music videos. We need not judge whether these are good videos, bad videos, or whether then are reletively better than some video god may make in the future.

Ms. Spears surpasses god in the number of music videos as of Jan 2005. Therefore she surpasses god in at least one measure. Therefore god is not unsurpassable.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Ms. Spears surpasses god in the number of music videos as of Jan 2005. Therefore she surpasses god in at least one measure. Therefore god is not unsurpassable.

Is there a distinction between unsurpassable and unsurpassed?

[juliod]

Is there a distinction between unsurpassable and unsurpassed?

Yes. "Unsurpassed" refers to the past and present. "Unsurpassable" refers to the future as well.

A being that is unsurpassable cannot be surpassed even temporarily.

And I need to point out that god is surpassed by some person in every field for which we have information. Home runs. RBIs. Touchdowns. Top-10 songs. Poems. Novels. Mountain climbing. You name it, and god has not been the best at it.

Let me repeat one of my earlier points: If god does not exist, then all claims about god's abilities will be for things we can't verify.

For everything we can verify, god is surpassed.

DanZ

[Curious]

So you are pleading a special case here?

No, I'm avoiding a red herring.

Why exactly is it a red-herring? Your argument fails completely when confronted with the possibility of a pantheistic God so please explain your objections to this possibility.

The word better is comparative and so if one has never attempted an action it is unreasonable to say someone is better as it impossible to compare.

Ms. Spears surpasses god in the number of music videos as of Jan 2005. Therefore she surpasses god in at least one measure. Therefore god is not unsurpassable.

DanZ

Even ignoring the fact that you have not even attempted to disprove the possibility of a pantheistic God which would completely undermine your argument, I think you will find that Ms Spears has never actually made a music video but has only starred in them. So if you mean simply starring in videos I will assume you are referring to videos that actually have a representation of her in them. I think you will find that God has some form of representation in video far greater than Ms. Spears. I am being facetious of course.
Again, I point out that the argument you put forward is purely semantic as the description of God as being unsurpassable is a reference to the excellence or achievement of God in toto. Your argument revolves entirely around one particular definition of surpassable so your argument, rather than being directed towards God, is an argument against the narrow definition of surpassable that you insist on clinging to. The reference to God being unsurpassable refers to his excellence of quality, power and wisdom, not on the number of music videos made, zits popped, or buckets of sh*t produced. When arguing against a definition it is necessary to argue against the correct definition and not just one possible interpretation of it otherwise your argument becomes purely linguistic rather than philosophical/theological.

[juliod]

Why exactly is it a red-herring?

Because you want me to spend time and effort refuting something that is not part of your actual argument. A distraction.

Your argument fails completely when confronted with the possibility of a pantheistic God so please explain your objections to this possibility.

Pantheism exists only in the realm of rhetorical philosophy. There are no churches of pantheism, I've never seen one on the street. In particular, this "ontological argument" was not put forward to explain pantheism, but the very personal god of the christians.

The reference to God being unsurpassable refers to his excellence of quality, power and wisdom, not on the number of music videos made, zits popped, or buckets of sh*t produced.

And yet you can show in no way that god possesses excellence of quality, power, and wisdom. As I said, if god does not exist then all claims about him will refer to things we cannot verify.

DanZ

[Curious]

Because you want me to spend time and effort refuting something that is not part of your actual argument. A distraction.

My original argument was that you ascribed to a different definition of unsurpassable than was intended. Since you seemed adamant in your position concerning the definition, I put forward the argument of a pantheistic God to show how such a god could not be surpassed even using such a definition. Both of my points attempt to counter your argument in different ways. The first states that your argument takes the wrong definition and attempts to explain that your argument is really a semantic point. My second objection was that even using your definition of unsurpassable, a god that is identical with the material universe cannot be surpassed by the actions of part of itself. This is not a distraction or a red-herring but a valid objection that you must overcome to give any credibility to your claim that God has been surpassed in any way by Ms. Spears.

Pantheism exists only in the realm of rhetorical philosophy. There are no churches of pantheism, I've never seen one on the street. In particular, this "ontological argument" was not put forward to explain pantheism, but the very personal god of the christians.

Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God but in different ways and all have different ideas about Him. If you were to prove that a one particular faction's idea concerning a particular quality of God was incorrect then that fact would also be true of the God of the other two. What you are attempting to prove here is that a quality of God as described is incorrect and so this fact will be true in all other cases whether Christian, Jewish or any other variation on the theme of a sole divine entity. One very old belief held by certain Jews and Christians (as well as others) is that the universe was created as a means of allowing God to look upon his own face which suggests the belief in a pantheistic God. Whether your argument is directed against one particular ideology or not, your argument that God is surpassable must apply to God in all cases.

And yet you can show in no way that god possesses excellence of quality, power, and wisdom. As I said, if god does not exist then all claims about him will refer to things we cannot verify.

DanZ

Well if you are willing to accept that certain scripture might be inspired the wisdom is clear to see and the number of people serving God is proof of power.
You are right that if God does not exist all claims are unverifiable but it is also true that if He does exist, then certain claims can be verified (and frequently are).