This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Ontological Argument

are there actually any strengths of this argument ????

logic and reason because it is a apriori argument... the fact that its an apriori argument isnt enough to be classed as a strength

Reply 1

tel2404

Yeh i struggle finding strengths for it too. But a benefit of it being a priori is that no empirical evidence is required, which makes it very simple to understand, but also to criticise.

Reply 2

Schott

11

It's complete rubbish. Very difficult to find strengths in rubbish! :P

Reply 3

**Summer**

If you were to believe in the first statement then it is a successful and pursuasive argument :-)

Reply 4

applejuice345

OP

yeah it's silly... well atleast we can all argue against the question although try and make it a little bit balanced !

what do you mean by first statement?
before gaunilo in proslogian 2 ?

Reply 5

applejuice345

OP

tony_ron

It's complete rubbish. Very difficult to find strengths in rubbish! :P

do you remember ages ago when a pile of rubbish was a main attraction in an art gallery ??

Reply 6

Schott

11

No, but I'll take your word for it :p:

Reply 7

RawJoh1

14

Strengths:
- It uses premises that the atheist is likely to accept
- a priori, thus is not contingent upon empirical evidence which could be found to be false in the future
- the conclusion SEEMS to follow from the premises, we only find it does not when we get technical (existence is not a predicate etc)

Reply 8

applejuice345

OP

phawkins1988

Strengths:
- It uses premises that the atheist is likely to accept
- a priori, thus is not contingent upon empirical evidence which could be found to be false in the future
- the conclusion SEEMS to follow from the premises, we only find it does not when we get technical (existence is not a predicate etc)

thanks!!! my plan- I'll just elaborate on these and then counter them.. all...

Reply 9

herbal bug

12

Didnt Brian Davis say that if we the definition of God used by Anselm was not the same as our own, then the defifinition may be scraped.
not in those words eveidently

Reply 10

applejuice345

OP

seeing as it is an argument based on language and hmm syntax then yes it is a good criticism

Reply 11

brown

4

I so hate the ontological argument :frown:

. Anway, the only strength I can think of (which has already been mentioned) is that the conclusion follows from the premises (God must exist because He is that than which nothing greater can be thought and if something is the greatest thing conceivable, it must exist). It's a logical argument :smile:

.

Reply 12

RawJoh1

14

brown

I so hate the ontological argument :frown:

. Anway, the only strength I can think of (which has already been mentioned) is that the conclusion follows from the premises (God must exist because He is that than which nothing greater can be thought and if something is the greatest thing conceivable, it must exist). It's a logical argument :smile:

.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises (as I understand it). It merely seems to.

The argument, roughly, is this:

1. God is that which non-greater can be conceived
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist
3. Therefore, God exists

Now, the conclusion SEEMS to follow from the premises. But, the premises are true. Thus, if the premises are true, yet the conclusion is not true, then the conclusion cannot follow from the premises. This is because true premises cannot imply a false conclusion.

Now, I realist that assumes that God does not exist. I personally believe that He does exist. But, if you are writing from an atheist perspective, and you think that the conclusion of the ontological argument follows from the premises, you are in a bad position.

Reply 13

tel2404

Yeh exactly, it only appears to be logical, but look under the surface and it is apparent that it is not at all logical.

Reply 14

K"TC"Climo

i am going to push the fact that necessity is a first order predicate (even frege would agree with this...), and consequently that malcolms version of the o. argument works a lot better than the original by anselm / descartes. It in fact fends of all criticism from the "existence is not a predicate" argument - this i think is arguably a strength...

but then of course you'd lead to davies who shows that even if you agree that necessity (or non-contingency) is a first order predicate, the argument is still not valid (due to the whole 2 uses of "is" argument)... (does "God is necessary" necessarily lead to "God exists"...)

so that, and the fact that its analytic/deductive, make 2 stregths... probably enough - and you could talk about malcom, frege, and davies for pages and pages, so filling an entire question on strengths shouldnt be too hard...

Reply 15

Loveisonthedole

As david hume says, the ontological argument only provides a rational explanation for the existance of God IF he exists. It does not actually prove his existance.

Reply 16

*littlemisssunshine*

applejuice345

do you remember ages ago when a pile of rubbish was a main attraction in an art gallery ??

I went to the Tate modern last weekend. Piles of rubbish still are a main attraction!! lol

Reply 17

zzzzzoe

11

as we can see, this argument is convincing for believers who already "know" God exists, but it will never convince the atheist. it would seem to be a strong proof of the definition of God alone, but cannot by means of reductio ad absurdum define God into existence. (as kant said, "existence is not a predicate".)

however, the ontological argument is and remains to be one of the most important arguments of all for the existence of God, not because it is a strong inductive argument, but rather, it raises one of the most profound questions facing theistic belief: what do we mean by "God"??

everyone has a different idea!!
the way to gain good A02 evaluative points is (as im told) to then go on talking about the 2 theories of truth (realism and anti realism).

if Anselm is an anti realist, then the argument could work!!!!
if he is a realist, it fails.

Reply 18

Sincere Bird

Firstly, if you can't conceive of any strengths for this argument, I suggest you don't ignorantly claim it was rubbish. This argument continues to find intelligent, successfull philosophers that will support it, and I for one found it as much a pleasure to study as any argument. I think if you read the Proslogion, or Fifth Meditation, you'll find the original writing fairly inspiring.

Both Anselm and Descartes assumed that we as humans are able to understand and define God, which although a huge point of contention for believers, particularly Christian, this optimism could be argued to be a strenght of Ontological arguments.

All ontological arguments seem to attempt the same thing: an analytic argument, based on a priori knowledge, prior to experience. There are few arguments for the existence of God that can boast that, and refuting this is slightly more troublesome than refuting arguments based on experience. That's your second or third strength so far.

Anselm's arguments are, he believed, true by definition. They are also reductio ad absurdum, because they take the assumption made by the 'fool' or atheist that God does not exist, and arguably prove it to be absurd. This is the thing that inspired Alvin Plantinga to revise the argument in the thirties, and his argument also attempts to do this.

Also, don't forget that you're going to have to give a balanced argument, and make your own criticisms. You're going to have to take the critique posed by theorists like Russell and Kant, and you're going to have to argue how strong they are.

Bertrand Russel, G. Moore, and Immanuel Kant all basically argued the same point: Existence is not a predicate. They argued that as a predicate, existence would tell us nothing about the nature of God, or in other words, existence is seperable from the definition of God, with no real consequence.

Let's see how this actually applies to Anselm's argument (for example).

Anselm proposed the following definition of God: That than which nothing greater can be conceived. He illustrated that as existence in re (in actuality) is greater than existence in intellectu (in mind), God must, by definition, exist. Although Anselm hasn't here claimed directly that existence is a predicate of God, if it tells us nothing more as a characteristic about that which it is assigned to. This means that God is no more or less great for existing, which would seem to undermine the argument.

However, many Ontological arguments specify that the existence of God is necessary. As a predicate, this tells us one thing: God cannot not exist. Surely, necessary existence is greater than contingent existence, which would mean by definition as the greatest conceivable thing, God must be necessary. If you're going to argue that Anslem didn't think of this, there are mordern revisionists that did, such as Norman Malcolm.

So, you can slate the ontological argument, but until you can understand the argument fully, pick up the possible strengths of the argument, and give some criticism of them too, I defy you to prove any examiner that the Ontological argument is a failed attempt to argue the existence of God.

I'd be happy to discuss this further. :rolleyes:

Edit: re the above post about anti-realism. Anselm was not anti-realist, he was a preist. It's only anti-realist in implication if you accept that we create God by virtue of imagining him. What Anselm proposed is that by understanding the claim of God, even 'the fool' creates it in intellectu. He did not say that God exists because we create him by thinking of him. At all.

Reply 19

Hazzy

Ontological argument is convincing because its a valid deductive argument - the conclusion necessarily follows on from the premises.

Where it fails for most people is that it isn't a sound/good argument. The premises can be criticized (existence not a predicate etc.), and the fact it's a priori is a big weakness for most people. Our whole understanding of the world is based on experience and evidence - through science etc.

So its a valid argument, but its really just like a clever word game. On the same level as things like "if a tree falls in the woods, and theres no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The Ontological Argument

Related discussions

Articles for you