ontological Argument?

[katia]

the ontological argument claims that the concept of god is a concept of a perfect being. and if a being is by definition perfect, then it must exist. after all, if it did not exist, then it would not be perfect. does this line of reasoning prove that god exists, or is it just a philosopher's trick? 

[Suzy]

Well of course it's a philosopher's trick.  And it's a fascinating one at that.  I don't see ANY purely philosophical argument that will prove or disprove the existence of God.  Personally I don't need one.  BTW, ontological arguments are a little different than you suggest.  They are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.  Your statement sounds a lot like the writings of René Descartes.

I have always been quite taken with the one put forward by St. Anselm in the 11th century, which describes God as simply "a being than which no greater can be conceived."  Much ink and sweat has been spilled over the ramifications of such a possibility.

Peace,


Kristi

[Fer]

Oh Katia darling, its so good to see you posting again.  It was a joy talking with you the other day.  You sounded so happy   Anyway back to your question.  You know we dont hold the same views on this one, eh?

Well, there are maybe a dozen proofs of the existence of God, Katia darling. They are all the same, they are that kind of proof that if you already believe something you find them convincing, but if you dont believe it already you would find them strangely unsatisfying.  Nothing personal hun.  You know me; I dont mix friendship with my views.

Also, remember this proof is almost 1000 years old! People in those days were about as smart as we are now, but they thought about a lot of things in very different ways than we do. Today we think of perfect as an ideal, an abstraction.

As you probably know, the Ontological Proof of God came from a man named Anselm who was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century. He had other proofs too, cosmological and teleological. He was a great thinker of his day, but if you read stuff by him you can see that his thinking about most things was really very medieval. Its interesting for just that reason. But if he appeared on a modern talk show to explain his theories, people today would just laugh at him. 

[lisagurl]

philosopher's trick

[Suzy]

As you probably know, the Ontological Proof of God came from a man named Anselm who was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century. He had other proofs too, cosmological and teleological. He was a great thinker of his day, but if you read stuff by him you can see that his thinking about most things was really very medieval. Its interesting for just that reason. But if he appeared on a modern talk show to explain his theories, people today would just laugh at him. 

You are quite right about this.  But I have to say that St. Anselm was miles ahead of anyone else in his day.  His work, though it might be considered very insufficient to speak to a postmodern world, was really groundbreaking to get the conversation started.  The presuppositions are very different in today's society.

But we owe a lot to him.  As the founder of Scholasticism, he changed the religious face of the world.   He originally wanted to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology. His emphasis on dialectical reasoning is also a fundamental part of out thought process today.  IMHO, the work of Hegel, Marx and Engals could not have happened had Anselm not resurrected and championed the form of learning popularized long before by Socrates and Plato.  This fact would most assuredly cause St. Anselm to roll over in his grave.

Kristi

[RebeccaFog]

maybe the perfect being is one that does not exist?

I don't see why the rest of you waste your time reading books      

The perfect being exists by not existing at all.

[Jeannette]

Philosopher's tripe...

Try this. Imagine a rose. Now imagine a yellow rose. Now imagine a yellow rose with dew on it. And with thorns. Now imagine that it exists....

With all the attributes except the last one, you modified something about the rose (it became yellow with dew and thorns). If you imagine something exists, it doesn't add anything, it is still exactly the same. Basically, this little exercise shows that existence is not a predicate, meaning that it is not part nor essential to a definition.