The Ontological proof for the existence of God

Before I begin my breif discussion, I feel that it is necessary to go over something known to philosophers as "Possible worlds semantics" because if you dont understand this concept, then I feel this argument will go WAY over your head, as it did mine the first time I heard a defense of the argument. a Possible world is a possible description of reality, a description which is not inherently self-contradictory or illogical (violating rules of logic or mathematics). Now if something exists contingently, or if something is true contingently, then it is true in one or more possible worlds, but it is not true in every possible world. For instance, this message you are reading exists contingently. Surely there is some possible world in which I did not in fact type this message.

But, when something exists necessarily, or some truth is necessarily true, that means that there is absolutely no possible description of reality in which that thing does not exist, or in which that truth is not true. For instance, the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth. There is absolutely no possible description of reality in which something can embody a property and not embody that property. also mathematics is true in all possible worlds. there is no possible description of reality in which 2+2=5. Furthermore, abstract objects, like numbers, sets, etc exist in all possible worlds if they do indeed exist and are not merely man-made concepts (I think I will someday make a thread defending the existence of abstract objects and properties)

Now that we've gotten possible worlds semantics out of the way, let us move on to the Ontological proof for God's existence.

First, God is a maximally excellent, or maximally great being. Entailed in maximal excellence are omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and necessary (but they of course are not limited to that)

Now that we have articulated this crucial premise, we can give the ontological proof.

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exist. This is of course true because a maximally great being is concievable and is not inherently self-contradictory.

P2: If a maximally great being can possibly exist, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Simple: There is some possible description of reality in which a maximally great being exists.

P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world

Simple again: Entailed in maximal greatness is necessity. a necessary entity cannot possibly exist in only one or a few possible worlds and not in others, that is inherently self-contradictory. But since a maximally great being is NOT inherently self-contradictory, it therefore follows that a maximally great being must exist in every possible world

P4: If a maximally great being exists every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world

P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it exists

C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists

First, God is a maximally excellent, or maximally great being. Entailed in maximal excellence are omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and necessary (but they of course are not limited to that) Now that we have articulated this crucial premise, we can give the ontological proof.

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exist. This is of course true because a maximally great being is concievable and is not inherently self-contradictory. P2: If a maximally great being can possibly exist, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world Simple again: Entailed in maximal greatness is necessity. a necessary entity cannot possibly exist in only one or a few possible worlds and not in others, that is inherently self-contradictory. But since a maximally great being is NOT inherently self-contradictory, it therefore follows that a maximally great being must exist in every possible world

Was it you that made that thread on OT defending Plantinga's ontological argument? I can't remember.

Just a quick question, do you think that St Anselm's ontological argument is sound or unsound? Because if you think it's unsound then we can narrow down the criticisms to just what Plantinga does differently.

Was it you that made that thread on OT defending Plantinga's ontological argument? I can't remember.

domatron23

[QUOTE="Dan"]First, God is a maximally excellent, or maximally great being. Entailed in maximal excellence are omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and necessary (but they of course are not limited to that) Now that we have articulated this crucial premise, we can give the ontological proof.CptJSparrow

I agree with the captain on this one...

This is an idea, personified, and then named god. You are assuming the very things you are trying to prove...

The problem is that we are assuming that this maximally great being is omnipotent, omnipresent, ect ect.

In essense, we are assuming that God exists for your theory that proves God exists.

But this is an assumption. CptJSparrow

what's wrong with obeying our modal intuitions? further, what could be greater than an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, God?

If we assume that there are other worlds. CptJSparrow

Well surely there are. after all, we can imagine the world in a different state of affairs that it is in right now. Surely the modal concept of possible worlds semantics is valid. But if you think that there are no other possible worlds, you're essentially making the claim that the state of affairs that teh world is in right now is necessary, as in it is *metaphysically* impossible to exemplify that it would have embodied a different state of affairs.

this is a truly massive truth claim which you really cannot hope to back up.

This relies on the second premise, which is dubious at best, and the assumption of necessity.CptJSparrow

what's wrong with obeying our modal intuitions?

further, what could be greater than an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, God?

Well surely there are. after all, we can imagine the world in a different state of affairs that it is in right now. Surely the modal concept of possible worlds semantics is valid. But if you think that there are no other possible worlds, you're essentially making the claim that the state of affairs that teh world is in right now is necessary, as in it is *metaphysically* impossible to exemplify that it would have embodied a different state of affairs. this is a truly massive truth claim which you really cannot hope to back up.

again, modal intuitions. further, there are truths which are necessary, like 2+2=4. But if a maximally great being was contingent, it woulden't be maximally great.

First, God is a maximally excellent, or maximally great being. Entailed in maximal excellence are omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and necessary (but they of course are not limited to that)

danwallacefan

Omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible.

Omniscience= to know everything (emphasis on everything).

Omnipotence= unlimited power (eg. power to create anything).

Example. God creates free beings. Free beings can choose between different courses of action. God would be able to know what those choices would be, thus, the free beings would not be free after all. If the being can choose an action then there is a chance that God has a false beleif about what that action will be. As a result, God is not all knowing. 

The following is from this website: http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm#H4

"The problem of divine foreknowledge can also be seen as denying that omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection constitute a coherent set. Roughly put, the problem of divine foreknowledge is as follows. If God is omniscient, then God knows what every person will do at every moment t. To say that a person p has free will is to say that there is at least one moment t at which p does A but could have done other than A. But if a person p who does A at t has the ability to do other than A at t, then it follows that p has the ability to bring it about that an omniscient God has a false belief - and this is clearly impossible.

Danwallacefan:  I ask this as respectfully as I can, do you need these "theory's" of God's proof or are they for the Atheist's in the union?  Each of these you put up makes little real life sense and seem to be shredded quickly.  I don't need all of that to believe in God, it's much simpler than that, as it should be for most humans.  I just cannot believe based on what I have seen or learned.btaylor2404

In his defense I think his arguments (well not "his") are very compelling and thought provoking. None of them really establish God but I thoruoghly enjoy dissecting them.

I'll also admit that several of these arguments have challenged me.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Danwallacefan:  I ask this as respectfully as I can, do you need these "theory's" of God's proof or are they for the Atheist's in the union?  Each of these you put up makes little real life sense and seem to be shredded quickly.  I don't need all of that to believe in God, it's much simpler than that, as it should be for most humans.  I just cannot believe based on what I have seen or learned.domatron23

In his defense I think his arguments (well not "his") are very compelling and thought provoking. None of them really establish God but I thoruoghly enjoy dissecting them.

I'll also admit that several of these arguments have challenged me.

Thanks Dom for another Atheist point of view.  I just don't see them as compelling, I guess it's just me.  I also think this is one of the reasons the AU is a very good union, Atheist's will defend Christian points to other Atheist's.  Very good all around.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Danwallacefan:  I ask this as respectfully as I can, do you need these "theory's" of God's proof or are they for the Atheist's in the union?  Each of these you put up makes little real life sense and seem to be shredded quickly.  I don't need all of that to believe in God, it's much simpler than that, as it should be for most humans.  I just cannot believe based on what I have seen or learned.btaylor2404

In his defense I think his arguments (well not "his") are very compelling and thought provoking. None of them really establish God but I thoruoghly enjoy dissecting them.

I'll also admit that several of these arguments have challenged me.

Thanks Dom for another Atheist point of view.  I just don't see them as compelling, I guess it's just me.  I also think this is one of the reasons the AU is a very good union, Atheist's will defend Christian points to other Atheist's.  Very good all around.

I too find them nice thought exercises.  

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

First, God is a maximally excellent, or maximally great being. Entailed in maximal excellence are omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and necessary (but they of course are not limited to that)

dallbowl

Omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible.

Omniscience= to know everything (emphasis on everything).

Omnipotence= unlimited power (eg. power to create anything).

Example. God creates free beings. Free beings can choose between different courses of action. God would be able to know what those choices would be, thus, the free beings would not be free after all. If the being can choose an action then there is a chance that God has a false beleif about what that action will be. As a result, God is not all knowing.

The following is from this website: http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm#H4

"The problem of divine foreknowledge can also be seen as denying that omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection constitute a coherent set. Roughly put, the problem of divine foreknowledge is as follows. If God is omniscient, then God knows what every person will do at every moment t. To say that a person p has free will is to say that there is at least one moment t at which p does A but could have done other than A. But if a person p who does A at t has the ability to do other than A at t, then it follows that p has the ability to bring it about that an omniscient God has a false belief - and this is clearly impossible.

[](P->Q)
P
_____
[]Q

"[]" means "necessarily.
Necessarily, if God knows that you will make decision "X", then you will do decision X
God knows that you will make decision "X"
Therefore, necessarily, you will make decision X

but "Necessarily" doesn't follow because God didn't necessarily know that you would make a particular decision. He could have known that you would make some other decision. Since God's knowledge of whatever decision you will make is contingent, your actual decision was still contingent. Therefore, you freely chose to make said decision, and human freedom is not infringed.

Necessarily, if God knows that you will make decision "X", then you will do decision X
God knows that you will make decision "X"
Therefore, necessarily, you will make decision X

but "Necessarily" doesn't follow because God didn't necessarily know that you would make a particular decision. He could have known that you would make some other decision. Since God's knowledge of whatever decision you will make is contingent, your actual decision was still contingent. Therefore, you freely chose to make said decision, and human freedom is not infringed.

danwallacefan

By stating that God's knowledge of decision X is contingent, you are saying that it is not necessarily true or necessarily false, which still leads to the problem of an omniscient being not knowing with 100% certainty that decision X will occur. At best, the omniscient being only knows that decision X may occur. We still have the ability to choose, but the omniscient being cannot know with certainty what that choice will be. God is not all knowing, but then I guess God is not wrong either.

First, God is a maximally excellent, or maximally great being.

danwallacefan

The problem is that we are assuming that this maximally great being is omnipotent, omnipresent, ect ect.

In essense, we are assuming that God exists for your theory that proves God exists.

helium_flash

Precisely. And thus, the hypothesis fails.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Necessarily, if God knows that you will make decision "X", then you will do decision X
God knows that you will make decision "X"
Therefore, necessarily, you will make decision X

but "Necessarily" doesn't follow because God didn't necessarily know that you would make a particular decision. He could have known that you would make some other decision. Since God's knowledge of whatever decision you will make is contingent, your actual decision was still contingent. Therefore, you freely chose to make said decision, and human freedom is not infringed.

dallbowl

By stating that God's knowledge of decision X is contingent, you are saying that it is not necessarily true or necessarily false, which still leads to the problem of an omniscient being not knowing with 100% certainty that decision X will occur. At best, the omniscient being only knows that decision X may occur. We still have the ability to choose, but the omniscient being cannot know with certainty what that choice will be. God is not all knowing, but then I guess God is not wrong either.

There are many agruments for and against this topic. This debate has been going on for centuries. I doubt we will reach any worthwhile conclusions.

Now in response to Theassasin, You're completely misunderstanding what omnipotence is. No one here is saying that an omnipotent being would be able violate the laws of logic. Even Aquinas believed that. But even Descartes would just wink at your argument because if something can violate the laws of logic, then there are no possible arguments against it, including your own argument

Now in response to Funky_llama, the reason a maximally great being is God is because entailed in maximal excellence is necessary existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

Now in response to Funky_llama, the reason a maximally great being is God is because entailed in maximal excellence is necessary existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

danwallacefan

It has been explained why by other users before me.

Restating this ...."argument" doesn't change anything really.

Now in response to Funky_llama, the reason a maximally great being is God is because entailed in maximal excellence is necessary existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Now in response to Funky_llama, the reason a maximally great being is God is because entailed in maximal excellence is necessary existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

Funky_Llama

Dumbass :lol:, because George Carlin was there with them.

delbowl, you're misunderstanding the notion of free will. Free will means that it can make a decision despite the fact that it is contingent, as in some possible world, he made a different decision. Likewise, God's knowledge of a future event is contingent. As long as a decision one makes is contingent and not metaphysically necessary, then it was freely made

Now in response to Theassasin, You're completely misunderstanding what omnipotence is. No one here is saying that an omnipotent being would be able violate the laws of logic. Even Aquinas believed that. But even Descartes would just wink at your argument because if something can violate the laws of logic, then there are no possible arguments against it, including your own argument

Now in response to Funky_llama, the reason a maximally great being is God is because entailed in maximal excellence is necessary existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

danwallacefan

If you could please elaborate on your point more, you have just repeated what you said beforehand. All you have added is 'in some possible world, he made a different decision.'