The Problem with the Ontological and Moral Arguments

[boatsnguitars]

Premise 1: Proponents of the Ontological Argument often assert the existence of a "Maximally Great" or "Perfect Being" as the necessary foundation of all reality.

Premise 2: It is claimed that this "Maximally Great" or "Perfect Being" has the authority to establish perfect moral laws.

Premise 3: The Moral Argument is frequently invoked to support the existence of God. This argument posits that moral values and duties require a divine source.

Premise 4: The Moral Argument is often used to justify the worthiness of worship, as a morally perfect being is considered deserving of worship.

Premise 5: However, this creates a circularity: The Ontological Argument asserts the existence of a "Maximally Great" or "Perfect Being," which is then used to support the Moral Argument for God's existence.

Premise 6: In turn, the Moral Argument is used to justify the worthiness of worship for this "Maximally Great" or "Perfect Being."

Premise 7: The circularity arises when considering the concept of a "Sufficient Cause." It is equally plausible that the being responsible for creating the cosmos and all of existence is merely a "Sufficient Being" rather than "Maximally Great" or "Perfect." This "Sufficient Being" possesses attributes and capabilities sufficient for the purpose of creating the universe as we experience it.

Premise 8: A "Sufficient Being" need not be considered a God, nor does it need to possess all the attributes traditionally associated with deities. It only needs to have attributes sufficient for the task of creating the universe as we know it.

Conclusion: The circularity in these arguments is evident: The Ontological Argument and Moral Argument, when combined, lead to the concept of a "Maximally Great" or "Perfect Being," which is then used to support the worthiness of worship. However, the concept of a "Sufficient Cause" challenges the necessity of a "Maximally Great" or "Perfect Being" and calls into question the coherence and soundness of these arguments in the context of worship.


Note: I could probably leave out the part about worthy of worship, but I feel there is circularity all over the place. After all, perfection is only asserted - usually through theology. There is no example of perfection, and there is no need to assert it. Perfection is not needed to create this world, and would not even be recognized if it did exist.

Because of this, the Authority for God to be the source of Moral Values is severely undermined. Further undermined to a final death blow by the fact that there only need to be a Sufficient Cause to be the First Cause, and so the premise of the Ontological argument to include concepts of perfection, or even greatness need not be considered. The greatness of whatever caused the universe to exist wouldn't have any logical connection to moral laws.

Yet, the Ontological argument requires that people consider it as a dichotomy: Either the Greatest Being exists or it's non-existence must obtain. It appears the latter is the clear conclusion.

Further, if there is no reason to think of the Sufficient Cause as Maximally Great, but merely Sufficient (whether a Being or not), there is no reason to worship it as though one ought to consider it worthy of being the source of Good, or as a valid arbiter of moral values. It isn't worthy of judging us - not a priori.

Only through religion do we see this asserted. Help me tighten up this 'meta-argument'. (I am trying to show how, by using two theistic arguments, you can demonstrate the circularity of reasoning and how - in the end - all claims about God are asserted via Theology and not derived from logic, nor supported by logic. Which - is what one would expect for something that doesn't exist.)

[Tcg]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

Qurestion: How is my topic not a Philosophical Debate since it directly involves actual philosophy and debate - but this:
viewtopic.php?p=1135206#p1135206
Is considered debate?

[Tcg]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

Qurestion: How is my topic not a Philosophical Debate since it directly involves actual philosophy and debate - but this:
viewtopic.php?p=1135206#p1135206
Is considered debate?

Moderator Clarification

From Forum Rules - "3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate."

From Tips on starting a debate topic - "7. Have a clear question for debate in the opening post.

If there is no question for debate, it will be moved to RR. If the thread title contains the question, reiterate the question in the post."


Rules

Tips on starting a debate topic.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.