Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Refuting the Ontological Argument

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:48:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What are refutations to the Ontological Argument?

I can present a few. Are these convincing? Can you guys think of any others?

The Ontological Argument proceeds as follows:

1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that God exists, i.e. there is a possible world in which God exists.
5. If there is a possible world where God exists, then God must exist in all possible worlds [or else God wouldn't be a necessarily existent being].
6. God exists in all possible words.
7. God exists.

The main objection that I have seen is that you can run *anything* through the ontological argument and it comes out as existing.

For example:

1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is a gay pink unicorn.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that God exists, i.e. there is a possible world in which God exists.
5. If there is a possible world where God exists, then God must exist in all possible worlds [or else God wouldn't be a necessarily existant being].
6. God exists in all possible words.
7. God exists.

The result of this ontological argument is that a God exists who is a gay pink unicorn. This reveals the basic flaw in the ontological argument. Anything that you define as a necessarily existent being has to exist, regardless of its other traits. So there must be an infinite number of necessarily existent beings out there with every possible permutation of traits. Alternatively, if gay pink unicorn Gods don't exist, the argument cannot be logically sound.

In addition, you can simply reverse the argument to prove God's *non-existence.* This is the "reverse ontological argument":

1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is a possible world in which God does not exist.
5. If there is a possible world where God does not exist, then God cannot exist in any possible world [because God is a necessarily existent being].
6. God does not exist in all possible worlds.
7. God does not exist.

If the same exact argument that is used to prove God's *existence* can also be used to prove his *non-existence,* then this argument is not sufficient to prove God's existence.

Are these convincing? Are there some objections I missed?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:59:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The ontological argument, and all other "arguments" which try to prove God's existence are stupid. Why? There is no empirical, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, objective, etc. evidence for God.

Belief in God must be taken on faith, and can be taken on faith alone. There is no other way to believe in God than by faith. But, the ontological argument reduces to "Ha! You can't disprove it! Therefore, it must be!" which is intellectually disingenuous -but it makes Christians (who aren't logical positivists) really uncomfortable.

It also pisses off Catholics, who have this audacious (and absurd) belief that faith is not only reasonable, but it's the only rational belief -and that's just nonsense. Faith is irrational, because it is a conscious choice to believe in something you can't scientifically prove.

But that's just as absurd as atheists whose arguments reduce to "Ha! You can't prove it! Therefore..." yada yada yada... that argument is just as stupid because it conflates the absence of evidence with the evidence of absence. Inasmuch as you can't prove God's existence, you also can't disprove God's existence -much to the ironic dismay of a whole load of people who have dedicated their entire careers to lambasting Christians for their baseless beliefs.
Tsar of DDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:30:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:48:05 AM, bluesteel wrote:
What are refutations to the Ontological Argument?

I can present a few. Are these convincing? Can you guys think of any others?

The Ontological Argument proceeds as follows:

1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that God exists, i.e. there is a possible world in which God exists.
5. If there is a possible world where God exists, then God must exist in all possible worlds [or else God wouldn't be a necessarily existent being].
6. God exists in all possible words.
7. God exists.

The main objection that I have seen is that you can run *anything* through the ontological argument and it comes out as existing.

For example:

1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is a gay pink unicorn.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that God exists, i.e. there is a possible world in which God exists.
5. If there is a possible world where God exists, then God must exist in all possible worlds [or else God wouldn't be a necessarily existant being].
6. God exists in all possible words.
7. God exists.

The result of this ontological argument is that a God exists who is a gay pink unicorn. This reveals the basic flaw in the ontological argument. Anything that you define as a necessarily existent being has to exist, regardless of its other traits. So there must be an infinite number of necessarily existent beings out there with every possible permutation of traits. Alternatively, if gay pink unicorn Gods don't exist, the argument cannot be logically sound.

In addition, you can simply reverse the argument to prove God's *non-existence.* This is the "reverse ontological argument":

1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is a possible world in which God does not exist.
5. If there is a possible world where God does not exist, then God cannot exist in any possible world [because God is a necessarily existent being].
6. God does not exist in all possible worlds.
7. God does not exist.

If the same exact argument that is used to prove God's *existence* can also be used to prove his *non-existence,* then this argument is not sufficient to prove God's existence.

Are these convincing? Are there some objections I missed?

I forget what the main rebuttal to this is, although there is also the reverse ontological argument:

1. An anti-God is a being who necessarily exists and is omniscient and omnipotent.
2. By definition, if something necessarily exists, it exists in all possible words.
3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible."
4. It is possible that an Anti-God exists, i.e. there is a possible world in which Andi-God exists.
5. If there is a possible world where Anti-God exists, then Anti-God must exist in all possible worlds [or else God wouldn't be a necessarily existent being].
6. Anti-God exists in all possible words.
7. Anti-God exists.

Where anti-God is pretty much the opposite attributes save for omniscient, omnipotent, etc. And effectively negates any action that could be performed by the God demonstrated by the argument. And also negates God's other superficial attributes (maximally good, etc)

But as far as I see the portion in contention is the word 'possible', which can be in effect on different levels.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:53:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 2:30:30 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
anti-God

True. The ontological argument also proves the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-nefarious ["all-evil"] God, where omni-nefarious means a being who performs the most evil action in every situation.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 8:45:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's why the ontological argument has been superseded by the Logic of History and the Logic of Infinity. When the Logic of History is coupled to the Logic of Infinity (ontological argument) you get reality, at least a philosophical argument that matches the historical record.

The Logic of History is this: Life evolves into greater complexity of forms and systems of interaction with everything. This has produced Intelligence in our species to the point of self-awareness and ability to reason, put 2 and 2 together to get 4. Plus novelty. Put 2 and 2 together to get 2 squared, then more fanciful possible outcomes as Intelligence evolves in complex thinking. The Logic of History shows Intelligence on this planet at least is successfully avoiding extinction by luck so far. Now we know what causes mass extinctions so Intelligence must gain power to avoid the planet killers of life, those pieces of planetary debris whizzing around our solar system plus the comets from deep space. Our planet would look just like the moon or mars, full of craters and dead as a doornail if not for Gaia being alive for us, the earthquakes, the volcanoes, the tsunamis, all actually part of the Plan to evolve Intelligence forward in complex thinking and the powers of material world manipulation that follow from it.

The Logic of History shows human beings acquiring greater amounts of knowledge about the world through time. Even when Europe was in their Dark Ages, knowledge acquisition was going strong with Muslim scholarship around the Mediterranean and North Africa. In the last 200 years we've gone from horse and buggies to inter-stellar space ships and landing human beings on the moon. A clear historical trail and path of successful species spreading out their territories. And in the same time period we've gone from wood and coal fires to being able to routinely create the power of the sun on earth. The Logic of History says we will have ability to manipulate our environment in ways we cannot grasp today as anything more than our wildest fantasies. Like the ancient belief that God created the world by Thought alone.

In the 1958 prophetic prototype Star-Trek movie, Forbidden Planet, an advanced now extinct race created the Krell Machine powered by the nuclear interior of the a planet that could turn thought into matter. The Krell had bad thoughts it seems and their IDs got them. But the idea, ancient in human civilization, is there and with the Logic of History plus the Logic of Infinity, well, that logic says attaining the powers ascribed to God is within the possibility of human evolution.

I, of course, being informed of all this information by a Messenger sent back from our future selves down the time-line, am here to tell you this. We did it, we evolved at the "End of Days" into God, the Elohim, the Holy Ones and all of us moved on to the World to Come, "heaven" where souls go because they've learned whatever lesson in the Creation school of learning each soul must endure for fit entry into the World to Come. So, yes, this world is maya, illusion, a tape being played that when your body dies your soul remembers where you came from before that god-awful Dream happened where things die and there's blood and guts and gore. Who needs that?

Our present day earthly forms need it, unfortunately. But hey, there's those nuggets of gold in Creation too, sometimes long periods of peace and goodwill and plenty for all. With love all things are possible.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 5:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 8:45:44 AM, biomystic wrote:


Yeah, um, your proof that humans will become God is wrong. We have acquired *better* knowledge over time, not *more* knowledge. Our brains still have the same limited capacity to remember stuff. In fact, forgetting is an important part of our brain development. When our brains fail to forget stuff, we get problems like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (the failure to forget traumatic memories). An inherent feature of our brains is that they are primed to forget knowledge we don't use every day, unless something goes wrong. So we can never reach "perfect knowledge" of everything.

In fact, it's impossible to know everything. A human cannot know both the direct and position of a subatomic particle. [Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle].

Also, the fact that you are typing what you wrote from an insane asylum somewhat hurts your credibility.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 8:50:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jeez, bluesteal, you can't win your argument with any logical argument so you dig for the slander and libel, the tools of those without reasoned arguments to defend their opinions.

You got to show why biomysic's destruction of atheist ideology is wrong, not just say it's wrong and point to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which if you actually followed the Logic of History is what, bluesteel, a theory of the early 20th century, and neither you or any atheist is able to stop the evolution of human intellectual discovery. So, you can't really say logically that Heisenberg's theory stops anything human beings can do. Because you don't know the future of what we can accomplish.

Just like Muhammad tried to freeze all human knowledge at his own 7th century level for all Muslims for all time, atheists too, try to freeze all human knowledge at the atheist's time, completely forgetting the march of time revealing new discoveries in most every field. E.g. finding that human brains have evolved to receive and process spiritual events, this fact still denied by atheists scrambling for hard ground now as even ID cannot be debunked by any atheist with science unable to explain why the universe just happens to favor our little enterprise in intelligent Life.