A bicycle illustrates why the Ontological Argument is nonsense

[PearlSeeker]

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.

"... that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

 

[Subduction Zone]

"... that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

Not a problem. My Uber God breaks that rule.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe there are some professionals that can but that's not the point.

No, not even a professional.

The crystal structure of the steel tubes of a bike frame (or the composition of the aluminum alloy, or the exact properties of the carbon fibre, etc.) are critical to whether the bike just snaps in two when you get on it or is actually rideable, but even someone who can assemble a bike blindfolded won't necessarily be able to know what that crystal structure ought to look like.

It's like how, famously, no individual person knows how to make a pencil from raw materials.

You don't have to imagine any concrete detail. You just have to think of the concept.

If you don't have every detail, you don't have God "existing as a concept"; you only have a model or image of God existing as a concept. You have a conceptual Potemkin Village version of God.

Within the (deeply flawed) internal reasoning of the Ontological Argument, the God "existing as a concept" and the God existing in reality are the same thing. If the conceptual God is a vague caricature, then the God supposedly existing in reality would also be the same vague caricature.

Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Right: IOW, he started with the idea that nothing greater than God can be conceived, but God can be conceived.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

The argument begins by defining a concept: a being than which none greater can be imagined. If you don't accept the definition given, then I think you object to the first point. If the greatest thing that can be imagined is an Apple, then God is an Apple. This is regardless of what you believe about God or about Apples.

I agree that more should be said to explain the second point, because it is not immediately evident that God (as defined in the first premise) exists. For example, if I say let M be the maximum real value of the function f(x) = x over the real numbers, then M doesn't exist even though I've defined M.

I still don't understand the bicycle analogy, but I agree that what we imagine a thing to be can be different from our drawing of that thing on a piece of paper or different from a real encounter with such a thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The argument begins by defining a concept: a being than which none greater can be imagined. If you don't accept the definition given, then I think you object to the first point.

The Ontological Argument fails at almost every step. This thread focuses on one specific way that the argument fails.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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.

The Ontological Argument fails at almost every step. This thread focuses on one specific way that the argument fails.

Your first quote I think is more quickly to the point of why the OA fails. The original formulation in the OP (and wiki) says "a being that exists in the mind." A poster down stream used in their formulation "God exists as an idea in the mind".

My short "defeater" is that nothing exists in the mind but ideas. God isn't a being that exists in the mind; it's an ideas that exist in the mind. It's an equivocation. An idea isn't a being; a being isn't an idea. God doesn't exist as an idea in the mind; the idea of a god exists in the mind.

The idea that adding an attribute to one's conception changes anything is rather bizarre.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If you don't have every detail, you don't have God "existing as a concept"; you only have a model or image of God existing as a concept. You have a conceptual Potemkin Village version of God.

Within the (deeply flawed) internal reasoning of the Ontological Argument, the God "existing as a concept" and the God existing in reality are the same thing. If the conceptual God is a vague caricature, then the God supposedly existing in reality would also be the same vague caricature.

You have the idea of circle despite not being able to draw a perfect example.

You have the definition of the concept called God. By definition it has to exist. It does not necessarily exist in reality though. This necessary existence is only conceptual. If we think about God as defined in the premise it means something existing not only in mind.

To know if something really exists outside of mind there would have to be some evidence. But we don't need any evidence to know that for example a round square doesn't exist. Is it the same with non-existing God?

 

[Link]

We can see the sun, it's real, doesn't mean we understand everything about it or encompass it completely or even grasps it's full size. In fact, before scientific advance, we had no real estimate of it's size.

Same with the moon.

Doesn't mean we don't know the sun provides heat and light and doesn't mean we don't make use of it's light.

So we see God from a distance as I already explained, we never reach him, but we can see he is endless and absolute in terms of greatness and life amount. Both of these imply he is the necessary being if you realize what necessary means in terms of possible worlds and existence.

For those who don't understand the pigeon hole principle let me draw it for you.

(God's size in terms of existence, absolute infinite )
<-------------------------------------->
<--| | | -----------> (infinite possible worlds)
---p p p (possible worlds)
---|
--- actual world (our world is one of possible worlds)

Now it's true I can't see infinity, but I understand God is Absolute. I can understand infinite possible worlds, and can understand if God is absolute, his existence amount is such that nothing would exist without him.

This doesn't mean we see God completely.

God is seen to be absolute from a distance, be we never get there.

The Sign of God is such that it's a limited circle with infinite points pointing outward towards God. So through his light, though we grasp in in a limited way, we see infinite attributes of perfect and infinite glories of his face, through his face and name is limited, the pointed to is not. Horizontally God has mapped infinite perfections through descent in a created sign from him, through a funnel circle. We perceive both the united glories and lights into the utmost created version which is the holiest light in creation, and we also can perceive that all lights are found in this light.

Yet the light is such that is points to the absolute and returns to it.

Now there is two sides of glorifying God really (can be more, but for sake of what I'm saying):

His Personality
His Size

Sometimes we may say things that attack his personality and hence belittle him in this sense.

But size wise, we can know he can't have an equal or beget or be begotten.

Same reason size wise - we can make use of it, with "possible existence", and know because no possible existence can exist without him by his absolute amount, then by pigeon hole principle he exists.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Perfectly?

 

[Sheldon]

"... that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

I think @Subduction Zone is making the point that the argument is indulging hubris, while simultaneously being unspecific. Also why is this (supposedly) greatest of all conceptions, assumed to be a deity?

I can conceive of a wizard, a wizard "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Does this mean wizards are real?

 

[Link]

I think @Subduction Zone is making the point that the argument is indulging hubris, while simultaneously being unspecific. Also why is this (supposedly) greatest of all conceptions, assumed to be a deity?

I can conceive of a wizard, a wizard "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Does this mean wizards are real?

How are you defining a wizard. God can be said to be a wizard. The necessary being exists in all possible worlds. So if this wizard was a human, and a human has a color, then it's already impossible. If had limited components, for example, 2 eyes, instead of 8, or 9 arms, instead of 10, all this proves it is not possible it be necessary being. This is because it can't exist in all possible worlds, there is nothing saying it has to be this way. For example, if a human, what color would it be? There's nothing necessary about it. It can be one way or the other. Not all possible worlds need to have the same color of this wizard.

But when it comes to God, his existence is such that everything is contained in it, to the maximum utmost degree and that is perfection. Existence to this level, is absolute existence. If lacked anything, it would be a possible being, and not the necessary being. If any type of blessing can exist not found in this being, it would no longer be the necessary being.

The necessary being is such that no possible life can exist but that it stems from him. No blessing but it comes from him.

This is something that only one being can be. It's sheer size in oneness, it's a simple but utmost filled essence, this is the only candidate for necessary being. If it was formed of parts, those parts would lack what is in other parts, and none of these parts would be total sheer eternal necessary existence. Hence we see God is a singular essence, perfect, and absolute.

 

[Link]

God > all existence (easy to perceive)

God = God + All of existence (life doesn't add to total amount of life) (easy for mystics to perceive)

God = God + All of existence + all possible existence.

When you add possible, like I showed by pigeon hole principle, God is too big to not exist. If you grasp how big he is, then no possible existence can't add to amount of existence, and so stems from him. And this size is too big to not exist.

The last equation shows God has to exist, and so does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How are you defining a wizard. God can be said to be a wizard. The necessary being exists in all possible worlds. So if this wizard was a human, and a human has a color, then it's already impossible. If had limited components, for example, 2 eyes, instead of 8, or 9 arms, instead of 10, all this proves it is not possible it be necessary being. This is because it can't exist in all possible worlds, there is nothing saying it has to be this way.

But when it comes to God, his existence is such that everything is contained in it, to the maximum utmost degree and that is perfection. Existence to this level, is absolute existence. If lacked anything, it would be a possible being, and not the necessary being. If any type of blessing can exist not found in this being, it would no longer be the necessary being.

The necessary being is such that no possible life can exist but that it stems from him. No blessing but it comes from him.

This is something that only one being can be. It's sheer size in oneness, it's a simple but utmost filled essence, this is the only candidate for necessary being. If it was formed of parts, those parts would lack what is in other parts, and none of these parts would be total sheer eternal necessary existence. Hence we see God is a singular essence, perfect, and absolute.

Too general of a God is worthless. If it is everything why not just call it the universe? Or the Cosmos? There is no reason to presuppose an intelligence. And if you want to claim an intelligence you take on as heave of a burden of proof as do those that say there is no God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God > all existence (easy to perceive)

God = God + All of existence (life doesn't add to total amount of life) (easy for mystics to perceive)

God = God + All of existence + all possible existence.

When you add possible, like I showed by pigeon hole principle, God is too big to not exist. If you grasp how big he is, then no possible existence can't add to amount of existence, and so stems from him. And this size is too big to not exist.

The last equation shows God has to exist, and so does.

No, you are merely using circular arguments. That is a logical fallacy. You did not prove anything. You did not even define God in any meaningful way at all.

 

[Link]

Too general of a God is worthless. If it is everything why not just call it the universe? Or the Cosmos? There is no reason to presuppose an intelligence. And if you want to claim an intelligence you take on as heave of a burden of proof as do those that say there is no God.

Some people call it the universe or "the all", I prefer not to for many reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people call it the universe or "the all", I prefer not to for many reasons.

We know your reasons. You want to sneak in an unjustified intelligence.

 

[Link]

No, you are merely using circular arguments. That is a logical fallacy. You did not prove anything. You did not even define God in any meaningful way at all.

The first two equations, would not prove God exists.

Only the last one does. But you have to understand pigeon principle:

(God's size in terms of existence, absolute infinite )
<-------------------------------------->
<--| | | -----------> (infinite possible worlds)
---p p p (possible worlds)
---|
--- actual world (our world is one of possible worlds)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first two equations, would not prove God exists.

Only the last one does. But you have to understand pigeon principle:

(God's size in terms of existence, absolute infinite )
<-------------------------------------->
<--| | | -----------> (infinite possible worlds)
---p p p (possible worlds)
---|
--- actual world (our world is one of possible worlds)

None of them do. You have still not defined "God".

 

[PearlSeeker]

Perfectly?

Well, I had a bycicle that wasn't completely working...

 

[Ponder This]

The Ontological Argument fails at almost every step. This thread focuses on one specific way that the argument fails.

I agree the ontological argument fails in many ways.
The bicycle analogy doesn't seem to be one of the ways the argument fails.