Before I begin such an exploration into the ontological argument. I would firstly like to say that this has by far been one of the difficult theological arguments for me to understand at its deeper levels. My god (no pun intended), at first when I read the surface of it seemed easy to understand. But as I went deeper into how the argument was made and the examples to illustrate it, it got confusing to understand. This argument was introduced to me during a discussion with particular others during the end of holidays, and from the bottom of my heart, I was truly excited that such an argument existed.
The ontological argument is an argument stating that it is illogical and contradictory for one to say that God does not exist. The argument was first proposed by Anselm during the medieval era, and it’s description eventually got evolved/reformulated by several philosophical figures, even proved to be valid using mathematics by Gödel (obviously these names mean nothing to you, but they’re for reference). The nature of the argument proposes that God’s existence can be proved a priori (latin meaning ‘before experience’ or ‘before evidence’). Take note however the problems of an a priori argument (see Hume or Popper, or for example see next note in [ ]).
[This example was taken from Wikipedia and was by Hume, I did it because I was too lazy to think of one myself and type it out. I actually tried, but it came out to be similar to what Hume had.
Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational arguement by arguing as follows:
1.
The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
2.
The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3.
It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4.
Nothing can be proven to exist a priori. Including God.]
Take note however that this is not a full exploration of the argument, to completely prove if it’s false. I’m not qualified to do so…yet. I have chosen not to do a full exploration for several reasons: 1) It is too complex at it’s deeper levels, 2) There are several versions of it and the language used is confusing, 3) The interpretation process is frustrating, 4) I have other things to do than to spend 2 straight days doing philosophy/theology.
The ontological argument was taken from Wikipedia and other sources.
Ontological Argument (Simple Version):
1. God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. God exists.
Ontological Argument (Complex Version):
1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
1. I agree with this.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
2. I also concur (to a certain degree, which I will explain later in proposition 4).
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
3. For obvious reasons (that reason being that if it’s true there is no point to the argument), assume it to be correct.
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
4. God does not exist in reality (see above), but the concept of God exists in human understanding. It is correct (to a certain degree) that whatever exists in reality also exists in human understanding, or vice versa. For example, I see a chair in front of me in reality; it also exists in my mind, in my understanding. I comprehend that this in front of me, is a chair.
But what is within our understanding does not always exist in reality (which is what proposition 4 is trying to argue, saying that whatever exists in our understanding must also exist in reality), in particular abstract concepts (the concept of God is an abstract concept). Take note that what is meant by reality is the realm beyond the realm of human understanding, the physical world.
Allow me to give an example; I will use words as an example. Words exist in our minds but do not exist in reality. If you write a word on paper, what exists is only ink on paper but not the word itself. It exists only in the mind; the mind comprehends and understands the ink on paper as a word. Therefore, words that exist in human understanding do not exist in reality.
Another example, I have a concept of justice (abstract concept, you cannot measure or see justice in reality, only what justice leaves behind, the consequences and events in reality). I am exposed to a situation in reality, which is consistent with my concept of justice, therefore I comprehend that justice exists. However, my concept of justice is different with the concept of justice of another. Because men are not perfect entities, we are incapable to hold a true (or perfect) concept of justice. Therefore, because of our inability to hold or comprehend true justice, the concept of justice we have is different from the concept of justice of another. Simply speaking, because men are not perfect entities, it is impossible for us to hold perfect concepts.
This includes the concept of God. We individually hold a concept of God, but because we are incapable to hold or comprehend perfect concepts (because of our imperfection), everyone’s concept of God will be different. One however may argue that everyone agrees with what is written in proposition 1 (or what I wrote in ‘The Proposition’). If you are thinking this then I am truly disappointed in you, mainly because the medium of articulating such a concept is through language, and language has it’s limits (imperfect medium).
We agree with the concept proposed to the limit the language allows the concept to be proposed. It is therefore not the true concept of God that we comprehend and understand, but the illusion that we are able to comprehend a perfect concept of God. A concept created by imperfect beings using an imperfect medium (language, we think in language. Hence we are imperfect beings).
Therefore, it is not true concept of God that exists in reality, only the concept we have created. Therefore, comprehending that God also exists in reality is false. This proposition stating that if the concept of God exists in our understanding, God must also exist in reality is therefore also false. God therefore does not exist in reality, only the fabrication of an illusion that he is.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater
than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
5. The original work by Anselm (Proslogion, Chapter 2) gives the following example to illustrate the point:
“For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thoughts and thinks that it exists because he has done it… And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of existing in reality as well, which is greater.”
Since man cannot comprehend or hold a true concept of God, the idea that God exists in reality is false. I do however agree with proposition 5. I agree that whatever exists in reality as well as the human understanding is greater than that which exists only in the human understanding. I also agree of existence (existing in reality) as a perfection. Take note however that in the original work by Anselm, the concept of ‘perfection’ does not mean ‘the greatest/absolute best’ as we understand it today. But ‘complete’, ‘absolute’, and ‘unlimited’.
6. From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the
entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
6. False because proposition 4 is false.
From (Proslogion, Chapter 3):
“For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing [or it is inconceivable for it not to exist], and that would be greater than something which cannot be thought of as not existing [i.e. It does not exist!]…For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought…”
This is what I also cannot understand; it is an extension to the proposition. I fail to understand it, but because this is based on the assumption that past propositions are true (which I have shown isn’t), I conclude it to be false as well.
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are
accepted as true).
7. False because proposition 4 is false.
Anselm in his Proslogon 3 made another a priori argument for God this time based on the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that if God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent. Therefore God must be necessary, to sum it up:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God exists
This is where I fail to understand the rest of the argument. In the future perhaps when I am able to understand it…but here is where I stop.
Hope, you've enjoyed reading this and hope it has widened your understanding. Criticisms are very welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment