This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Ontological argument for the existence of the devil?

Hi all,

Does anybody know of an ontological argument for the existence of the devil? I think it's a twist on Anselm's argument for the existence of God. I've googled about but can't seem to find much information.

It's for a question set for my philosophy homework. I did consider putting it in Academic, but it's not actually on the syllabus so people with a general interest in philosophy might be more able to help than people who do the subject at school.

Reply 1

macworld

thefish_uk

OK, I'll have a go. I remember vaguely that the ontological argument by Anselm of Aosta was: the concept itself of god is proof of god's existence, since the concept of god (infinite, omniscient etc.) could not arise in our limited intellect, but most come from a superior, infinite being (god).

If you stop and think, this reasoning can be used in the case of the devil, if you use in his case the concept of infinitely evil etc.

I am not aware however of this proof being actually suggested by anyone

Reply 2

thefish_uk

macworld

Hmmm, we looked at one by Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury) that said that because we say God is the greatest conceivable being (and even athiests would agree) then he must exist in reality as well as in our minds as something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists in our mind.

I could do with a name to look up, of somebody who suggested this, and then I'll be fine.

thanks

Reply 3

Amazing

I've heard of such arguments, but as far as I know they're largely discredited and, whilst the ontological argument for the existance of God is certainly flawed, it's agreed that the devil thing is a lot worse.

Presumbably an ontological argument for the existance of the "devil" wouldn't actually conform to anything like the Christian idea of the devil! The devil is not supposed to be an infinitely evil being nor a true opposite of God, but I imagine this is the sort of being the ontological argument would come up with. If anything, such an argument would suggest Dualism!

Reply 4

thefish_uk

Amazing

I know it's all quite flawed, but we're doing end of topic questions on the ontological argument and this is something we haven't been taught:

[INDENT]9. Assess the ontological argument for the existence of the Devil. What relevance does this alternative have for Anselm's argument?[/INDENT]

Reply 5

macworld

thefish_uk

I checked- Anselm of Aosta and of Canterbury are the same person- and the ontological argument is not as I remembered, but rather as you described..

Anselm wrote also extensively about the devil (De casu diaboli -the fall of the devil, around 1100) so I would be surprised if he had not tried his argument also on the devil.

Reply 6

Mad_Monkey59

The ontological argument is the weakest of all the arguments for the existence of God... its based on the fact that God, by definition most be perfect in everyway... he must possess every quality otherwise something could be better then him, which would mean he isnt God - the debate is whether perfection is a predicate for existence.

Although Kant says that if God exists, then yes he must be perfect, but he doesn't neccessarily need to exist.

Okay, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that evil exists, therefore God couldn't have created it etc... so proof for the devil... im not familiar with it at all.

Good luck mate :biggrin:

Reply 7

thefish_uk

Mad_Monkey59

Yes, this is all familiar to me, and I don't like the ontological argument that much myself. But I could do with a web page about the ontological argument for the devil.

Reply 8

Zarathustra

"In their interesting "An Ontological Argument for the Devil," David and Marjorie Haight argue that if the ontological argument is sound, then a parallel argument proves the existence of the being than which no worse can be conceived.[8]
Their argument requires that, just as it is greater for an all-good being to exist in reality than not, it is greater for an all-evil being to exist in reality than not.[9] So, we might wonder whether it is greater for Hitler or diseases to have existed or not, or whether it is greater for, say, mud to exist than not. Of course, this raises the question of whether greatness is meant to be indexed to the being in question, such that it would be greater for that being if it were to exist; or to the universe as a whole, such that it would be greater all things considered for that being to exist."
http://home.gwu.edu/~truncell/Anselm's%20Equivocation.htm

Only thing I could find!

ZarathustraX

Reply 9

pedy1986

Just define Devil as 'greatest conceivable evil being'

then follow through Anselms argument and you will conclude the Devil exists.

Reply 10

thefish_uk

corey

Just define Devil as 'greatest conceivable evil being'

then follow through Anselms argument and you will conclude the Devil exists.

Hmm I suppose, but I think it's got to be an argument by a past philosopher.

Thanks anyway.

Reply 11

pedy1986

thefish_uk

Hmm I suppose, but I think it's got to be an argument by a past philosopher.

Thanks anyway.

Why? Its perfectly possible to deduce the same argument yourself without the need of anothers help!

Besides, ontological argument came up last year, ain't going to come up thios summer :tongue:

Reply 12

pedy1986

Lucky you, found my notes

Simon Blackburn's book Think

Chapter : Dreamboats and Turkeys

Staying with Dreamboat, we can work it through like this. Suppose you carefully added to Dreamboat's specifications that he or she must not only be a great lover, but also as great as lover as can be imagined then you can argue in a parallel fashion:

The concept of Dreamboat is understood. Whatever is understood exists in the understanding. So Dreamboat exists in the understanding.

And then:

Suppose Dreamboat only exists in the understanding and not in reality. Then a greater lover than Dreamboat can be conceived: one that exists in reality. But Dreamboat is defined as a lover than which no greater can be conceived. So no greater love than Dreamboat can be conceived, by definition. But now we have a contradiction. So our original supposition was false.

Dreamboat exists in reality. Wonderful! But do not rejoice too quickly. You might also unfortunately prove by the same means that you have as dangerous rival as can be imagined, for Dreamboats affections. The crucial premise that real rivals are more dangerous than merely imagined ones- which they surely are. And the ontological argument looks set to prove the existence of the Devil - defined as that than which nothing worse can be conceived. For if something is to be that than which nothing worse can be conceived, it had better not exist only in the imagination, for then something worse can be conceived, namely a being that is that bad but also really exists (notice that existence in a devil is an imperfection; it makes him worse)

Reply 13

Agent Smith

Surely if anything imaginable exists within the mind, an interesting quandary arises.

Since, as Morpheus observed, humans know nothing about the universe that does not first pass through their senses, the 'within-mind' existence is no different from the 'real' one, because the 'real world' exists only in the brain anyway. All of which makes me wonder how humans instinctively know (in most cases, most of the time) the difference between 'real' and 'not real'. The brain must somehow know where the impulses originated - from another part of itself (as in fantasies) or from outside (as in experience). Thus hallucinations can be seen as a malfunctioning of this system, with the brain becoming unable to determine whether it is 'seeing' the real world or the imagined world.

So many concepts, so little time...