Is the ontological argument irrelevant?

[John Bunyan]

They don't exist in all possible worlds. That's my point. You're the one trying to mock the ontological argument with a Gaunillo kind of analogy. That's the point: they're not necessary beings, therefore the ontological argument has nothing to do with them.

You responded to a post that was not directed to you, I had a laugh with a brother in agreement on this, and it sounds like you took it serious, sorry. I have noticed large portions of my responses glossed over and ignored. Loopie did a good job of showing the circularity of the OA, and even in your opening post you provide a valid counter response to OA. *shrug*

I tooked it seriously because it showed a common misunderstanding. I don't want people to get the wrong impressions on the OA. Also I think I've already answered my own objection, so that know I see that the burden of proof is always on the atheist - and he will never be able to prove that it is possible that God does not exist, because it is not.

Also, I don't believe you understand 'possible world semantics'. You're confusing a possible world with another universe, or something like this. Possible world = possible description of reality. Existing in a possible world = being true in a possible description of reality.

Perhaps not, I take it impossible worlds cannot co-exist with possible worlds. One of the points I was driving at is this: for all we know, in another universe there could be some very different worlds from our own, after all, we are venturing into the unknown, the speculative when we start talking about possibilities. I've honestly not dabbled much with middle knowledge and Molinism, only enough to know that it is a component of the LFW defense, and is popular among OVT's.

It doesn't really need molinism or middle knowledge. As I said, it was developed by Plantinga, who believes neither of these two ideas is true. And you're right, impossible worlds cannot coexist with possible worlds, because impossible worlds are impossible and, therefore, don't exist.

The OA works only for a maximally great being. You can invent some other being and say he's maximally great, if you want, but them you would only be inventing new names for God.

Sounds like something I used to say to unconvinced Atheists and agnostics. As Loopie pointed out before me, at maximum OA proves a mysterious unknown generic deity, sorry but that is the truth.

It proves an existent God whose some of the qualities we can know - omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience and all other great-making properties.

 

[pepper]

The Bible does not try to prove that God exist, but it simply states that God is. All men know that God exist, see Romans 1 ff. They reject him and worship the creature instead. When a person tries to tell me that there is no God, I simply tell them that they know there is God but they hate him so much they wish he did not exist. So far everyone of them ends the discussion. Not one of them attempts to tell me I am wrong.

 

[Loopie]

It proves an existent God whose some of the qualities we can know - omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience and all other great-making properties.

Please keep in mind John that the OA could easily be used to defend the God of Islam, who is also omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnisicient. Obviously Christians and Muslims have a different idea of what an 'all-loving' God would look like, but that just goes to show that we MUST presuppose the Triune God of Scripture, and begin with the Bible. The OA is very useful in a sort of general revelation sense, but special revelation must also be used in presenting the gospel.

 

[Philip]

Please keep in mind John that the OA could easily be used to defend the God of Islam

I don't think so. There is an Islamic version of the OA, but it looks rather different than the Anselmian one and looks very like the Cosmological Argument. The difference is such that I hesitate to call them by the same name. The reason is that Anselm's OA proceeds following a methodology that will lead to conclusions such that only the God of Scripture is a live option.

 

[John Bunyan]

It proves an existent God whose some of the qualities we can know - omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience and all other great-making properties.

Please keep in mind John that the OA could easily be used to defend the God of Islam, who is also omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnisicient. Obviously Christians and Muslims have a different idea of what an 'all-loving' God would look like, but that just goes to show that we MUST presuppose the Triune God of Scripture, and begin with the Bible. The OA is very useful in a sort of general revelation sense, but special revelation must also be used in presenting the gospel.

I know that. I do believe we can argue against an unitarian view of God, though - since i don't see how one person can be all-loving without no one to live; in the Trinity we have three persons who exercise love, in the Tawhid we don't.
But I know that I have to present special revelation in my evangelism, I'm not denying that. If special revelation is not used, there is no presentation of the gospel at all - "gospel" meaning Jesus' life, death and ressurrection.

Please keep in mind John that the OA could easily be used to defend the God of Islam

I don't think so. There is an Islamic version of the OA, but it looks rather different than the Anselmian one and looks very like the Cosmological Argument. The difference is such that I hesitate to call them by the same name. The reason is that Anselm's OA proceeds following a methodology that will lead to conclusions such that only the God of Scripture is a live option.

How so?

 

[Apologist4Him]

Please keep in mind John that the OA could easily be used to defend the God of Islam, who is also omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnisicient. Obviously Christians and Muslims have a different idea of what an 'all-loving' God would look like, but that just goes to show that we MUST presuppose the Triune God of Scripture, and begin with the Bible. The OA is very useful in a sort of general revelation sense, but special revelation must also be used in presenting the gospel.

Something related that came to mind has to do with Sola Scriptura, I am confident everyone in the discussion holds to Sola Scriptura (I would hope so), and I understand the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, but the question remain as to just how authoritative extra biblical arguments like OA can be, and how one climbs up (autonmously) from a lesser authority to (Theonomous) biblical authority. I guess what I am getting at is that in using these types of arguments, we're starting with extra biblical "authority", rather than the standard measure of faith. Even if the person were to intellectually assent, their conversion would be based on an extra biblical authority....

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

In answer to the question of the OP - No. To deny the ontos of God would be to deny your own ontos. This is the reverse of the argument. As Jonathan Edwards points out, "To think of absolutely nothing is impossible."

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Loopie]

I don't think so. There is an Islamic version of the OA, but it looks rather different than the Anselmian one and looks very like the Cosmological Argument. The difference is such that I hesitate to call them by the same name. The reason is that Anselm's OA proceeds following a methodology that will lead to conclusions such that only the God of Scripture is a live option.

Even if there is an Islamic version of the OA, a Muslim could look at the same OA that we ourselves have been talking about in this thread, and applaud it. There is nothing in the OA, as presented in this thread, that goes against how the Quran presents Allah. Anselm developed his argument from the perspective of a Christian, based on a Christian understanding of 'worship-worthy' and 'greatness'. How can the Muslim not do the very same thing based on HIS understanding of 'worship-worthiness' and 'greatness'? That is why I believe that the OA only functions properly when you presuppose the Triune God of Scripture.

 

[Philip]

There is nothing in the OA, as presented in this thread, that goes against how the Quran presents Allah.

Except for the whole worship-worthiness thing. Or are we seriously going to suggest that a god who doesn't keep promises is more worship-worthy than one who does? A reading of the Q'uran is an excellent defeater for the notion that the OA could support Islam.