Ontological arguments - where's the beef?

In all fairness though, while these fellas may have been working from a seemingly primitive framework which was readily available to them in their time, albeit nostalgic, I remain more apprehensive of their intent, rather than content.Those exceptionally nebulous and ill-defined concepts, be what they are, become most certainly useful, and especially so, when utilized in conjunction with a demonstrable use of dishonest or nave predicates within one’s argumentation I give you a lot of credit for spending the time to review these arguments and consider whether they may be something more than simple confidence tricks. That said, there’s an overwhelming sense that a ‘bait & switch’ analysis offers this argument a bit more credit than may be due.After all, there’s simply no path of logic to suggest the concept argued necessitates the extra-mental reality of a ‘maximally great being’. As those before me have mentioned, we can visualize the most perfect island and spectacular in every regard; however, there’s nothing about our understanding of such an island which might force us to admit or proclaim it actually exists. I think PaulK summed it up well in stating there are less bad ontological arguments, but all are flawed. Perhaps just the gentle reassurance that most of these arguments are antiquated parlor routines drummed up by faithless heretics searching for a means to convince themselves (through convincing others) they’re not damned, but rather you are.For example, before Plantinga, Anselm attempted to simply define his maximally greatest being into existence, which - of course, isn't rationally legitimate. While the faults within his argument do nothing to establish there isn't a maximally great being, so to speak, the argument can not be employed to convince a non-believer to believe on logical grounds. (peeks behind curtain) Unless we pretend existence is known as a predicate of a subject, existence isn't something we can know from a mere idea itself, which is why we call upon independent confirmation through experience. (clicks heels 3 times)His argument simply doesn't meet a standard which assumes that the burden of proof demanding any positive claim asserting there's a being such as he and his contemporaries posit should be established by reason and evidence. Rather, the argument sets the standard that 'if i can think it, it exists', which turns out to be an epic fail.So while agnostics, atheists, deists and theists may all employ argument's of this nature to establish the logical possibility that a maximally great being exists (as well as, often the reverse) - or at least that it's rational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being, the argument does not establish any degree of probability at all.And so, if establishing any degree of probability whatsoever was the goal of such an argument's designer, it turns out to be another epic fail. Again, I don't think you're missing anything but some gentle reassurance - sleep well my friend One Love

It does if its only one of two possibilites, there is nothing left, atleast logicallyI dont see how it could be otherwise, other than to simply disagree, which you are doing and that is fine, but its not an actual argument to demonstrate that its not true, 'possible' that isSimple disagrement is not the same as showing that possible does not mean possible, even if you disagree with its tenets leading to that conclusion. The fact that it is possible is enough to demonstrate that the possibility is real in and of itself, without corroborating evidence to your approvalHuuuh, Whaaaat?Dawn Bertot

It does if its only one of two possibilites, there is nothing left, atleast logicallyI dont see how it could be otherwise, other than to simply disagree, which you are doing and that is fine, but its not an actual argument to demonstrate that its not true, 'possible' that isSimple disagrement is not the same as showing that possible does not mean possible, even if you disagree with its tenets leading to that conclusion. The fact that it is possible is enough to demonstrate that the possibility is real in and of itself, without corroborating evidence to your approvalHuuuh, Whaaaat?Dawn Bertot

Yes, by the mere fact that things exist at all and knowing it is only one of two rational explanationsIt impossible for both of those two to be impossible. hence since either is possible both are possible,without further investigation or someones approvalDawn Bertot

I first came across the ontological argument (in the form of Anselm) in Religious Studies class when I was 16, and my immediate reaction was, "that's a load of bollocks". However, I was assured repeatedly that all sorts of clever people were impressed by it - even when I went on to study philosophy at university, lecturers were informing me there's more to the argument if you don't look at it superficially. Theists loved trotting out that old story about David Hume walking down the street and proclaiming in shock that the ontological argument is sound!So, with all this encouragement, I read more, and thought about the arguments for several years. Eventually, I came to the realisation that I had nailed it as a 16-year-old, and for exactly the same reasons.The Googlesplat is defined as a giant, pink fire-breathing unicorn that necessarily exists.The Googlesplat exists by definition.Nevertheless, the Googlesplat does not, in fact, exist.This is all that's necessary to see why ontological arguments are steaming piles of horseshit, and all the reams of text written to justify them is simply empty hand-waving. Don't be too hard on philosophers in general though - ever since Anselm's day plenty of professional philosophers have laughed derisively at such nonsense.

There is a third option: We do not know if it is possible or impossible. Neither has been established and so neither should be claimed.I do not claim that God is impossible. I just claim that it has not been sufficiently established that it is possible.

It is also possible that the entity does not exist. Why "very"?It is also possible that order and laws were not the product of an MGB. If this is possible in one possible world, then it is possible in all possible worlds. This means that the MGB did not produce the order and laws that we see. Wow, this argument works better than I had ever hoped . . .

Ontological arguments can be applied to other things being/existing as well as to deity.IMO, physicists sometimes unwittingly rely heavily upon it so as to arrive at theory. Scientific conclusions are too often reached ontologically.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidy up wordingEdited by Buzsaw, : Rewrite for clarity

HUH?You mean the maximal designer deity that had to figure out what a suitable helpmeet for Adam would be by trial and error?

By your terms, NOTHING is possible unless it is shown. How do you know it is possible for you to draw a King of Hearts until you do it? And for that matter you don't know if its possible for you to draw a King of Hearts from a deck of cards ever again. Maybe it is no longer possible. Maybe you can only draw a King of hearts 3 times and then after that it is impossible.You are basing your definition of possible on having seen it or done it before. That means everything that you have not seen or done before is not possible.

Well, imagine it from the contrary perspective. How do you propose to tell the difference between the things that are possible but haven't happened yet, and the things that haven't yet happened because they're impossible and will therefore never happen?You can make reference to a wider body of knowledge, say physics, and conclude that a certain thing is likely not possible because it would mean that all our physics knowledge is wrong. But it's likely that our physics is wrong, at least partially, so what does that prove?Epistemological modesty means making the minimal, most defensible conclusions. Edited by crashfrog, : Autocorrect error.

Say what? Please decipher the connection for us.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epistemological modesty means not concluding any more than what there is evidence for.I realize you don't understand it. It gets back to your problem with evidence: you don't understand what it means when a proposition is supported by evidence. That's a connection you simply have no capacity to understand. (For instance, when asked to open a thread about what sorts of evidence would support propositions about the supernatural, you opened a thread that was nothing but a list of people who didn't believe you had presented evidence. When it was pointed out to you that that's not the same thing, you made accusations of oppression and fled.) That's because you're not a person who arrives at positions based on the evidence; you're a person who arrives at a position on the basis of what the other people in your tribe seem to think.Prediction: you'll respond to this post by accusing me of oppressing you in some way.Edited by crashfrog, : Autocorrect error.

I know based on the evidence that I am holding a standard pack of cards. I might be wrong, of course. No, I just ask that if you are going to say it is possible, you have to show that it's possible.In order to know it is possible that I pull out the King of Hearts all I have to do is show that by the rules of card markings, one of the cards must be the King of Hearts. There are four suits in a standard deck, hearts is amongst them. They are labelled A-10 then J Q K. Therefore, amongst the possibility space for a deck of cards is one that has the heart suit with the King rank. With some reasonable tentativity we now know it is possible.In order to know if God is possible, you have to know the rules that govern reality. From those rules you should be able to see if God is permitted by them. If God is permitted by the rules of reality, then it is indeed possible, within realms of reasonable tentativity.That is a difficult task, of course, but if you aren't up for the challenge, I urge you to take back the claim that God is possible and instead use the phrase 'God is not ruled out by anything we know', which is the more correct phrasing and consequently dissolves the ontological argument.

Epistemological. Epidemiology is something else altogether.