I am going to start this series of blogs with the ontological argument, which originates with St. Anselm the Great, and I will paraphrase from Peter Kreeft:
1) God is the greatest being that can be conceived.
2) It is greater to exist in both conception and reality, than to exist in conception alone.
3) Therefore, God must exist.
Another summary would be Gould’s
1) God is a perfect being.
2) It is an imperfection not to exist.
3) God exists.
Objection: This proof allows us to prove that the greatest of anything must exist. For instance say an island. By the ontological proof there must be a perfect island.
Reply: Not true. What is more perfect: an island or a peninsula? One of them must be better than the other. One of them must be greater than the other. A perfect car could be better than a perfect SUV, which could be better than a perfect vegetable…It could go on forever. The point is that God is greater than any great thing that we can think of, therefore the proof only applies to Him.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Locke used an argument similar. Essentially, he said this and then pondered whether God were cogitative (thinking) or noncogitative.
Descartes went a step futher than the above argument and started by proving the existence of the self. Then he used this argument and from there proved the validity of the external world.
Of course, I have my objections.
--Mike
The argument you present was originally conceived by St. Anselm of Canterbury, and subsequently disproved by his contemporary Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (whom you reference imprecisely in your comments concerning "the perfect island").
The proper form of Gaunilo's rebutt goes as follows:
1. The Lost Island is defined as the greatest conceivable island
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Lost Island did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater island, which did exist
4. So the Lost Island must exist in reality.
If any of these arguments are sound, it seems, they must all be sound. But, these arguments are not all sound; the perfect island cannot be found as it does not exist, and so there is something wrong with the logic of these arguments. Each of these arguments uses the same logic. They must therefore all be unsound. The fact that there is no perfect island shows that the logic of the ontological argument for God's existence is flawed. Such objections are known as "Overload Objections"; they do not claim to show where or how the ontological argument goes wrong, they simply argue that if it is sound, then so are many other arguments of the same logical form which we do not want to accept, arguments which would overload the world with an indefinately large number of things like perfect islands etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo
In a more directly logical rebutt, the reason that both of these syllogism are unsound is that they contain one of the most basic logical fallacies, and one which is not surprisingly found at the basis of ALL theological arguments.
The fallacy is known as petitio principii or "begging the question." The fallacy works like this...
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/begging.htm
The arguments above only work if you accept the conclusion of the argument as true. One cannot logically use the premise that "god is (exists)" to reach the conclusion that "god exists (is)."
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
The lost island may be the greatest island ever concieved of, but is it greater than a computer? Of all things concieved of in reality or imagination (cars, islands, planets, goblins, etc.) what is the greatest person/place/thing/being (noun) that exists in conception and or reality. You have limitied the concieved objects to be islands alone or to places alone.
God is greater than the lost island. There are degrees of greatness, and this proof only applies to the absolute greatest.
The truth as not been assumed in the premise; the first statement only servees to define terms. The first statement defines who God is.
1) A triangle is a two dimensional object with three sides.
2) The math teacher has drawn a two dimensional object with three sides.
3) The math teacher has drawn a triangle.
According to your reasoning this syllogism does not follow logicaly.
Q.E.D.
...but merely pointed to the classical example used by Marmoutiers to rebutt Anselm's faulty syllogism. The point of Marmoutiers counter to Anselm is that if the "logic" you are using in your argument is sound, then that same logic must apply to all similar situations. When you say "God is greater than the lost island," you are once again begging the question of "god's" existence.
The truth as not been assumed in the premise;> the first statement only servees to define
> terms. The first statement defines who God is.
Actually, the error in your argument is made apparent by your own example...
1) A triangle is a two dimensional object with> three sides.
>
> 2) The math teacher has drawn a two dimensional
> object with three sides.
>
> 3) The math teacher has drawn a triangle.
Unlike your (or rather Anslem's) argument, we can in fact prove that triangles actually exist. We can objectively measure and confirm the existence of triangles, and thus reach sound conclusions based upon the premise that triagles exist. Anslem's argument presumes the actual existence of "god," and then seeks to use that presumption as the premise of an argument that leads one to the conclusion that "god" in fact exists. This presumption renders the conclusion of the argument unsound.
The rules of logic don't change just because your argument can't satisfy them.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
to Percivale, very nice on the research, I do not question your purpose.
I rather question the purpose of trying to prove the existence of God. It's a fun logical exercise, to be sure, but there is really no need to prove his existence. If you don't already believe he exists you fill generally find a way to counter the logic used, and if you already believe this isn't going to do anything for you.
Why try to logically prove the existence of a being of faith?
--
Oh, also: does anybody know the name of the song that plays during the dogfight scene of Cowboy Bebop, The Movie?
If so, please let me know @ gatorrelay251@gmail.com
Best movie EVER. Maybe. Definitely best Anime to hit the U.S.
That's philosophy. Plus, they started it.
--Mike
I believe God exist
the isssue of God's existence does not arouse debate.He exist
1) Some things move. This is evident.
2) All things that move are moved by another. In other words, only that which is actual can make what is potential actual.
One might say that things move themselves, but this is absurd, for I could say that I moved my arm. My mental faculty is what caused my arm to move. My brain did not always exist, but was moved into existence by another and so forth.
3) The series of causes and movements cannot be infinite. If they were, movement would not exist, for movement is the end result of a series of movers. If it has an end, it is finite.
4) Therefore, there must be a first mover. "This is God."
Amusing to see "Socrates" quoting a philosopher centuries his junior.
This argument was first used (well, maybe not first) by Aristotle. The logic (in my eyes) fails at step three:
Let's take a look at the big bang/big crunch theory.
You do surely believe in gravity, no? Alright. What goes up must come down. But let's consider a less naive gravity. Every object is attracted to each other by the force of gravity. There's an equation, but I forget it at the moment, and even if I remembered it, it would be absurd to try to replicate it here.
Suffice it to say that every object is attracted to every other object by the force of gravity. Every action has an equal yet opposite reaction.
So, the entirety of the universe, after trillions of years, collapses in upon itself. All the mass of the universe condenses into one point of mass-energy. That mass-energy then explodes and creates a new universe.
So the next universe is created from the previous universe and so one ad infinitum. Energy is always conserved. Why does there need to be a prime mover?
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!