h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Ontological Argument - A764624
Author: Kenrick - U154653

An article on the Ontological Argument that is one of the most interesting arguments in philsophy of religion.
Comments please!
Rgds,

Kenrick

Corrected some of the typos now too.

Hi Kenrick!

This is very, very, very good indeed! Philosophy of Religion is not a particular speciality of mine, but this chimes with what I remember, and I think this is a very clear and accessible account.

I do have two suggestions:

The first is a very minor quibble, and I'm not even sure I'm right! Point 6 of Anslem's argument reads:

"The Fool says that the greatest conceivable being exists only in the mind, but it is possible to think of a greater being - one that also exists in reality."

The first phrase of the sentence is the argument of The Fool, but the second isn't. The way that it's written implies that the second bit is also the Fool's argument, whereas it's Anslem's. Perhaps something like "must also concede that it is possible to think....."
Dunno. What do you think?

The second suggestion is perhaps saying a little more about the context of the argument. You rightly say that it's one of the most unusual arguments, but perhaps you could add something to the conclusion to say that (as I understand it) any defeat of the OA doesn't defeat theism (indeed, a theist could comfortably afford to reject this argument as I suspect that we both do), but forces the debate onto empirical (non analytical / a priori) arguments. This is implicit in everything you say, but perhaps it would be worth drawing it together in an extended conclusion? What do you think?

Oh, and there's another entry in Peer Review on Truth and Validity that could perhaps be linked to (thanks for the link to my "How to be a Philosopher, BTW!), though the T&V entry needs more work than this one, so perhaps the sub-editior could do it when (and I'm sure it's a "when") this gets picked.

Best wishes

Otto.
Pleased to see so much philosophy around these days...

PS. Perhaps a link to A472033 on "What is God?" which briefly covers Anslems argument, and briefly reprises some of the other arguments.

Thanks for the positive feedback!
I agree with your first point that it isn't very clear to someone who hasn't come across the OA before so I'll rephrase it.
The second point is also valid and it does seem like a good idea to overtly state that a defeat of the OA does not necessarily defeat theism. I'll get working on it!
On a more personal note, I'm not sure whether I accept or reject the OA. I see little point in it as a proof to an atheist or agnostic, but I am inclined to go along with Anselm's 'faith seeking understnading' thing. Better stop now as PR is not really the place for a philosophical discussion

Rgds,
Kenrick

Just to say that I've added a short section before the conclusion about how a rejection of the OA does not spell the defeat for theism. I've also rephrased premise 6 of Anselm's OA.
All done!
I've decided not to elaborate on the other traditional existential theistic arguments as the entry seems long enough as it is at the moment and I might (at some point in the future) produce more entrys on the respective arguments.

Interesting. As an argument, I don't like it, however it is well presented.

A couple of typos - arguements > arguments

nutricious > nutritious.

Also, I didn't under stand the meaning of 'df' in the equations. That could do with an explanation.

'df' is philosophical shorthand for 'definition' and is explained under Footnote number 6 which appears next to the first use of the term 'df'.
Thanks for the typos, they've been corrected.

Kenrick

Modified a few more bits and added some more references.
What do people think?

A clear and interesting entry about an argument I've not seen before. Thanks for introducing it to me!

Personally, I'm not at all taken with Anselm's 'faith seeking understanding' thing, but so what?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Is a Scout about?
I'm thinking of starting a University Project on the theistic arguments, and this article would be part of this proposed project. I seem to have a vague recollection that articles that are going to be part of a project are not allowed to go through PR. Can anyone update me on this?
Cheers,

Kenrick

I'd prefer 'is defined as' to '=df', myself.
-myre

I read in a book somewhere the following argument:

'An existing unicorn exists' can have two meanings.

1) For all X, where X is an existing unicorn, X exists
2) There is an X, such that X is an existing unicorn, and X exists.

The first meaning is clearly true, and the second is probably false. This semantic mismatch that is one way of causing the paradox.

--

Let REALS be the set of Real things. Let CONCEPTS be the set of conceivable things. Let CONCEIVE(X) be the concept of X. Let GREATEST(S) be the greatest member of S, so for all X in S, GREATEST(S) >= X.

Define CONCEPTS_SQUARED as follows: X is a member of CONCEPTS_SQUARED if and only if X = CONCEIVE(Y) and Y is a member of CONCEPTS.

Now, let's rewrite Anselm's argument:
Define GOD = GREATEST(CONCEPTS)
Assume GOD is not a member of REALS
For all X, X is greater than CONCEIVE(X)
Therefore GOD > CONCEIVE(GOD)
But CONCEIVE(GOD) = GREATEST(CONCEPTS_SQUARED)
**ERROR** So GOD > CONCEIVE(GOD) is a contradiction! **ERROR**
Hence, by reductio ad absurdam, GOD is a member of REALS.

The error is simple: GOD is not a member of CONCEPTS_SQUARED, though it is a member of CONCEPTS. In other words, the greatest conceivable concept cannot be a concept of a concept - it must be a concept of an existing thing. Which is as one would expect.

So, step 6 in Anselm's original argument is an incorrect logical step caused by confusing the conception of a thing with the thing itself. With an erroneous logical step, it is no wonder that an erroneous conclusion was obtained.

> "the greatest conceivable concept cannot be a concept of a concept - it must be a concept of an existing thing"

My bad: that should be "the greatest concept cannot be a concept of a concept - it must be a concept of an existing thing".

You see how easy it is to confuse levels?
-Martin

Hiya,

Very interesting piece,

I realise you guys are delving into the more interesting philosophical aspects of this piece - but p, first reading; could we have some explanation of what Psalm 14 is all about!

I got about half way through this, but it is late and my brain ain't gonna get to the end, so, like the man said: I'll be back!

seeya
spiff

Will put in an explaination of Psalm 14 shortly.

Rgds,

Kenrick

Explaination has been done and is as a Footnote. Also included a link to an online bible with Psalm 14.

Kenrick

RE: Lucinda's Comments

I'll get back to you on the comments. I just need sometime to read through them properly!

Rgds,

Kenrick

Ok, I've read through http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ , which you link to.

It seems that there is a lot of debate as to how to translate Anselm's paragraph into a logically valid proof, and even if this is actually possible.

Anselm just says (in translation):
> "Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality."
[note to moderator: Anselm's been dead for ages]

Your seven points are an interpretation of this paragraph, but certainly not the only interpretation, or perhaps even the best interpretation. Perhaps you should let Anselm speak for himself?

I also wonder if you should restrict yourself just to Anselm's Ontological Argument, or attempt to provide an overview of all the Onotological Arguments. If the former, then Descartes is unwelcome - if the latter, then why don't Plantinga and Godel and the rest get a mention?

I'm not convinced about this entry as much as I was before I read the Stamford link, I'm afraid.

-Martin

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm is the stemford entry on Anselm.

> "Anselm's Defence - There are two points that can be used in Anselm's defence of this last criticism"

it would perhaps be worth adding "though Anselm himself used neither of them." to make it clear that they were used on his behalf?

[note to moderator: Anselm's been dead for ages]