slippy

  • **
  • 5 Posts
    • View Profile
A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« on: November 24, 2013, 02:48:47 am »
Premise 1, It is possible that God exists.

I would ask, how do you know it is possible? Can you demonstrate to me this possibility?

We do not know if it possible or not for a God to exist or not in the same way that we don't know if it's possible or not for something to travel faster than the speed of light.

If you response is "Anything is possible" then you imply that there could be a given Universe where it is possible for a God to exist, but God does not exist. I find it unlikely that the possibility for something to exist would be so, but for that possibility not to manifest itself. This violates ontological reasoning anyway, so anything is possible is an invalid answer.

So far, nobody has told me how they know it is possible that God exists. We don't know whether it's possible or impossible.

1

ontologicalme

  • Guest
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2013, 09:54:42 am »
Premise 1, It is possible that God exists.

I would ask, how do you know it is possible? Can you demonstrate to me this possibility?

We do not know if it possible or not for a God to exist or not in the same way that we don't know if it's possible or not for something to travel faster than the speed of light.

If you response is "Anything is possible" then you imply that there could be a given Universe where it is possible for a God to exist, but God does not exist. I find it unlikely that the possibility for something to exist would be so, but for that possibility not to manifest itself. This violates ontological reasoning anyway, so anything is possible is an invalid answer.

So far, nobody has told me how they know it is possible that God exists. We don't know whether it's possible or impossible.

We do know it is metaphysically possible to travel faster than light.

Because

1- it is not a logically  incoherent concept ( physical laws could be different )

2- It does not imply the impossibility of some actual necessary truth

3- And the whole idea has some warrant in the physicists community ( scientists not long ago were checking that neutrinos did not travel faster than light. Theoretically there is the concept of Takions, particles that travel faster than light).

It just happened not to be nomologically possible (but not metaphysically impossible) in our space-time manifold, as far as we know, and our scientific knowledge informs us.

The metaphysical possibility of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect in all possible worlds is analyse in similar terms, than the metaphysical possibility of traveling faster than light.


2

joppe

  • **
  • 409 Posts
  • I am a protestant
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2014, 03:13:15 pm »
It is the default position.
If you thought that God exists, then you would have to give evidence.
If you thought that God did not exist, then you would have to give evidence.


In the same way:
'It is possible that aliens exist' is the default position. Any position for and against would need evidence.
Saying you 'merely lack belief' in God while arguing for naturalism is the same as saying you 'don't have a political opinion' while praising a political party.

3

Vimbiso

  • **
  • 357 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2014, 08:23:27 am »
@Slippy, to reiterate what ontologicalme has inferred in the post above; the question regarding the possibility of God existing is of metaphysical concern so evidence / arguments regarding the possibility of God’s existence will be metaphysical / philosophical. There is no middle ground between possible and impossible therefore if something is not impossible then it is possible. Note it doesn’t have to be actual just possible. Since the concept of God is logically consistent, His existence is therefore not impossible i.e. nothing makes it impossible for God to exist therefore it is possible for God to exist. If you think it is impossible for God to exist you would have to reasonably demonstrate the logical inconsistency or contradiction in the concept of God that makes it impossible for God to exist. However, what is unique about God is that if it is possible for Him to exist then He must actually exist since it is illogical for a necessary being whose existence is possible to be non-existent. A necessary being cannot begin to exist therefore there can never be a state of affairs in which that being’s existence is possible but not actual. It can only be possible therefore actual or impossible therefore not actual.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 08:32:19 am by Vimbiso »
Pro Nostrum Invisitatus Redemptor

4

rjonesx

  • **
  • 70 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2014, 12:19:44 pm »
@slippy One of the important points of the Ontological Argument is that it is not necessarily interested in "proving" God's existence, rather it intends to prove that the most common belief among "non-believers" sounds something like this... "Sure, it's possible God exists, but I think he only exists in our minds".

The Ontological Argument attempts to show that such a statement is logically incoherent. This forces the believer and non-believer to either decide that it is simply impossible for God to exist, or God exists - there is no gray area.

5

Lambert

  • **
  • 916 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2014, 02:20:56 pm »
@Slippy, to reiterate what ontologicalme has inferred in the post above; the question regarding the possibility of God existing is of metaphysical concern so evidence / arguments regarding the possibility of God’s existence will be metaphysical / philosophical. There is no middle ground between possible and impossible therefore if something is not impossible then it is possible. Note it doesn’t have to be actual just possible. Since the concept of God is logically consistent, His existence is therefore not impossible i.e. nothing makes it impossible for God to exist therefore it is possible for God to exist. If you think it is impossible for God to exist you would have to reasonably demonstrate the logical inconsistency or contradiction in the concept of God that makes it impossible for God to exist. However, what is unique about God is that if it is possible for Him to exist then He must actually exist since it is illogical for a necessary being whose existence is possible to be non-existent. A necessary being cannot begin to exist therefore there can never be a state of affairs in which that being’s existence is possible but not actual. It can only be possible therefore actual or impossible therefore not actual.

This may be true but now you must define 'existence' itself for God to be true.

Then if God is truth, it must necessarily be true that God exists in the very existence of truth in its own opposite to untrue.

It therefore is that light is prior to us so we can use it to convert airwaves into light (and that is why Magdalena is always left in the dark when she is alone without the ability to do this on her own as the temple-tramp in our own mind).

6

soth

  • **
  • 407 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2014, 05:58:47 pm »
Premise 1, It is possible that God exists.

I would ask, how do you know it is possible? Can you demonstrate to me this possibility?

We do not know if it possible or not for a God to exist or not in the same way that we don't know if it's possible or not for something to travel faster than the speed of light.


Possible just means that we can conceive it and it is not logically incoherent. It does not mean it is possible in our reality. It is just a philosophical definition.


7

Lambert

  • **
  • 916 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2014, 12:25:10 pm »
Premise 1, It is possible that God exists.

I would ask, how do you know it is possible? Can you demonstrate to me this possibility?

We do not know if it possible or not for a God to exist or not in the same way that we don't know if it's possible or not for something to travel faster than the speed of light.


Possible just means that we can conceive it and it is not logically incoherent. It does not mean it is possible in our reality. It is just a philosophical definition.

But wait, whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality as well, except maybe no in the image of our fantasy.

8

joppe

  • **
  • 409 Posts
  • I am a protestant
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2014, 09:16:20 am »
But wait, whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality as well, except maybe no in the image of our fantasy.

False. Just because it is possible that you draw the ace of spades from a deck AND that I draw the ace of spades doesn't mean that we both draw the same card.
Saying you 'merely lack belief' in God while arguing for naturalism is the same as saying you 'don't have a political opinion' while praising a political party.

9

Lambert

  • **
  • 916 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: A simple objection to the Ontological argument.
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2014, 11:10:03 am »
But wait, whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality as well, except maybe no in the image of our fantasy.

False. Just because it is possible that you draw the ace of spades from a deck AND that I draw the ace of spades doesn't mean that we both draw the same card.

Correct and that is where the ace of spades is not its material cause but the value assigned to it in the same way as Man is the image of God, from where logos adds individuality that makes the difference between you and me via the material cause.

Remember here that the being of Being is made known by 'the being' as material man.