Wednesday, September 21, 2016
The Fallacy of the ontological argument H1
Although very interesting this argument holds no real truth. "The ontological argument is the argument that God, being that than which no greater can be thought of, has to exist, because if he did not then it would be possible to conceive of an existent God, which would be greater than that than which no greater can be conceived" (https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html) Hard to follow? Yea me too, its absurd. This argument has been debated heavily with no real wins for the supporters. Its almost fallen off the map, not completely, but pretty close. Anselm apparently proposes to treat the understanding or the mind as if it were a place, and to speak of things existing "in the understanding". Anselm's assumption here is that if I understand claims about God, then we may say that God exists in my understanding or in my mind. Now I want you to imagine a cake, a huge cake, a great cake. Greater than can ever be conceived. Now this cake exist in your understanding therefore it is real, yes? Nope. The cake is not real but only exists in your mind. But this is where he contrasts the existence of god in your understanding versus the existence of god in reality. God is a being of which no other being can be conceived. My cake is a cake of which no greater cake can ever be conceived. Therefore they both exist in reality. Now you can believe whatever you want religiously, and by no means am i comparing a cake to God. Im using the analogy of a cake to explain the ideas of existence vs reality in the understanding. But the argument that is given in this philosophy is too convoluted and never makes any real points. As interesting as it is, it is absurdly false.