Arguments for the existence of God

Hey, I was reading the first Philosophy lecture on MIT's OCW and it's on the ontological argument (PDF) for God.

The premise seems to be that since the concept of God is a perfect being, and existence is a form of perfection, God must exist in order to be God. "The concept of God is the concept of an existent being." But how does this Anselm fellow make the connection from that to saying that God must necessarily exist?

Seems like a very fallacious argument. How could it be taken seriously?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is inconsistent. It is a circular argument. You cannot prve a theory by quoting part of the theory as your proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Balder,

First off, you have to remember context. Anselm was writing in the 11th Century when scientific theory was, to put it mildly, rudimentary. The basic gist of the argument is that nothing so wonderfully complex ('perfect') as the world we live in could possible exist by mistake; it must have been created, and the best contemporaneaous candidate was God. It's not so much circular as it is an attributive category mistake.

Interestingly, the overall idea isn't too far away from the current quantum mechanical interpretation of our world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

glaucon, that isn't the argument that is being presented. The argument by Anselm that Balder1 is talking about is an entirely different one.

apolo, the problem isn't the argument's circularity (though... you may be right about that, I'd have to consider it more). The major problem is what Balder1 himself brings up, the leap that Anselm makes from saying "this is what this being must consist of" to saying "therefore this being must be so."

Balder1, it is a problem, that is for sure. In fact, it's such a large problem that the vast majority of philosophers recognize the argument's inconsistency, even philosophers who believe in God. Therefore, you are right, it is a leap, and while this argument makes sense, it certainly doesn't prove God's existence.

 

I looked at it and wondered if I was missing something to make it compelling enough to discuss, but it seems likely that it's just an exercise in pointing out flaws in some logic.

The most comepelling argument there seems to the cosmological argument for God:

"Everything is either a dependent being or an independent (self-existent/self-caused) being; not everything is dependent; so, something (=God) is independent."

This seems fallacious in that we don't know of any being that is truly self-caused, but how do you deal with the paradox of an infinite chain of dependent beings? Something has to be at the root of it, doesn't it?

 

Balder1, that's precisely it. If all beings were dependant, then, in fact, none could exist, since they all rely on something else for existence. Whether God is the independent being or otherwise is a matter of debate. Whether there is only one independent being is also another matter of debate. If there is more than one independent being, then how can we be so sure that God is one of them? See what I mean?

 

This theory has no ground. From where did you get that everything is perfect?
It seems perfect for us, because we inhabit this universe. If the conditions weren't perfect for our existance, we wouldn't exists. But if there existed some other kind of beings then the universe would be perfect for them, because they exist in it. They are a part of that universe. If , however, for a moment we could exist in another universe (which would also have to be a creation of your god) then I highly doubt that we could exist just for a few seconds.
To all beings who exist in this universe the conditions seem to be perfect, but for those who don't exist, the conditions are highly hostile.

 

God said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" << First commandment

And then your friends argument that (paraphrasing) God must exist because we have conceptualised perfection.
How the hell could we conceptualise perfection without that single commandment?

Let me break it down to reveal a little about God.

The voice says ...

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

I say

Wow, now thats a voice that knows what it is to 'command' and I tell you what, if that voice is saying that to man then man better shut the hell up.
But now I want to discern why God is saying that ...

The attitude is like this "I love you. Dont you dare love anyone but me!"
This is the spirit of a husband to a wife. Now God's church is often refered to as a bride waiting to marry her husband in the Holy Bible. The husband waits at the alter as the bride enters the church. The bride walks towards her husband and they marry. The bride vows to be faithful to her husband, to honor and obey him. The husband vows to love and cherish his wife.
God's love is not mean and angry - he just requires faithfulness and loves his wife jealously. Any good husband would because he is a good husband.
If you are thinking that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is mean and puffed up, then think again. This is God's requirement of you, but God doesnt say "Thou shalt have no other men before me" nor does He say "Thou shalt have no other women before me" instead He says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Guess what that makes you in His eyes? A little god! Well one he made anyway, kind God that He is so that you may know His love for you.
But little gods, I say to you ... you have all missed the mark, all fallen short of the Glory that is yours by design. To 'sin' is to miss the mark and your little arrows are well off target. As for me, I reckon I hit the hot damn bullseye! I have won the race, I get the prize. Follow me ...

c20

 

And you try to argue for what?

 

Avatar, you missed the meaning of the argument. By saying "existence is part of perfection," all that is meant is that if something is to be perfect, it must exist, since to exist is more perfect than to not exist. The argument in no ways says that existing things are perfect.

Yet, you are right, the argument is faulty, just not for the reasons that you think.

c20, while your comments may be appreciated in a religious forum, this is one deals with philosophy. Your comments are entirely religious, and do not deal with classical philosophy. Preach all you want, but if you are doing it here, it should pertain to the topic, and should be presented in an argumentative form. Perhaps it's just me, but in your post I can't find any arguments for the existence of God, nor can I find commentary on what has already been posted.

 

I was using the Holy scripture as an argument for the existence of God. i think I was more than 'on the right path'.

 

I have the impression that you argue on the basis of an already existing god, but that is be the wrong start to discuss if god really exists.

If your argument is:

(the only thing that resembles an argument)
Then I would answer that perfection is not existent, it is an ideal that was created by humans. And humans can make laws and gods.

 

My argument is that everything that exists is perfect for the conditions existing
and one couldn't be right and simultaneously have the ability to say (exist), that something is not perfect.
My thought is that for all those who exist, the conditions are perfect, thus they feel grateful and seek something to be grateful to.
My point is that it's a natural law, not a proof of godly manifestation. Just as we don't think that 2+2=4 is a divine message.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the first time or if I have misunderstood it once again

 

c20,

If that is the case, then the argument is circular, since to believe that God said "thou shalt have no other gods before me" is first to believe that God exists. So, basically, your argument says this:

An existing entity said words that must be abided, simply by nature of their authority and beauty, hence that existing entity must exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If this is your argumentation, then there is plenty here to call invalid. First, it is a circular argument. You presuppose the existence of God to prove God's existence. It's like saying "an existing thing exists," which isn't a proof, it's a tautology, and it may be said about anything. However, it certainly doesn't prove that the thing in question really does exist.

Secondly, there is no definite connection between the premises and conclusion. Just because there is an existing thing that says something beautiful and authoritative, doesn't in any way say that that thing is right. Nor do the words said necessarily mean that there is an existing God from which they came.

Perhaps it is the case that you have never taken formal logic, but an argument consists of clearly stated and composed premises that can be affirmed as either true or false that lead necessarily to a conclusion (this being a valid argument). I suppose yours can be considered an argument, although it is not clear, the premises are not confirmed to be true, and they do not necessarily lead to a conclusion. Furthermore, the argument is circular and the very first premise presupposes the conclusion. It is entirely weak and invalid. I'm not trying to pick on you, it's just that you've presented something that no serious philosopher or logician would take seriously or give credit to. Take this as a lesson, and before you present another such argument to your own discredit, study up on argument form and argument validity.

You seem to be a very religious person, a very passionate person, and this is good. It is for your own sake, and for those whom you intend to bring to clarity and light, that I make this suggestion.

 

How can you say "existence" is "perfect?" A thing that exists isn't necessarily perfect, it may need modification.

Everything natural is "perfect;" only things created by man can be questioned in quality. "Perfection" is really a man-made collection of sounds, letters, and meanings; merely man's concern. A silly concern. Thus, if man created god, man can call god perfect but god isn't necessarily perfect. If god created man, then god is perfect, as we call it, and man is also perfect. But this doesn't interest anyone except for some men.

 

Alright, let's set aside Anselm's argument for now. I will address your present argument as such. It seems to be that you are arguing perfection according to a relative standard. With this I would agree. If the relative standard is reality as it is, then yes, every existing thing is perfect according to what it is. Perfection is simply totality, or completeness. If we are to say that the standard to which I am being measured is me, then I am perfect according to that standard. In fact, if matter is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, then the same amount of energy that exists now existed at the beginning of the universe, and therefore the same amount of matter exists now as it did at the beginning of the universe (since matter and energy are one and the same, if Einstein is right). Hence, according to the standard of present reality, and quantitative reality, the universe is perfect.

However, it seems to me that when most people speak of perfection they do not refer to the standard of that which is. It seems to me that when people speak of perfection they speak about the ideal standard. Most people have a vague notion of what the ideal standard is, ergo I will attempt to illuminate this idea. Assuming that original creation is the ideal standard, and we are no longer experiencers of the original intended course of creation (this due to free will and intellect), it can be said that we are not experiencing the ideal standard. The ideal standard is that form to which all of a given specie is derived from. For example, all types of triangles might be said to come out of an equilateral triangle (humor me and just go along with the concept). Any triangle that is not equilateral does not conform to the form of the species, and therefore, when measured against the form of the species, is said not to be perfect. One may measure the triangle against itself, and say that it is perfect according to its own specifications, but this doesn't saying anything about perfection according to it's natural form, that is, it's species-form.

Likewise, it may be said, that humans too have a species-form that none now conform to. For example, the human face is supposed to be wholly symmetric, but no human being that now lives has a wholly symmetric face. The more healthy a person is, the more symmetric the face will be, and also the more beautiful the face will appear to be to onlookers. Health is beautiful, and (at the very least) in the case of humans, symmetry is indicative of health. It seems to be logical that the ideal, the most healthy human, and hence the human in orginal creation, would have been entirely symmetric according to the human form. Ergo, none now live that are perfect according to the ideal human standard (again, due to free will, which chose a course of destruction and non-alignment).

While it may not be proof of Godly manifestation, this argument certainly speaks volumes about perfection. This is because supreme perfection would simply be that which is entirely complete, utter totality, not simply according to its own nature, but according to the standard of positive possibility. In other words, the actually infinite would be an example of supreme perfection. Such a supreme perfection is what we deem to be God.

 

whitewolf, you have made the same error that avatar made. Balder1 simply stated the premise in an unclear way. The premise isn't that existence is perfect. Rather, all that is being said in the argument is that existence is better than non-existence, and hence existence would be part of a supremely perfect being, since otherwise, non-existence being an imperfection, a said supremely perfect being wouldn't actually be supremely perfect (not-existing).

 

And this is precisely what needs to be argued against. For fun, I say, a thing that exists is imperfect, for it is inevitably worse than the initial idea in the mind of the creator of the thing (this does not imply deity). This is a classic idea that was known to artists and others for centuries, refer to Durer's "Melancholy." "Better" is already relative and relevant to some minds and not to others.

That god may be perfect I can accept; I don't see why he's necessarily more perfect than man.

We are not what god intended us to be? God faultered and made a mistake while making us? A mistake? Imperfection!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know about this. I imagine that there are some who have an idea fully fleshed within their minds before the actual creation in physical form is done, but I should think that most only have a vague conception. Open-ended. It is only when it is put into physical form that it is defined and limited. Perfection is a fallacy. Even perfection of an ideal is an impossible state.

The only thing going for a thing that is thought rather than made is that it contains within it more possibilities for expression than the thing that has been made. I expressed this idea in that thread where you were asking for choices on which pixie to draw for school. I liked the one that was most unfinished because it had more possibility and was more likely to end up in a form that I would like than the other two.

Which did you pick, by the way? The one that you wanted to all along? #3?

 

whitewolf, yes we are WHAT God intended us to be, we are human. However, we are not AS God intended us to be. There is a distinct difference, since one refers to essence and the other refers to state. The essence of every human being is humanity. The state of every human being is different, and imperfect according to the standard of human form (as opposed to human actuality).

invert_nexus, you say that perfection is a fallacy, that perfection of an ideal is an impossible state. While, to an extent, I might agree with this, I would first ask how you define perfection. It has been my experience that perfection means something different (and is usually a vague concept) for most people. The problem with this is that if most people have a different concept in mind, then we are all talking about something different, and not actually having a meaningful conversation.