Ontological argument
From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
(explanation of the fallacy (could be elaborated on, though)) |
(oops, need one of these) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The argument is fallacious due to several flawed assumptions. The most noticeable of these is the assumption that this which exists in reality ''and'' imagination is somehow "greater" than that which exists only in imagination. "Greater" and "greatness" as a quality is not at all defined in this context, and it is only the far overreaching manner in which the term is applied that allows this argument some semblance of logical appeal. | The argument is fallacious due to several flawed assumptions. The most noticeable of these is the assumption that this which exists in reality ''and'' imagination is somehow "greater" than that which exists only in imagination. "Greater" and "greatness" as a quality is not at all defined in this context, and it is only the far overreaching manner in which the term is applied that allows this argument some semblance of logical appeal. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Logic]] | ||
Revision as of 21:37, 2 March 2008
An argument for the existence of 'God' put forth in the eleventh century by the Christian philosopher Anselm, the Ontological Argument is a reductio ad absurdum argument and runs as follows:
- Assume God does not exist.
- 'God' is defined as "that than which no greater can be conceived"
- "That than which no greater can be conceived" must therefore not exist. (from 1 & 2)
- "That than which no greater can be conceived" exists only in imagination, not in reality. (from 2 & 3)
- If "that than which no greater can be conceived" were to exist in reality as well as in imagination, it would be even "greater".
- But that would mean "That than which no greater can be conceived" is not "that than which no greater can be conceived". ( From 4&5)
- "That than which no greater can be conceived" must exist in imagination and also exist in reality for it to be the greatest thing conceivable.
- That means 'God' both does and does not exist (from 1 & 7).
- Premise 1 cannot be true (reductio ad absurdum)
- 'God' exists.
The argument is fallacious due to several flawed assumptions. The most noticeable of these is the assumption that this which exists in reality and imagination is somehow "greater" than that which exists only in imagination. "Greater" and "greatness" as a quality is not at all defined in this context, and it is only the far overreaching manner in which the term is applied that allows this argument some semblance of logical appeal.