Ontological Argument Rebutted (My post from my college phil. course)

[Jay Paul]

The following post is one I wrote in response to a class-blog for the Introduction to Philosophy course I'm taking. I didn't believe then nor do I believe now that this class would actually teach me much next to anything about philosophy, besides some of the basics we don't mully over here like defining words like premise and conclusions. What this class has done for me those is help me practice reasoning out the arguments for my beliefs, because unlike this environment, at the college I attend in the deep south/bible belt of the United States stereotypically composed of conservative white Christians and liberal black Christians, I'm at odds with just about everybody which has made me a stronger philosopher for it. But back to my repost below. My class was recently discussing the ontological argument for the existence of god in class and had to write a couple of posts on our class forums about it. This is my most recent post and I just wanted to share it with you all here, so that I may actually hear some type of rhetorical feedback in my lines of reasoning and how I go about structuring my thoughts, something I surely won't receive from my classmates or professor. I hope you enjoy.    And just before you begin, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ontological argument it goes like this: 1. If god is a conceivable/possible being, than god exists. 2. God is a conceivable/possible being. 3. Therefore, god exists. 

_________________________

 

NOTE: This post isn't necessarily in response to anyone else's post specifically, but I hope all of you who come across this will take care and read what I have to say. In doing so I believe you would be doing yourself and the world a considerable favor.

 

I come to odds with the first premise in the following way. In the ontological argument the gap between conceivability and confirmed, irrefutable existence is bridged only by the definition of god we work with. I find the attempt at coming up with a self contained logical proof for the existence of god annoying personally and frustrating for those of us philosophers who rely on actual evidence on which we can base our arguments on to come up with conclusions. Like the KnowNo argument we discussed in class, we can just come up with any random word, a Foo-bar for example, and say that a Foo-bar necessarily exists. I can also say that there is no means of testing the actual existence of a Foo-bar and that you should just have faith, because that sounds like a really sweet thing to do, and if you don't agree with me or succumb to my emotional manipulations to just accept Foo-bar into your life I'm going to tell you that I'll just physically communicate with Foo-bar to warm your bitter, cold heart, so that Foo-bar can fill you full of it's inconceivably benevolent glory. You see, this isn't a case for the existence or nonexistence of Foo-bar at all. The assigning of properties to something can by no means validate the existence of that thing in reality.

 

I also am frustrated with people who accept the second premise because of the following reason. In class we in no manner addressed this point of what it means for something to actually be conceivable or possible. We did point out how contradictory objects cannot logically exist, nor can your possibly conceive of them. Take the round-square for example. No matter how hard you think or how much you want to believe that you can picture an object in your mind that is both round and square at the same time is impossible, because by definition, the properties of a round-square being an object that is "a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles", but also "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)" are at odd with each other in such an irrefutable and fundamental way. I make the claim that the same goes for god.

 

God is defined as being both all-powerful and all-knowing. If you want to test the possible (in)conceivability of something you should try to think about what both of these things mean when applied together onto the same context, 'god'. If god is all-powerful that means that god can do/change anything past, present, or future to god's own liking. But if god is already all-knowing, knowing everything as it is in reality, past, present, or future, god would thereby be incapable of using god's powers to change anything, because in doing so god would be invaliding gods own omniscience. This is a fundamental contradiction in the definition of god and there is no avoiding it. 

 

People from this point in the argument often say that god exists in a realm that's outside of time and space lah-dee-dah-dee-dah, but this claim is equally invalid and contradictory, because that is if god is to have any knowledge of or power over what exists within ours or any other conceivable realm that exudes the properties of either time or space (good luck theorizing one with them though) god would have to have some interaction with (coming into to) that particular realm of time and space in order to influence in it with his magic powers that fly in the face of the distinct laws of a nature of that realm. 

 

You can have your emotional reactions all you want and say you still believe that god exists, because you have faith. I'm not going to tell you can't, and I won't take any measures what so ever if you do. But just know that in this instance, as you use the word "faith" you are rejecting reason and evidence as the criteria for what you believe. If that's something you're happy with doing then by all means have yourself a merry time, but I urge of you NOT to waste your time with the entertaining of scientific and philosophical theories, because you are rejecting the fundamental criteria of those practices when you use the worst F-word of all. Having intellectual integrity is a very difficult virtue to adopt, and I really do deeply sympathize with those people who are experiencing difficulty making the transition. I made it myself not along ago. It was grueling, frustrating, and exhausting, but it was also worth it. I learned that having emotional dependency to conclusions is not an effective way at all to live your life as a philosopher, because that will keep you from responding to new evidence that make go against as claim of yours you've made in the past, and now feel embarrassed to give up. If anything at all to have an emotional dependency on is the methodology by which you can judge claims and the arguments associated with them. If there was brand new irrefutable evidence for the existence of god tomorrow, you'd bet I'd be a theist in a second, because I'm not attached to the idea of being an atheist. But also note, that if there was to be such an occurrence, you can guarantee that this evidence would be empirical and measurable, and not anything else. Reason and evidence are the keystones to philosophy for certain, and I also believe that they are just as foundation to someone who wants to live a moral and virtuous life and leave a positive influence on this world by learning about and practicing real freedom, not the pseudo-freedom the systems of pseudo-moral instruction and obligation would prefer you believe, in your daily life.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I have some technical advice.

 

First, do not rely on a computerized spell-checker. You have quite a few cases where an incorrect, but correctly spelled, word is used (it's for its, your for you, make for may, as for a, foundation for foundational).

 

Second, you might reconsider mixing formality and informality (lah-dee-dah being rather informal). It can be done, but it should be woven into the argument, not used like a whip.

 

Lastly, I would avoid addressing anyone's emotions, unless that is the topic. It adds nothing to your argument, and can alienate even a receptive audience.

 

I think you did well on the substance, but the changes in tone (formal to informal, and argument to personal attack) take the piece from logical essay in the beginning to blog at the end.

 

Keep up the good work, and give those Christians Hell.

[Think Free]

My critique of the ontological argument is as follows:

 

How to prove anything

 

1. Construct a proof-by-contradiction in which you assume the non-existence of a self-contradictory entity (or assume the falsity of a self-contradicting statement).

 

2. Use the ensuing breakdown in logic to shift the contradiction outside of the entity (or statement) in question.

 

3. Use the contradiction to prove that the the assumed non-existent entity actually exists (or the assumed false statement is actually true).

 

The ontological argument is a proof by contradiction, and since it is not at all not-controversial that "God" is a coherent concept, it is possible that it is just a form of the above fallacy. Thus the most it can prove is that either God is a necessary being, or God is an impossible being. But that claim has been widely accepted for centuries (perhaps because of the ontological argument).

 

Thus the ontological argument is, at best, an argument for the relatively non-controversial claim that God must be necessary if he is not impossible.

[Jay Paul]

Thanks for the advice darkskyabove and Think Free. I really appreciate the criticisms. At Uni I feel like I'm trying to philosophize in a desert island, cause there doesn't seem to me to be any people around competent and mature enough to entertain these ideas I have let alone give me this sort of critical advice.for how to approach different matters in philosophy. I'll definitely rethink how I use any sort of ethos in debate in the future. That's something I learned not to long ago I struggle with, and that's why I tend to avoid that sort of thing when I can. The reason why I brought up the subject though here was because it seems to me just about everyone taking this course is using emotional justifications for their belief in god, and I wanted to point out to them that in claiming faith for the reason why they believe something is just a kind of cop out and is no integrity in it if you're at the same time claiming to be logical and reasonable. . I really like you're argument style here, Think. It seems like a great way to work the premise that self-contradictory entities don't exist into the argument before applying it to god. I'll be sure to use that one to my advantage in the future. Again I really appreciate both of your words.