A cool Ontological argument

This argument was Published by Robert Maydole in the Philosophy journal Philo, and even the prolific atheist philosopher Quentin Smith was stumped by it. Just one reason I'm really looking forward to the release of the Blackwell companion to Natural Theology.

(A) "Maximal greatness" is a perfection
(B) If a property is a perfection, it's negation is not a perfection
(C) If a property Q is a necessary condition for a perfection P, Q is a perfection

(1) If a maximally great being does not exist, it's not possible that a maximally great being exists (from the definition of "maximal greatness")
(2) If it's not possible that a maximally great being exists, every being has the property of "not being maximally great".
(3) If every being has the property of "not being maximally great", the property of "not being maximally great" is a necessary condition.
(4) If a maximally great being does not exist, "not being maximally great" is a perfection (from 1,2,3 and C)
(6) The property of "not being maximally great" is not a perfection (from A and B)
(7) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

Maximal greatness doesn't translate to god though. For all we know, the maximal greatness could be a human.Vandalvideo

If it has maximal greatness, there's no reason not to call it God.

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

Theokhoth

But what's wrong with saying that the concept of God proves the existence of God? That's like saying "Your Ontological argument is bad because its Ontological". Its pure question-begging.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Maximal greatness doesn't translate to god though. For all we know, the maximal greatness could be a human.Theokhoth

If it has maximal greatness, there's no reason not to call it God.

Maximal greatness doesn't translate to god though. For all we know, the maximal greatness could be a human.Vandalvideo

How could a contingent being be maximally great?danwallacefan

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

danwallacefan

But what's wrong with saying that the concept of God proves the existence of God? That's like saying "Your Ontological argument is bad because its Ontological". Its pure question-begging.

Just because you can conceptualize something doesn't mean that it exists.

You want perfection?

Look at this

*Flexes muscles*

And some of this

*Flexes more*

Got enough?Infinite-Zr0

Awww man... I wish I had brought my ticket to the GUN SHOW!

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

metroidfood

But what's wrong with saying that the concept of God proves the existence of God? That's like saying "Your Ontological argument is bad because its Ontological". Its pure question-begging.

Just because you can conceptualize something doesn't mean that it exists.

true, but if you can show the negation of that something's existence to cause contradictions, then you would have proven it to exist. Ontological arguments attempt to demonstrate this, and I believe I have done that today.

danwallacefan

You can twist the words anyway you like to cause contradictions. Fact is, there's no law of physics that says that a "maximally great" being has to exist. In fact, there isn't even a way to measure greatness, so there's not even a way to be "maximal" at it.

You can twist the words anyway you like to cause contradictions. Fact is, there's no law of physics that says that a "maximally great" being has to exist.metroidfood

True, there's no law of "physics". We have something better. We have the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction. to say that a maximally great being must exist.

In fact, there isn't even a way to measure greatness, so there's not even a way to be "maximal" at it.

metroidfood

That is basically saying that a god must exist because it's possible that god exists.AnObscureName

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

true, but if you can show the negation of that something's existence to cause contradictions, then you would have proven it to exist. Ontological arguments attempt to demonstrate this, and I believe I have done that today.

metroidfood

You can twist the words anyway you like to cause contradictions. Fact is, there's no law of physics that says that a "maximally great" being has to exist.

There doesn't have to be, because it's not a matter of physics.

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"]That is basically saying that a god must exist because it's possible that god exists.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"]That is basically saying that a god must exist because it's possible that god exists.AnObscureName

The idea goes like this: If possibly necessarily P, then P.

If P is possible to exist, and if P is necessary to some other aspect of existence, then P must exist.

It's controversial.

True, there's no law of "physics". We have something better. We have the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction. to say that a maximally great being must exist.

danwallacefan

The laws of logic can be arbitrarily defined by anyone who wants to call themselves a philosopher.

You see what happens when you hold to dogmatic empiricism kids?

danwallacefan

When it comes to proof, empiricism is a lot more reliable than philosophy.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

True, there's no law of "physics". We have something better. We have the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction. to say that a maximally great being must exist.

metroidfood

The laws of logic can be arbitrarily defined by anyone who wants to call themselves a philosopher.

No, they can't. The laws of logic are as solid as any law of physics. Example: It cannot be raining at point A and not raining at point A at the same time. The law of contradiction.

Also, how is "maximum greatness" a perfection? Even if something is greater than all other things in every possible way, that does not make it perfect. AnObscureName

If it's the greatest thing in existence then there can be nothing greater than it. Ergo, its greatness is at maximum. If perfection is greater than maximum greatness, then we have a paradox.

"Maximum greatness" is just a fancy way of saying "perfection."

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] And you can thank Axiom S5 of modal logic because you're EXACTLY right. God MUST exist simply because its possible that he exists!

Theokhoth

The idea goes like this: If possibly necessarily P, then P.

If P is possible to exist, and if P is necessary to some other aspect of existence, then P must exist.

It's controversial.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"] And how is that right? It's possible that it could rain tomorrow but that doesn't mean it is going to.danwallacefan

The idea goes like this: If possibly necessarily P, then P.

If P is possible to exist, and if P is necessary to some other aspect of existence, then P must exist.

It's controversial.

There are two aspects of the Axiom S5 modal: The first states that if P is possible, then P is necessarily possible; P has to be possible. This isn't controversial at all because it's common sense; almost all things are necessarily possible.

The aspect you're using, however, is very controversial.

If it's the greatest thing in existence then there can be nothing greater than it. Ergo, its greatness is at maximum. If perfection is greater than maximum greatness, then we have a paradox.

"Maximum greatness" is just a fancy way of saying "perfection."

Theokhoth

Perfection would be relative to the person judging the perfection.

Then an agreement on what perfection is needs to be reached. Bringing relativism into a logical argument does not discount the argument, even if relativism can be appropriately applied.

And to judge if something is perfect or not we need something else that is above the thing being judged.

No, because perfection is by universal definition above everything.

And it all keeps going in a big confusing cycle. Much easier to say; "No. A maximum great being does not exist, because to judge is a being is maximumly great, we would need a greater being who knows what the maximum of greatness is." AnObscureName

Easier, but not necessarily correct.

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"]Also, how is "maximum greatness" a perfection? Even if something is greater than all other things in every possible way, that does not make it perfect. Theokhoth

If it's the greatest thing in existence then there can be nothing greater than it. Ergo, its greatness is at maximum. If perfection is greater than maximum greatness, then we have a paradox.

"Maximum greatness" is just a fancy way of saying "perfection."

These "arguments" are ridiculous and do not prove anything. All they are doing is connecting a bunch of phrases together, starting with something reasonable that everyone can agree with and ending by saying god exists. You can do this with anything. If you want to construct a proof for the existence of god, provide some actual evidence. Rocky32189

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"] Perfection would be relative to the person judging the perfection.

Then an agreement on what perfection is needs to be reached. Bringing relativism into a logical argument does not discount the argument, even if relativism can be appropriately applied.

And to judge if something is perfect or not we need something else that is above the thing being judged.

No, because perfection is by universal definition above everything.

And it all keeps going in a big confusing cycle. Much easier to say; "No. A maximum great being does not exist, because to judge is a being is maximumly great, we would need a greater being who knows what the maximum of greatness is." Theokhoth

Easier, but not necessarily correct.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"]Also, how is "maximum greatness" a perfection? Even if something is greater than all other things in every possible way, that does not make it perfect. BumFluff122

If it's the greatest thing in existence then there can be nothing greater than it. Ergo, its greatness is at maximum. If perfection is greater than maximum greatness, then we have a paradox.

"Maximum greatness" is just a fancy way of saying "perfection."

I have never heard of maximal greatness described in terms of physics. I've only seen it applied to arguments regarding omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, eternity, and beauty, concluding that maximal greatness is necessary and sufficient for divinity.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"] Perfection would be relative to the person judging the perfection.

Then an agreement on what perfection is needs to be reached. Bringing relativism into a logical argument does not discount the argument, even if relativism can be appropriately applied.

And to judge if something is perfect or not we need something else that is above the thing being judged.

No, because perfection is by universal definition above everything.

And it all keeps going in a big confusing cycle. Much easier to say; "No. A maximum great being does not exist, because to judge is a being is maximumly great, we would need a greater being who knows what the maximum of greatness is." AnObscureName

Easier, but not necessarily correct.

Maximal greateness is greater than anything and everything else. If perfection is something separate from maximal greatness then there's a paradox, as perfection is defined the same way as maximal greatness: the greatest x possible.

As to your second question, there would also be a maximal ability to control maximum emotions, picking one over another. Though this is mind-bending.:P

There is no such thing as a "maximally great being" because God exceeds perfection and goes beyond all understanding that man attempts at knowing.huladog123

This is also a possibility, that maximal greatness surpasses even maximal greatness.

I have never heard of maximal greatness described in terms of physics. I've only seen it applied to arguments regarding omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, eternity, and beauty, concluding that maximal greatness is necessary and sufficient for divinity.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Easier, but not necessarily correct.

Theokhoth

Maximal greateness is greater than anything and everything else. If perfection is something separate from maximal greatness then there's a paradox, as perfection is defined the same way as maximal greatness: the greatest x possible.

As to your second question, there would also be a maximal ability to control maximum emotions, picking one over another. Though this is mind-bending.:P

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"] I still don't see how being maximum great = perfection. Does maximum great apply to all qualities? If so, wouldn't they all cancel each other out to leave a big blob of neutralness. How can something be maximumly empathetic while also being maximumly apathetic?AnObscureName

Maximal greateness is greater than anything and everything else. If perfection is something separate from maximal greatness then there's a paradox, as perfection is defined the same way as maximal greatness: the greatest x possible.

As to your second question, there would also be a maximal ability to control maximum emotions, picking one over another. Though this is mind-bending.:P

That isn't quite the reasoning. If P is possibly necessary, then p is necessary. In other words, if P is possible, and if P is necessary, then P has to be true. Necessity is a crucial factor in this argument.

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"]Also, how is "maximum greatness" a perfection? Even if something is greater than all other things in every possible way, that does not make it perfect. Theokhoth

If it's the greatest thing in existence then there can be nothing greater than it. Ergo, its greatness is at maximum. If perfection is greater than maximum greatness, then we have a paradox.

"Maximum greatness" is just a fancy way of saying "perfection."

(C) If a property Q is a necessary condition for a perfection P, Q is a perfection.danwallacefan

That would also mean that maximum greatness has to be measurable, correct? Because if it's infinite we could have a situation where perfection still is something else than infinity. They could both be described as infinite but if one was to compare them to each other they would still be different (hence why infinity divided by infinity is undefined in math, and can give several different answers depending on the context). inoperativeRS

That's actually interesting, and I don't know the answer.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]These "arguments" are ridiculous and do not prove anything. All they are doing is connecting a bunch of phrases together, starting with something reasonable that everyone can agree with and ending by saying god exists. You can do this with anything. If you want to construct a proof for the existence of god, provide some actual evidence. Theokhoth

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

Just because an argument is logical, doesn't mean it proves anything. These arguments do not make any headway at all in the proof of a god.

Empirical evidence isn't simply "nice". It is essential.

well I find your argument shallow and pedantic

The argument is dodgy at the end... if the maximal great being at the end is God, then that means we have some sort of measure of Him, as we label him "Maximally great"... God would be beyond our comprehension and understanding, therefore he would not be simply maximally great.

Yep, once more imo this argument is just a tricky swerving around terms, logical fallacies and imperfections of the human conception of things.

The whole argument has no power to convince because it has no actual logical basis. Again imo.

That's my input.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]These "arguments" are ridiculous and do not prove anything. All they are doing is connecting a bunch of phrases together, starting with something reasonable that everyone can agree with and ending by saying god exists. You can do this with anything. If you want to construct a proof for the existence of god, provide some actual evidence. Rocky32189

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

Just because an argument is logical, doesn't mean it proves anything. These arguments do not make any headway at all in the proof of a god.

Empirical evidence isn't simply "nice". It is essential.

Math.

That is my answer to those statements.