The Ontological Argument [Part 1]

Created on March 11, 2010.

Terms:

God: The greatest conceivable being.

Conceive: to have a concept; to think.

Being: existing; something [that exists].

Non-being: not-existing; not anything; nothing.

Greatest: Most-perfect; without-deficiency; truest to itself.



The Ontological Argument:

P1:
Non-being cannot be (or, "nothing" cannot "exist").
Likewise,
Being cannot not be (or, "something" cannot not "exist").

P2:
Since non-being cannot be, it cannot be conceived. Therefore, "not-P1" is inconceivable.

P3:
Therefore, "not-P1" cannot be thought to be true at any time, in any place, in any reality, or in any way whatsoever.

P4:
Therefore, something must be conceived of as existing at all times, in all places, in all realities, and it cannot be conceived to not exist in any way whatsoever.

P5:
Therefore, this something is pure, unlimited, infinite being, consisting of no non-being at all, which is the greatest conceivable being, and its non-being (that is, its "non-existence") is logically impossible.

Conclusion:
We must conclude that this being really exists, since we cannot conceive of it not existing.

In support of Premise 1:
"Something" and "nothing" are mutually exclusive reciprocal concepts (meaning, they define one another). So "nothing is defined as "not-something" and therefore cannot exist, because if it existed it would be something, not nothing. Just like the concept of a "married-bachelor," "nothing-existing" logically falsifies itself. It is a self-defeating statement of two words that cannot both be true: "nothing" and "existing." But if that is the case, then the opposite concept is just as certainly false. If "nothing-existing" is impossible, then "something" NOT-existing is impossible. Therefore, something necessarily exists.



Argument in response to the objection, "The being proved is not a personal being:"

Premise 1:
The greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived to consist of any non-being, or be deficient of being in any way. It cannot at all "not-be" [all from P-5 of the Ontological Argument].

Premise 2:
"Personality" is a kind of true being. That is, it is a thing that truly exists [see support for this premise below argument].

Premise 3:
On the other hand, "IMpersonality" is a kind of non-being. That is, it is not a thing that exists but is merely a deficiency of something else that exists, namely "personality" [from P-2].

Premise 4:
If the greatest conceivable being were "impersonal" it would consist of a kind of non-being; it would be deficient of being; it would, in a sense, "not-be" [all of which contradicts P-1].

Premise 5:
Also, if "that-being-which-must-be" is "impersonal," then we must say that a kind of "non-being" must be, and that a kind of true "being" ("personality") might not be [which contradicts P-1 of the Ontological Argument].

Conclusion:
The greatest conceivable "being" is also the greatest conceivable "personality."

In support of Premise 2:
It cannot be denied that personality is a thing that truly exists, because if one denies it he proves that at least one person exists (namely, the one denying the existence of personality). Considering, disapproving of, and rejecting rational concepts (like "personality-existing") cannot be done except by a thinking personal agent. Therefore, to DENY the true existence of personality is to PROVE the true existence of personality.




Source:

"Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics." By R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, pg. 96-108, (c) 1984 by the Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• God
• existence
• ontological
• argument
• atheism
• atheist
• philosophy
• apologetics
• logic
• reason
• Christianity
• religion
• Bible.

[NomosCharis]

@MISHKINPUSH You never did answer my question to you about how many "incarnations of the universe" there have been before the current one, and whether or not you admit that there must be a first. ???

[NomosCharis]

@MISHKINPUSH ///I'm telling you... that I CAN conceive of the being you describe as not existing.///

I can make claims too. Watch: No you can't, and for that reason you are making claims and deliberately refusing to deal with the logic of my argument.

[NomosCharis]

@MISHKINPUSH Neither you, nor anybody else, can conceive what you say. A thing that does not exist cannot do ANYTHING. In order for it to do anything, it would have to exist. That is a logical certainty. Your claim that you can conceive of such a being is a lie--an empty claim. Contradictions and formally false assertions cannot be conceived by anyone. You might as well claim to conceive of a square-triangle.

I hate regurgitations of bad Dawkins arguments (btw, that's not originally his).

[MISHKINPUSH]

@NomosCharis Based on your definition, I can conceive of a greater being. To paraphrase Dawkins: a god who could create and constantly sustain the universe while simultaneously bearing the handicap of not existing would be an even greater god. Therefore, god does not exist.

And if you can perceive how ridiculous that argument is, you need to take another look at your own.

[MISHKINPUSH]

@NomosCharis I'm telling you - for at least the third time - that I CAN conceive of the being you describe as not existing. If there are NO conscious minds to conceive of such a being, does it still exist? If the answer is "no" then you are saying that conception = existence. If the answer is "yes" than there must exist other proof of the being's existence besides your inability not to conceive of it. Please provide the other proof or admit that you are saying that conception = existence.

[NomosCharis]

@MISHKINPUSH Precisely. However, the being conceived in this argument is a different kind of being from Descartes or myself. The principle is still the same however, which is this: whatever cannot be conceived of as not existing RIGHT NOW, must exist right now. That being can be anything depending on the circumstances. In this case, the reason we cannot conceive of God not existing RIGHT NOW, is because he cannot be conceived to not exist ANYWHERE or at ANY TIME. Ergo, he exists right now.

[NomosCharis]

@MISHKINPUSH Kalaam does not rely on modern Cosmology at all.  I would refer to the philosophical proofs of Premise 2. For instance, you call this the "current incarnation" of the universe. How many have there been? Is there a first? If not, how did we arrive at the current one (how did it come to exist), since an actually infinite number of incarnations had to precede it before that could happen?

[MISHKINPUSH]

@NomosCharis It is not impossible. Descartes says "the proposition, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived by my mind." What you are proposing is to say "the proposition, god exists, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived by my mind." By Descartes' reasoning, god - or Descartes himself - may cease existing at any point that his mind cannot conceive it.

[NomosCharis]

@MISHKINPUSH How would you describe and define "God." Maybe that's where our problem lies.

I would define God something like this: The eternal, infinite, unchangeable, and personal being that purposefully created and constantly sustains the existence of the "universe" (which is defined, basically, as everything that exists, or that has ever existed, that is not God).

[MISHKINPUSH]

@NomosCharis You don't know that the universe is finite. Cosmology suggests only that the current incarnation of it is. And you have not proven that an infinite conscious being exists, because you have not proven that we cannot conceive of it not existing. For Kalam to have teeth, you would first have to prove that it was possible for the cosmological constants to be anything other than what they are, and that has not been done.