A bicycle illustrates why the Ontological Argument is nonsense

[wellwisher]

I've never understood the Ontological Argument. Despite your best efforts here, it still makes no sense to me. People less intelligent than me have waved it around as compelling though, so I suppose I have some sort of mental block around it.

The Ontological argument reminds me of the mathematical concept of infinite/infinity. Infinity is sort of the god argument of mathematics, in the sense, nobody can prove infinity exists, but one is required to imagine that it does, or else math hits a wall of usefulness. Infinity requires a degree of faith. Faith is the belief in things not seen.

In Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which discusses observational reference as a function of velocity, if we plug in the speed of light, relativistic mass, distance and time all become infinite. What does that really mean?

These variables will all go beyond the realm of the provable finite things that Atheists call home. This math realm beyond the provable finite is consistent with the traditions of God being associated with light; light of the world; speed of light, infinity in all things and beyond. There is math proof of God based on math concepts; faith meets faith.

Maybe we can do this another way. What exists at infinity since math uses this notion? God is classically, infinite in all things that math can generate. At infinity the faith of Atheism can overlap the faith of the faithful.

 

[Heyo]

Here's a summarization of Anselm's Ontological Argument:


Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'm going to focus on point #2, but first, an exercise for you to try at home: draw a bicycle.

Creative.
Second step: argue with your friends why your bicycle is greater than theirs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Creative.
Second step: argue with your friends why your bicycle is greater than theirs.

My bicycle is actually a whole pantheon of cycles, including a unicycle, a couple of trikes, and one particularly jealous penny farthing.

 

[Heyo]

My bicycle is actually a whole pantheon of cycles, including a unicycle, a couple of trikes, and one particularly jealous penny farthing.

Can you draw a picture of it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can you draw a picture of it?

Only if I make the penny farthing look more attractive than those young racer bikes. Otherwise I suspect I shall be smited. Smoted. Smote. Umm...made to pay.

 

[Tiberius]

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Hence the proof "God is beyond mind"



Hence you confirm "God is beyond mind"
@stvdvRF

The trouble is that if what you say is true, the ontological argument becomes worthless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hence the proof:
"God cannot be conceived"

Hence assumption is false
(The Ontological Argument depends on God being able to exist as a concept. It defines God as something that can be conceived)

So then you agree that the Ontological Argument is false.

 

[sun rise]

I agree that science cannot prove or disprove a supernatural being.
At best they could find things which are otherwise unexplainable by current science, which is obviously not the same thing.

AKA The "God of the gaps" argument.

 

[stvdv]

So then you agree that the Ontological Argument is false.

1) It's assumptions are false
2) The Argument to prove God exist is false

 

[Alien826]

"Fruit flies like a banana".

The more I read that sentence, the more its meaning slips away, always just outside the bounds of meaningfulness.

I've always found the ontological argument to be the same. Just as I think I might be close to understanding it, it all falls apart in my mind. (That's understanding what he was trying to say, not any veracity that might lurk there somewhere).

What I generally conclude is that we can't "prove" anything with words alone (or mathematics alone). There has to be some connection to the real world.

 

[Tiberius]

"Fruit flies like a banana".

The more I read that sentence, the more its meaning slips away, always just outside the bounds of meaningfulness.

It's saying that the animals called "fruit flies" are fond of bananas.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Ontological claims (I don't see why they should be called arguments) are interesting for what their use reveals about theism and theists. They remind me a lot of Aquinas' Five Ways in that there is no substance whatsoever to them; they're exercises of esthetical passion and nothing more.

Their true value is as indicators of what to expect of certain varieties of god-belief and god-claims.

And as indicators of the need for ignosticism / ignostheism, of course. It is really surprising that this is not considered their main role.

 

[Alien826]

It's saying that the animals called "fruit flies" are fond of bananas.

Or is it saying that fruit (in general) flies (travels through the air) in the same way as a banana does?

 

[Tiberius]

Or is it saying that fruit (in general) flies (travels through the air) in the same way as a banana does?

Bananas are fruit already.

The full thing is "Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

It's a humorous take on the fact that the similar construction can have different meanings.

 

[Ponder This]

Here's a summarization of Anselm's Ontological Argument:


Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'm going to focus on point #2, but first, an exercise for you to try at home: draw a bicycle.

Draw a bicycle in as much detail as you can manage. You can either draw a specific bicycle you're familiar with or a "generic" bicycle of your own design. Take as much time as you like, then look at it and ask yourself a question:

Would the bicycle work?

If the bicycle as you drew it was real - making reasonable allowances for artistic skill - would it do everything you would expect it to do?

Would the pedals and wheels turn? Would the steering work? Would the gears shift? Would the brakes stop it?

Getting into more detail: would the freewheel or freehub work properly? Would the bearings spin freely, or would they seize up?

Would the bike be too heavy? Would it be so weak that the frame snaps?

Now... is there anyone here who can say that their concept of a bike would fully reflect an actual bike?

And for those who can't get a proper bicycle to exist in your mind: do you really think you could manage any better with a god?

Point #4 of the ontological argument puts forth an antecedent (God exists only as an idea in the mind), and then gives a consequent (we can imagine something that is greater than God) which does not follow from the antecedent. The argument did not show that the condition put forth in point #3 (other things being equal) was satisfied. The argument conflates imagining something is real with something being real (point #3 indicates a being that is real, while point #4 indicates a being that is imagined to be real).

Your bicycle analogy didn't make sense to me. You said you were going to focus on point #2... Can you state your rebuttal without using an analogy?

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fun Thought Experiment:

1. Let Satan denote a being than which none lesser can be imagined.
2. Satan exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists only as an idea in the mind is, other things being equal, lesser than a being that exists in the mind and in reality.
4. Thus, if Satan exists in reality, then we can imagine something that is lesser than Satan (that is, a least possible being that does not exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something lesser than Satan (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being lesser than the least possible being that can be imagined).
6. Therefore, Satan doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your bicycle analogy didn't make sense to me. You said you were going to focus on point #2... Can you state your rebuttal without using an analogy?

God can't "exist as a concept." Because of this, point #2 fails. The argument depends on point #2, so the argument also fails.

Your - or anyone's - "concept of God" is merely a model of the aspects of God you consider important.

"God exists as a concept in my mind" implies "my beliefs about God capture God in its entirety. There's nothing to God apart from what's reflected in my beliefs about God."

The bicycle analogy was just to illustrate how different our concept of a thing is from the thing itself.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Here's a summarization of Anselm's Ontological Argument:


Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'm going to focus on point #2, but first, an exercise for you to try at home: draw a bicycle.

Draw a bicycle in as much detail as you can manage. You can either draw a specific bicycle you're familiar with or a "generic" bicycle of your own design. Take as much time as you like, then look at it and ask yourself a question:

Would the bicycle work?

If the bicycle as you drew it was real - making reasonable allowances for artistic skill - would it do everything you would expect it to do?

Would the pedals and wheels turn? Would the steering work? Would the gears shift? Would the brakes stop it?

Getting into more detail: would the freewheel or freehub work properly? Would the bearings spin freely, or would they seize up?

Would the bike be too heavy? Would it be so weak that the frame snaps?

Now... is there anyone here who can say that their concept of a bike would fully reflect an actual bike?

And for those who can't get a proper bicycle to exist in your mind: do you really think you could manage any better with a god?

Now imagine a perfectly working bicycle. Would that bicycle work?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now imagine a perfectly working bicycle. Would that bicycle work?

I can't. That's my point. Nobody can imagine a bicycle in enough detail for us to say that it would work at all, let alone perfectly.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I can't. That's my point. Nobody can imagine a bicycle in enough detail for us to say that it would work at all, let alone perfectly.

Maybe there are some professionals that can but that's not the point. You don't have to imagine any concrete detail. You just have to think of the concept. Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe there are some professionals that can but that's not the point. You don't have to imagine any concrete detail. You just have to think of the concept. Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

I can conceive of an Uber God. A God that makes Gods. And that is an endless progression. One can keep thinking of a maker of a maker. Meanwhile there is no reliable evidence for even a God of the Earth. Anyone can dream anything.