The Ontological Argument: updated
- Thread starter JohnV
- Start date
- Status
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Another way to see it is that unbelief is hardness of heart. Hardness against what? What God reveals about Himself is revealed truly, both in creation and Scripture. Unbelief hardens itself against that testimony; unbelief is not any kind of integrity.
And the same is true of disbelief and misbelief. How do we correct these? With instruction, convincing through truths, with demonstrations of true reason. That's why we use sound logic and argumentation based on solid bases.
If we had any inkling that sound reason, truth, or perfection did not lead us to God, then we would not employ them to demonstrate the truths of our religion. We have every confidence in them.
When unbelief, disbelief, or misbelief appeal to these same principles, then we are confident that it is not the facts that lead them astray, but rather their own suasions in spite of the facts. If we are ready to use logic, then we have to agree that perfection in it leads us to God's revelation of Himself.
And the same is true of disbelief and misbelief. How do we correct these? With instruction, convincing through truths, with demonstrations of true reason. That's why we use sound logic and argumentation based on solid bases.
If we had any inkling that sound reason, truth, or perfection did not lead us to God, then we would not employ them to demonstrate the truths of our religion. We have every confidence in them.
When unbelief, disbelief, or misbelief appeal to these same principles, then we are confident that it is not the facts that lead them astray, but rather their own suasions in spite of the facts. If we are ready to use logic, then we have to agree that perfection in it leads us to God's revelation of Himself.
The point is, that many people will not accept this premise. The greek gods were far from perfect.
How then would you go about using this argument as a "proof" given that not everybody will accept the premise that God is perfect? They will ask you, "How do you know God is perfect?"
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeff:
Do you think your argument is reasonable? Would it be better if it were perfectly reasonable, without flaw? Do you think it is logical? Would it be better if it were perfectly logical?
Do you see how the qualifiers we use to convince others are better if they are perfect, without flaw? Why, then, do we use these things when we argue in favour of one doctrine over another, to show that one is Biblical and the other not? Not only do we cite Scripture, but we provide grounds rooted in sound reason to show that the interpretation of Scripture is valid. We use qualifiers which are better, sounder, truer, more perfect. If we didn't have them, then we would really be lost in upholding doctrine. They testify to truth. And God is necessarily true. He is not subject to anything. These things must follow for anyone if he is ready and willing to consider them honestly.
It has already been pointed out that it is dishonesty with the facts that argue agaist God, not honesty with them. But to be even better than honest would be to be perfectly honest. And we cannot doubt but that this would be absolutely consistent with God's revelations of Himself. That is why, whenever someone holds to what he thinks is true, he assumes that appeal to reason will establish what he holds.
The truth is, though, that even for the best of us, the better we appeal to reason and truth, the more we will also correct ourselves, if we are willing.
In short, we are calling others who do not believe to be honest with the facts, to leave their presuppositions because they are flawed. And so we also do for ourselves, as we gain in our understanding. We leave the childish notions we had when we were less mature in the faith, and grow up. We discard our presuppositions as we find them to be failing, as falling short of that perfection to which we are called.
God would be calling us to a useless endeavour in calling us to test all things if we did not have a basis upon which to objectively test them. We have to learn to de-establish wrong notions, not just for unbelievers, but from our own misbeliefs. God has provided for us Scripture, His testimony of Himself and His deity in creation, and created us in His image. All I am saying is that this is plainly so.
Do you think your argument is reasonable? Would it be better if it were perfectly reasonable, without flaw? Do you think it is logical? Would it be better if it were perfectly logical?
Do you see how the qualifiers we use to convince others are better if they are perfect, without flaw? Why, then, do we use these things when we argue in favour of one doctrine over another, to show that one is Biblical and the other not? Not only do we cite Scripture, but we provide grounds rooted in sound reason to show that the interpretation of Scripture is valid. We use qualifiers which are better, sounder, truer, more perfect. If we didn't have them, then we would really be lost in upholding doctrine. They testify to truth. And God is necessarily true. He is not subject to anything. These things must follow for anyone if he is ready and willing to consider them honestly.
It has already been pointed out that it is dishonesty with the facts that argue agaist God, not honesty with them. But to be even better than honest would be to be perfectly honest. And we cannot doubt but that this would be absolutely consistent with God's revelations of Himself. That is why, whenever someone holds to what he thinks is true, he assumes that appeal to reason will establish what he holds.
The truth is, though, that even for the best of us, the better we appeal to reason and truth, the more we will also correct ourselves, if we are willing.
In short, we are calling others who do not believe to be honest with the facts, to leave their presuppositions because they are flawed. And so we also do for ourselves, as we gain in our understanding. We leave the childish notions we had when we were less mature in the faith, and grow up. We discard our presuppositions as we find them to be failing, as falling short of that perfection to which we are called.
God would be calling us to a useless endeavour in calling us to test all things if we did not have a basis upon which to objectively test them. We have to learn to de-establish wrong notions, not just for unbelievers, but from our own misbeliefs. God has provided for us Scripture, His testimony of Himself and His deity in creation, and created us in His image. All I am saying is that this is plainly so.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Jeff, name ANY diety other than YHWH and I can show by the religious writings concerniing that god that the deity is imperfect. And if the diety is shown to be imperfect in any measure, that diety cannot be God.
If someone says, how do you know God is perfect I would say that the very the word idea of God gives "perfection" meaning in our minds.
They have to embrace absurdity to deny it. And I am fine with that.
No one will stand before God and say, "Well, there just was not enough proof to convince me you existed, so why should I be held accountable ?"
I agree that any other deity besides Jehovah cannot be God, but the point of my objection is that many if not most people will not accept that.
Just because God gives "perfection" meaning in our minds does not answer the question. "How do you KNOW that God is pefect?" Only by the Scriptures. And therefore, in order to prove that God is perfect, you have to assume or presuppose Him.
I agree, but the point is that the ontological argument is fallacious. It has been refuted by a great deal of philosophers, and has been clearly shown to commit a logical fallacy, and for some reason, people ignore that and still try to use it.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
The OA is not fallacious.
"œBut clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also in reality, and this is greater... Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought."
[St Anselm, Proslogion, Chapter II]
It seems like a linguistic legerdemain, but it is only because of Kant that we accept that deceptive idea as fact.
1. God is a being which none greater can be conceived.
2. Even an atheist claims God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. However, God would be a better being if he existed in reality, not just as an idea.
4. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just as an idea.
Plantinga's outline:
I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness.
II. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
III. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
IV. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.
V. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.
Read "God,Freedom & Evil" by Alvin Plantinga
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802817319/christiaphilosop/103-8359446-3395843
(quotes from :http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/onto.html )
[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Nice work, Mark.
As to Jeff's objection that, though God may be perfect, many will not accept that: whether people accept it or not is not the point. What is at stake here is whether it is true. If people don't accept it, is it because it is not true or because they will not accept it even though it is true?
Let's assume that a person rightly holds that God is not perfect. How would he know that if God is not perfect? Would not perfection cease to be a paramount point of evaluation? Would it not be, then, that perfection or imperfection have no real difference? Or does perfection exist by itself, apart from God, as something that perhaps even God tries to attain to?
No, perfection is a possible concept only because it exists in God first.
As to Jeff's objection that, though God may be perfect, many will not accept that: whether people accept it or not is not the point. What is at stake here is whether it is true. If people don't accept it, is it because it is not true or because they will not accept it even though it is true?
Let's assume that a person rightly holds that God is not perfect. How would he know that if God is not perfect? Would not perfection cease to be a paramount point of evaluation? Would it not be, then, that perfection or imperfection have no real difference? Or does perfection exist by itself, apart from God, as something that perhaps even God tries to attain to?
No, perfection is a possible concept only because it exists in God first.
The point that many people will not accept the premise that "God is perfect" is the point if you are trying to PROVE the existence of God.
The only way we can know that God is perfect is by the Scriptures. Therefore, when one uses the premise "God is perfect" they are stealing this from the Bible. In this, we are PRESUPPOSING the bible to be true, but wait....that is what we are ultimately trying to PROVE.
If we accept that the Bible is true, there is no need to try to prove the existence of God. But advocating the perfection of God is presupposing the Bible is true.
Anselm's entire point in the OA is to true to prove the existence of God APART FROM THE BIBLE. He failed. Even if the argument is sound, he steals a premise from the Bible, namely the perfection of God.
As I stated above, if we want to steal premises from the Bible, why not come up with a much simpler syllogism?
1. The bible is true. (something we are presupposing to advocate the perfection of God)
2. The bible says God exists. (it also says that God is perfect)
Conclusion: God exists. (the same conclusion as the OA)
In advocating the perfection of God, we are essentially doing the same thing, only a few steps removed. This was not Anselm's goal.
If you call the syllogism I made above a "proof" for the existence of God, so be it. However, this is not what the world wants when they ask for "proof."
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeff:
You keep missing it, it seems to me.
( Val Kilmer has done a movie about a man who has never seen who has his eyes healed; it really shows what a person goes through who has this done. This is well documented. Jesus overcame that too in healing the blind man. )
Just because the world does not want it, that does not make it less true. Just because it is not enough proof for them, that does not make it any less proof.
If God exists, then how could there be any evidence to the contrary? There isn't. Those who say there is insufficient grounds to believe it are just fooling themselves; and those who think that the proofs add up to a different conclusion, they are not interested in real proofs, but just satisfying their own unbelief with what they call proofs.
You keep missing it, it seems to me.
If I'm wearing brown socks, and pull up my trousers to prove it, and people just won't look, that does not make my socks another colour. People won't accept perfection or existence in God because they don't want to, not because it doesn't make good sense. Just think about it, if it doesn't make good sense, then it wouldn't be in the Bible either.
Maybe "prove" is the wrong word here. Let's just say that we don't have to prove that God exists because He will do that on His own when and where He needs to, and do it much more convincingly than we could. The thing that I am doing is working with the truth that God is, and being consistent with that, because truth is consistent 100 times out of 100. Where it isn't consistent has nothing to do with truth, but with me. So I'm wrestling with my thinking in order to bring it in line with those things I do not yet understand but are definitely true. Both nature and Scripture attest to these things.
If we accept the Bible as true then we ought to also begin to see the overall consistency in God's other modes of revelation. Sure, the unbeliever is not going to believe it, even if someone they know well, and whom they know surely to be dead, should rise from the dead to testify to them. They have Moses and the prophets, if they do not believe them, then they will not believe if someone should rise from the dead. Look at all the miracles that Jesus did, and even of the kind that had never been done before, and could not be done in our time, such as restoring the sight of a man born blind, or healing a withered arm; purely impossible from a physical point of view, and yet done without qualm.
( Val Kilmer has done a movie about a man who has never seen who has his eyes healed; it really shows what a person goes through who has this done. This is well documented. Jesus overcame that too in healing the blind man. )
I've read Proslogium several times, and never got that out of it. Where do you get "apart from the Bible" from; because I don't see that in his work?
Again, you are attributing to Anselm motives that you cannot prove. But your syllogism is a good example of what I am trying to do, or to advocate. If the Bible says its true, then why would it not be consistent with all truth? And why can we not advocate that such truth is plain to all, as these things are also shadowed in nature?
Just because the world does not want it, that does not make it less true. Just because it is not enough proof for them, that does not make it any less proof.
If God exists, then how could there be any evidence to the contrary? There isn't. Those who say there is insufficient grounds to believe it are just fooling themselves; and those who think that the proofs add up to a different conclusion, they are not interested in real proofs, but just satisfying their own unbelief with what they call proofs.
John,
It is accepted that Anselm's Ontological argument is a proof via Rationalism.
From the article on rationalism:
From the article on the ontological argument:
I think that I have shown above that Anselm's argument fails at this.
It is accepted that Anselm's Ontological argument is a proof via Rationalism.
From the article on rationalism:
From the article on the ontological argument:
I think that I have shown above that Anselm's argument fails at this.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
As I understand Anselm, he is actually basing his whole argument upon the Scripture in Psalm 14, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." That doesn't sound like "reason alone" to me. His entire argument seems like an exposition of the psychology of a man's unbelief in light of this Scripture. I could be wrong. John and Mark know Anselm much better than I.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Patrick, Plato's form of the good and Aristotle's unmoved/prime mover are prime examples of using rational thought to conclude some transcendant realities.
They did not succeed in showing a personal God who is omniscient, but I think it was because of their supression of that truth, not an incapability of the human mind to reasonably deduce it from nature.
[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]
They did not succeed in showing a personal God who is omniscient, but I think it was because of their supression of that truth, not an incapability of the human mind to reasonably deduce it from nature.
[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Psalm 14 is central to what Anselm was working to understand. That was it, to show that to there is no God is foolishness, i.e., not reasonable.
But though this exposes man's foolishness, Anselm's actual treatise was also about the positive aspects: not only was it impossible to hold to a concept of God that was a non-existent god, but that the positive aspects of His attributes are central to all of man's thinking. To put it modern terms, man cannot think, judge, or have intuition without the paradigms that God placed into creation, including man's mind.
All things hold together in God; so why would it be strange to think that the consideration of things does not include the consideration of the God who holds it all together? A rough simile would be thinking about the colour red, but excluding all objects in thinking of it; the colour red cannot exist by itself, because it has to be on something to exist. Red is our thinking, God's creation is what our thinking is on.
So again, if all things make sense in God, because He created and upholds it all by His perfect will, why then would it strange to say that all things make sense together ( that is, that general revelation does not disagree with special revelation ), and that those who disagree are the ones who don't make sense?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeff:
You're right, I by-passed all that. I did that on purpose. As I said, this is more a preamble to the Ontological Argument. I don't claim to know better than anyone, but all the things that I've read criticizing the OA just don't make sense to me. I just can't see why it is so hard to understand that, if God made the world, then it would just make better sense all around, not just from Scripture, but from creation as well ( which God had made ), to believe that all things can do nothing else but uphold the axiom that God exists. And it has to be axiomatic if all things exist and are upheld in Him. Why wouldn't it make sense to say that those who don't believe God's existence are resoning foolishly? And why wouldn't it follow to say that, if they would only reason truly, then that reason would not disagree with the fact that God does exist? Why would the fool be justified in his unbelief? And on what grounds could he possibly be justified?
All I'm saying is that what the fool deems justification is really nothing more than self-deception, not reason. He goes against reason to believe that God does not exist, not with it. Every point of reference that he must use to make the kinds of judgments that he does testifies rather to God's existence than His non-existence. It is hard enough to understand why unbelievers don't believe the obvious. It is obstinacy, not sound reason that does this.
I'm not going to go too deeply into this, because that would involve going into refutations of all the refutations of the OA. All I want to do is to set the basis for considering it according to what Anselm really was saying, not according to the presentation such as Wikipedia's analysis. And even if Anselm wasn't saying that, then I am saying that this is what I got out of Anselm's treatise, and this is what I'm putting on the table for discussion. But I find no counter in Anselm's own work that would negate that he meant the thing that I'm trying to defend here. I find negative notions only in the arguments opposed to the conclusion.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm not going to advocate Plantinga either, though he did help to set me on to the ideas here. I'm trying to stay away from all that, and just put out the simple ideas in equitable fashion, so that each proposition can be evaluated for its necessity, without the accruing criticisms attached.
Mind you, I'm not standing agaist this either, because many of the notions that we have are inherited from men like Kant, Descartes, Plantinga, etc., and we need to deal with them in our own minds. But if we can just establish a solid grounding from which to evaluate, then we'll have a leg up on the whole thing.
This is an interesting thing: your last statement is a very curious contradiction. You are absolutely right, that the OA itself will not convince. If that was all that was needed, then belief would only be an intellectual assent, and that is not what belief is. Belief carries farther, because it is tested by how far the thing is believed. In this way belief overlaps faith itself. And in the Dutch these terms overlap not only in concept, but in the very language. ( I'll look up the words. ) Yet it is also true that proof of any kind cannot contradict God's existence; how can it if He made and upholds all things? So it is perversely irrational to hold to the notion that God does not exist, finding no reason in anything to support it. Why then would not people be convinced by such overwhelming proofs? Certainly the OA holds to the reasonableness of theism. A very curious contradiction; but one that is explained by the Bible when it begins with man's creation and then immediately tells of the Fall.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I probably won't get very far into this one, but as just an initial thought, one of my main problems is with the "Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection" statement. Epistemologically, one must ask how you even know what "perfection" is, or in other words by what standard you are defining it, or how you even have a concept of what that means.
Upon answering that question, it will naturally be asked how you got the standard you answer with, and eventually you'll need to get back to the beginning and end up with a self-validating source.
If at that point it's the biblical God that defines your standard of "perfection," then you're already presupposing God and hence the ontological argument won't be any use unless you justify your presupposition of God by demonstrating that God must be presupposed for anything to make sense - but if you've done that, you don't even need the ontological argument anymore.
On the other hand, if it's something other than the biblical God that ultimately and initially defines your standard of "perfection," then there's obviously an even bigger problem.
Let's say that I compare my presuppositions with yours, and figure out that yours are better. The thing to do is to adopt yours and leave mine. Then someone else comes along with better ones yet, so I adopt those and leave yours behind. Christian presuppositions are better, but better yet are more upright Christian presuppositions. If I keep doing that, leaving behind the lesser ones for the better ones, then I am agreeing that better is better, until I reach the very best. And even that may be improved by being perfect in not only holding the very best presuppositions, but upholding them perfectly.
You see, it works here too. Judgments are made, and for that to happen there has to be an intrinsic measuring reference point. Whether we are talking about truer, better (good-er), more beautiful, more excellent, more unchangeable, or whatever, we are comparing one thing to another and exerting our judgment upon them, judgment according to a measuring line that is above even ourselves. These all suggest a perfection which must exist for it to be perfect. And so it is with the idea of supreme being, that whatever is most supreme is to be called God.
We can compare different religions' gods, and assume that the most supreme, the most excellent, the most unchanging, would be the one who rightly can be called God. This immediately leaves out those who hold that God exists only in the mind, because even a man that exists is better than a God who doesn't exist; a reality is better, more excellent, than an idea. This also eventually leaves out the lesser gods, in whom there is a shadow of turning, a spot of darkness within the light. There is only one God that all things can attribute supremecy and deity to. And there is only one God that has ever been presented to mankind that fits the bill.
In calling others' attention to our presuppositions we are calling them to compare. Whoever thinks that he is right also implicitly believes that true reason will bear him out; he is not afraid to reason out his belief for others, so that they will see that his belief is more reasonable. We do that with our presuppositions, implicitly asking others to compare according to the most reasonable criteria, and to adopt that which is most reasonable. We believe that the most reasonable is the most right, and we think that this is true for everyone; so we appeal to reason to convince. We use Scripture as authority, and reason to convince.
I don't mean that reason is elevated to some kind of autonomous position above God. That is rationalism, and that is not reasonable. How can reason be above God without destroying the witness of God in reason? No, God is entirely reasonable, true, and consistent. This puts reason as being completely under His sovereignty. Neither does this put man's mind above God's, for I am not advocating reason that ends with man's mind, but one that man's mind is subject to. God's mind is supreme, and entirely reasonable; so to subject one's mind to the reasons given by better truth, better excellency, better goodness, leaving behind the lesser for the better every time, is being subject to God's mind.
All I'm saying is that this makes sense. It makes sense because God exists, His Word is true, and that nothing in all creation can produce evidence to the contrary: all evidence cannot help but be evidence towards God's existence because all things are created by Him and upheld by Him.
To call others just to live in reality is quite simply ordinary. And reality cannot help but bear witness to God's sovereignty and deity. We do not know who God will call, and we are called to present the gospel to all, we who were called out of our own worm-hood, with the hope that the Spirit will quicken their souls and minds, granting to them repentence. There is no reason to think that unbelief or disbelief or misbelief is somehow reasonable by any standard. It is always more reasonable to be true to the facts than not true to the facts.
This does not undermine faith; this upholds it, and gives it a firm grounding. I believe the impossible, such as miracles, such as salvation for my soul, because I believe in a God for whom these things are not impossible. And I believe in Him because He has made Himself known to me, both in creation and in His Word, but also both through these outward witnesses as well as the inward witness of the Spirit in my heart.
Yes, a real Spirit bearing real witness to someone such as me. A personal contact. I trust in Him, in His truth, in His promise that truth will triumph over falseness, and then do what is true. And He shows me that what He has promised does come true. He speaks to me in truth, goodness, beauty, excellence, immutability, and so on, things that even words, language, and thoughts are subject to. He speaks to me in my spirit. A real person to person relationship, but on a scale that physical relationships are only a shadow of, a true shadow, but only a shadow.
Words, ideas, language ( i.e., putting words together to from propostions ), these suggest to us the relationship that God has to us in truth, goodness, and excellence in all things. These are common to all men, because all men are created in God's image, to communicate spiritually. And that's what we're doing here on this Board, not just communicating ideas and thoughts, but communicating excellencies in these ideas and thoughts, through these ideas and thoughts. In doing so we are calling each other to what is more excellent than what we already have, taking every thought captive into truth, and taking into captivity even our own minds, subjecting our own presuppositions to the unchangeable truth of God.
We have a long way to go. We may have the right basic presuppositions, but that does not itself redeem us from using them to our own advantage, or for wrong purposes. We still need to take them captive to refine them, to purge them of evil, and to have them serve us toward the goal of a more reasonable service to Christ, our redeemer.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I thought for sure that the main objection to this would be on the second proposition, that existence is a necessary attribure of perfection. That's the one I was preparing for. I was not expecting that anyone would find any difficulty with the first proposition. I was thinking that, since everyone agrees that God's attributes consisted of unlimitedness, and encompassing all things, that perfection any any attribute would be an understood quality.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
I do not have a problem with the major premise John. But the minor premise is sketchy. I think that is why Plantinga refactored it. A perfect triangle is conceivable in theory, but does that neccessitate its existence in reality ? I think your syllogism is an enthymeme based on the assumed ontological necessity contained in the idea of perfection.
mgeoffriau
Puritan Board Freshman
I disagree.
A perfect triangle does not include the quality of existence. When one speaks of a "perfect triangle," the point is the exact mathematical relationships of the sides and angles. It is not necessary for it to exist in reality.
However, the concept "god" includes all the perfections of being - including existence. If the word "god" is troublesome (because some cultures believe in imperfect gods), then try to understand it as shorthand for the concept "a being than which there can be no greater."
By necessity, a being than which there can be no greater must exist, because an extant "god" is more perfect than a conceptual or imaginary "god."
In summary - the concept of god includes all the perfections of being, including existence.
A perfect triangle does not include the quality of existence. When one speaks of a "perfect triangle," the point is the exact mathematical relationships of the sides and angles. It is not necessary for it to exist in reality.
However, the concept "god" includes all the perfections of being - including existence. If the word "god" is troublesome (because some cultures believe in imperfect gods), then try to understand it as shorthand for the concept "a being than which there can be no greater."
By necessity, a being than which there can be no greater must exist, because an extant "god" is more perfect than a conceptual or imaginary "god."
In summary - the concept of god includes all the perfections of being, including existence.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Mark, you and I agree. That was my point. The ontological necessity of God being perfect and existing by necessity, is different than abstract theoretical perfections in mathematics. Yet both are "perfect". The perfect triangle only exists by necessity in the subjective reality of mind. God exists subjectively and objectively.
The syllogism JohnV set forth assumes a metaphysical necessity for anything perfect, not just God. Unless I am reading it wrong. PLantinga's idea removes the argument from subjective contingencies, and limits the idea of perfection to a measure of ontological quality.
I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness.
II. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
III. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
IV. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.
V. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.
The syllogism JohnV set forth assumes a metaphysical necessity for anything perfect, not just God. Unless I am reading it wrong. PLantinga's idea removes the argument from subjective contingencies, and limits the idea of perfection to a measure of ontological quality.
I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness.
II. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
III. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
IV. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.
V. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.
mgeoffriau
Puritan Board Freshman
Ahh I see your objection to the minor premise now. Yes, I'd agree with you there. Perfection in God is unique, because it is not a "perfect triangle," or a "perfect machine," or anything that communicates a limited perfection, but in fact all the perfections of being. Excellent point. Thanks for the further explanation.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This is, in part, Gaunilon's objection too ( the perfect island ). In some ways it is a non sequitor, in that the perfect triangle's perfection is in its triangular properties; it would be more perfect if it had other qualities. It is certain that the perfect triangle does not have perfect symmetry, for that would require a fourth line, dividing it perfectly into two mirror halves. I could not be said that the perfect triangle has perfect beauty for no one has ever seen a perfect triangle to describe that beauty. And so it is with many other attributes that the perfect triangle does not possess; or, if it did, would detract from its perfection.
One of those attributes to consider would be its existence: i.e., would the perfect triangle be more perfect if it existed? And if so, can it be said anymore that the perfect triangle is perfect, since it does not exist?
But I realize that this side-steps the thrust behind your objection. I hope you don't mind that I want to ignore Plantinga's redefinition for now, and just focus on each premise individually, keeping in mind the relationship the syllogism forms. I am not trying to define God into existence; if I were, it would not be God. What has to be kept in mind is that the only God that could be proven ( and it must be that all proofs sustain the fact of God's existence ) is the one that created all things, i.e., that all things are upheld by the God that must be. Underline that "must be" phrase in your mind. For that is the point, that the idea cannot be honestly escaped once it is postulated.
So the Word begins with "In the beginning God....", and that is all that is needed to establish God's existence. From that point on only the fool, not the wise man, who says in his heart that there is no God: it cannot be honestly escaped anymore. It is impossible to conceive of God honestly and to deny His existence. That is the positive argument of the OA.
I understand that the syllogism can be understood as assuming the attribute of perfection's necessity ontologically. That is the part that I wanted to discuss, to show that it is necessary even in the denial of it. Perfection is something like the verb "is" in that what it is attached to defines its boundaries of meaning. Perfection itself is kind of a nebulous concept by itself. Yet it is not without meaning that "Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth. " ( Psa 50:2 ). Once we begin to explore the idea of perfection we will find that, just as it is ontologically necessary that God be perfect, so it is that it is ontologically necessary that perfection exists. The thing is, we could not be discussing it if it didn't exist: i.e., the idea cannot be just an idea. It is an idea we attach to many things, such as a triangle; and that attachment may be proper or not proper, but the idea of perfection cannot be without there being a perfect something for reference.
In this way you can see that the minor premise is also resident in the major premise already. That, in basis, is your objection. And I say that if that objection holds, then it is not the existence of the real God that we are discussing. The real God must pre-exist all things; and the understanding of the syllogism has to keep that distinction clearly up front.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Part II
What I am saying, Mark, is that we all assume a metaphysical necessity merely in applying the word "perfect" to anything at all. We may use it subjectively, but we assume its objectivity, otherwise our many uses of it to describe attributes of various things, such as God or triangles, are meaningless.
How is the idea escaped by replacing the word and idea of perfection with the descriptive, "maximally"? We're still talking about the same thing. All that is done is to try to escape the connotations that objectors have applied to the term, by using a more philosophically neutral term. But it is still the same thing. The difference is the honesty of the positor and the objector. When it comes right down to it, there is not much onus placed upon me as the positor, because I am merely stating three simple terms in their simple relationship. It is the objectors that do the philosophical acrobatics to deflect the meanings of the terms and their relationship, while all I am doing is acquiescing to the ontological necessities of the ideas themselves.
What I am saying, Mark, is that we all assume a metaphysical necessity merely in applying the word "perfect" to anything at all. We may use it subjectively, but we assume its objectivity, otherwise our many uses of it to describe attributes of various things, such as God or triangles, are meaningless.
How is the idea escaped by replacing the word and idea of perfection with the descriptive, "maximally"? We're still talking about the same thing. All that is done is to try to escape the connotations that objectors have applied to the term, by using a more philosophically neutral term. But it is still the same thing. The difference is the honesty of the positor and the objector. When it comes right down to it, there is not much onus placed upon me as the positor, because I am merely stating three simple terms in their simple relationship. It is the objectors that do the philosophical acrobatics to deflect the meanings of the terms and their relationship, while all I am doing is acquiescing to the ontological necessities of the ideas themselves.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
True John, simple terms in simple relationships seem almost too easy to be true. Yet many of Christ's words were this way. On the surface, they were sometimes very cryptic, but to those with ears to hear, the cypher was solved, ans the simplicity became a richness with different layers of application and metaphor.
Could we instead add to the syllogism, that the necessisty of an eternal mind makes certain the basis for the ontological reality of even abstract perfections such as the perfect triangle ?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Mark
I´m not trying to war with you here brother, I´m just telling you coming from a real ex-atheist and not just an arm chair version, my degree was pursued for that very purpose - these arguments will never work at length until the dereliction of the cross is presented.
The first thing to note here is that the "œfalse messiahs" then and today are not just those making the claim of being "œmessiahs". False messiahs arise when the view is unto something other than Christ as the Christ, that is the Redeemer who would go to the empty scandal of the Cross, die for His enemies and alone redeem wrath deserving sinners. Even the Apostles of His time missed this, they had a false idea of the messiah all during His ministry and thus abandoned Him as derelict alone at calvary. For they could not fathom that THIS was their Messiah that is Christ, that is that is what the Christ was to be. Jesus warns us against those who would say, "œthere is Christ, here is Christ" not so much the bafoonery David Koresh´s who would fool few, but false views of Christ altogether other than Him as full Redeemer, the WWJD types, Jesus as an example, Jesus the good teacher and so forth. All of those are false Christ´s and by extension false Messiahs.
The miracle of wine very much points to this glory and is obvious. In short, AW Pink does a lengthy treatment of this you can check out, the old religion had become dead no longer pointing to or looking forward to the real Christ to come. But had degraded into an overburdening system of religiosity and works, empty and vain it laid heavy burdens upon the people of God to in essence work their way to heaven - a vain anti-Christ pursuit. The old wine had become nothing and the religion mere religion and religiosity as stone cold as the stone pots. But the best wine Christ created and set forth at the banquet. The whole scene, Christ coming on the scene of the dead religion to fulfill His role as SAVING Messiah and not conquering messiah as in the way they thought but rather the one Who would be rejected and left scandalized at the cross for His people´s sin, the suffering servant, the great Bride Groom who would rescue His bride who had been the harlot. The whole banquet itself points forward to the marriage banquet of the Christ and His bride the church. It is a tremendously beautiful picture of redemption and that is the true glory, "This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.", pointed to. The whole miracle scene is ripe with redemption and NOT just an exercise in changing elements.
L
I´m not trying to war with you here brother, I´m just telling you coming from a real ex-atheist and not just an arm chair version, my degree was pursued for that very purpose - these arguments will never work at length until the dereliction of the cross is presented.
The first thing to note here is that the "œfalse messiahs" then and today are not just those making the claim of being "œmessiahs". False messiahs arise when the view is unto something other than Christ as the Christ, that is the Redeemer who would go to the empty scandal of the Cross, die for His enemies and alone redeem wrath deserving sinners. Even the Apostles of His time missed this, they had a false idea of the messiah all during His ministry and thus abandoned Him as derelict alone at calvary. For they could not fathom that THIS was their Messiah that is Christ, that is that is what the Christ was to be. Jesus warns us against those who would say, "œthere is Christ, here is Christ" not so much the bafoonery David Koresh´s who would fool few, but false views of Christ altogether other than Him as full Redeemer, the WWJD types, Jesus as an example, Jesus the good teacher and so forth. All of those are false Christ´s and by extension false Messiahs.
The miracle of wine very much points to this glory and is obvious. In short, AW Pink does a lengthy treatment of this you can check out, the old religion had become dead no longer pointing to or looking forward to the real Christ to come. But had degraded into an overburdening system of religiosity and works, empty and vain it laid heavy burdens upon the people of God to in essence work their way to heaven - a vain anti-Christ pursuit. The old wine had become nothing and the religion mere religion and religiosity as stone cold as the stone pots. But the best wine Christ created and set forth at the banquet. The whole scene, Christ coming on the scene of the dead religion to fulfill His role as SAVING Messiah and not conquering messiah as in the way they thought but rather the one Who would be rejected and left scandalized at the cross for His people´s sin, the suffering servant, the great Bride Groom who would rescue His bride who had been the harlot. The whole banquet itself points forward to the marriage banquet of the Christ and His bride the church. It is a tremendously beautiful picture of redemption and that is the true glory, "This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.", pointed to. The whole miracle scene is ripe with redemption and NOT just an exercise in changing elements.
L
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
When we describe some things as "perfect" then we are often speaking in abstractions. As such, they are fitting for the categories of the mind. But this limits perfection to abstraction, and that will not do. As abstractions they are only existent in the mind, not necessarily in reality. The syllogism I proposed posits that existence is a necessary attribute of perfection. In other words, perfection can exist as a mere category of the mind because it does exist in reality in relation to something. But it is impossible to think of perfection as not existing, while the concept, or category of the mind, does exist: it is meaningless if perfection does not exist in reality.
Think of it this way: of the three terms, namely God, perfection, and existence, only the one is self-contained. The other two are categories of the mind, but they are more than that: they are necessary to thought because they describe necessaries of reality. I am not denying that God's mind is essential to thought, but I would be skeptical of confining the argument to thought alone: God has to pre-exist all things as being, not just as thought.
As to the first part of your post, that is the beauty of many of Jesus' teachings. Occam had something right about reducing truth to its simplest terms, but Jesus outdid Occam on that score. In the same way, looking at church history, a lot of the confessional and creedal documentation that we have is refutation of doctrinal errors, which are then stated in positive terms. In other words, necessities following the excluding of errors prompted doctrinal assertions upheld by the historical church. Its the simple truths being upheld against error that has given us our confessional, doctrinal heritage.
That gets to the point of things, that we all appeal to reality, perfection, and to various attributes of God as if they are real, but often reduce them only to categories of the mind, as if they could even be referenced at all unless they were attributes of an existent God Himself.
- Status
