The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2023
- by Robert Mayhew
Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) was the first to present the ontological argument, purporting to demonstrate God’s existence through a mere analysis of the definition of God. Aquinas rejected the argument, but Descartes revived it. Kant was thought by many to deliver it a death blow, but it continues to be resuscitated. This lecture is an exercise in philosophical detection: Dr. Mayhew will present the argument and then explain Objectivism’s unique reasons for rejecting it as not merely false, but as an absurd rationalization.
Recorded at OCON 2023 in Miami, Florida
The handout is available here: 19886644.fs1.hubspotuserconte...
Talk copyright: Robert Mayhew
------------------------------------------
Subscribe to ARI’s TH-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
th-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
That intro was perfect! Bravo!
It was clever and superficially persuasive but of course the greatest possible audience would be able to fully assimilate all points made, communicate them to everybody maybe writing a Bible to do so, have all the other great making properties such as benificence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. The perfect audience would in fact be God and great news, God did listen in and also knew this talk before it happened and knew your thoughts before you had them. I'm hopeful he is using me to write this comment to you to help you come to saving faith. But don't thank me, thank God
The premise that existence is a quality of perfection stems I think from the more fundamental premise that what exists in the mind must be impressed by what exists in reality. This is a Platonic idea. If we can imagine a perfect circle, then a perfect circle exists in the world of forms. Not only does this inspire Descartes' trademark argument, but it may also be the inspiration for all ontological arguments.
Can you please upload the handout?
Thanks for asking! Here is the link, and it's now in the description, too: 19886644.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/19886644/Conference%20Handout%20PDFs/Robert%20Mayhew%20OCON%202023%20handout.pdf
@@AynRandInstitute Thank you! It would be great if the handouts were attached also for the rest of the OCON videos
I am not a religious man but I have an opinion that you need to consider. A person in their final moments of life. One second he is alive and has conscious thought the next nothing. All the elements are there, all the chemistry is taking place then nothing. Just in reference to the thought process, what was the final failed molecular bond, couldn’t that chemistry gone the other way and life return. Was it just a matter of balancing the equation, did the one reaction end it? Could another have replaced it at the critical moment? Why have ants live for a season only to die, what was accomplished in that time that was critical to the individual, the hive, the species. Why not longer or more robustly. It is brief for all live, what is the point to all the microscopic effort for such little gain? Just a complex multitude of interplaying chemical reactions that can replicate the series of events to grow, evolve, think, decay, but why? Random chance? That level of complexity that works not once but over and over but is fragile and quickly fails to continue. Don’t buy it, something more is there, a reason.
Life was accomplished... conflating thinking with "being" is the symptom of identifying with things that aren't you... fundamentally you cannot be what you have. Just as you have a glass of water in your hand that is not you, you have a mind with thoughts that are not you... most people overlook themselves in search for "evidence".
I think these points are better covered by teliological arguments for the existence of God rather than variations of the ontological argument but you are correct in intuting that this presentation is unsatisfactory. I'm put off when he starts putting forward the greatest possible island nonsense. I'm sure he is aware of the objections but seems to gloss over them. I'm not aware of them except from dim recall but an obvious point would be that the greatest possible island would be capable of making decisions and would be perfectly good and have all the other properties of the greatest possible being otherwise it would lack by being confined to only islandness and I could imagine a greater island. This seems like something that would only impress those without any interest in philosophy
Overall great succinct presentation. However I would have liked to hear more on the modern versions of the ontological argument. Specifically Alvin Plantinga.
Brilliant conclusion.
I think the more precise version of the argument contends that a maximally great being could exist in some possible world. If a maximally great being exists in a possible world then a maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds. This list of possible worlds includes the actual world we live in. Therefore God exists in the world we exist in. Not a precise explanation but I'm sure you could Google the exact form if interested
I have NEVER had an idea of god. At 81, I am not "waiting for god", e.g., as a conception or entity. I don't think of, or worry about, or calculate the possibility. Some theists might wonder "why not?" I would answer "why?" From my early childhood, at 7, when I was "introduced" to the word "god" I have not been given a rational definition or explanation of that word. Moreover, I don't assume I have to, or should (to be "nice") pretend to understand what that word means. As I aged, I began to understand that "the word" was extremely important to others. Moreover, that my social interaction needed to take this into consideration. But, this "consideration" was dependent on understanding how the individual was effected by the word, not my understanding of the word. I had come to the conclusion by my teens that some words that people used were used without understanding or definition. I did NOT accept responsibility for defining each and every person's unique internal life. I was concerned with my social interactions, vis-a-vie, my motivations, my wants/needs. I didn't want to be a psychologist.
I accept responsibility for my words, my actions, my consistency, my definitions, my mistakes. I hold others to the same standard. If people are incapable of explaining their beliefs, but refuse to question them or accept responsibility for their actions, or admit they act irrationally, that is on them. I am not going to willingly suffer. I resist. I fight for my right to be me, against their aggression.
lol, enjoy oblivion. Or not, as is the case in your worldview.
@@NR-rv8rz Your remark only makes sense if it means, "enjoy your expectation of oblivion". I already was non-existent, for infinity, before a (my?) sperm/egg met. Time runs back as well as fore ward, infinitely, into oblivion. Every living thing was non-existent eternally, exists, then goes extinct eternally. Think about it.
@@1voluntaryist I have thought about it. And, my conclusion is that 'time' doesn't exist. There is no such thing as time. It's a linguistic, conceptual device we use in the same way there is no such thing as 'up' or 'down' (only 'away from' and 'towards').
There is a sequence of events, but that's not the same thing as 'time'.
And even if you believe in time, there was no time before the big bang so time as you see it does not run backwards infinitely.
Nor does time or sequence of events run forward infinitely, it runs in an 'unending' way.
There is no law of logic that says if something has a beginning then it must have an end.
Take the universe for example, it had a beginning. It is accepted science that it came into being from nothing. Not just from a different soupy state but from literally 'no thing'. Yet even though it may expand to head death, that is just a description of its changing state, even if all the matter decays into energy, the energy will still exist no matter how much it is dissipated.
And of course, my comment about you enjoying oblivion was not mean to be taken as a metaphysical logic.
When I do physically die myself. I expect one of my amusing pastimes to be watching the reaction of recent atheist arrivals in the next plain. I imagine them being very surprised that they still exist but some of them still insisting there is no God and coming up with some 'quantum' rationale of why there is a further stage to existence.
@@NR-rv8rzWhich version of you will be in your preferred version of past world or whatever your "zero evidence" idea of an afterlife will beam you? Will it be sperm you....embryo you? Ten year old you? Or maybe dementia cancer plagued 86 year old you before your body shut down?
@1voluntaryist if time runs forward from eternity past how did we move forward from that point? If we took out every second day between now and eternity past, how many days still remain between now and infinity past? At 80 years old and with at least a passing interest in metaphysical thinking it seems incredible to me that you consider "why" to be an adequate answer to such important questions but then I remember God warns us about those who are willingly ignorant. Despite 80 years of practicing ignoring God's call to you, you can change your mind and eternal destiny at any time in the privacy of your own will. I'd encourage you to take another look with as much honesty as you can muster
22:50
This was an excellent lecture.
My only point of disagreement turns on the issue of existence, qua attribute.
The concept existence is not only a collective noun in that it subsumes all entities, but it also subsumes all their attributes, actions, states and relationships. The reason that when asked what we mean by the concept “existence,” we can gesture toward reality and say “I mean this!” is because everything that is has the quality of existence. If everything was red and we were asked what we mean by “red,” the same gesture could denote what we mean.
The seeming dilemma is solved by recognizing that the concepts existence and reality both denote the sum total of all things, but reality specifies whether they are ontological or epistemological.
God exists. He’s real. He is *really* an idea of Christian theology.
Reality is all that is, as it is. Rivers, stars, man as ontological entities - and math, logic, unicorns, history, Hamlet as epistemological or psychological existents. They all have being and existence. But not all in the same way.
Binswanger is right that to imagine a polar bear is already to imagine it existing. That’s why Rand argued that every concept presupposes and logically depends on the irreducible concept existence. The concepts phlogiston, unicorn, phoenix all presuppose the concept existence and have no cognitive content without it.
Everything exists because everything has the quality of existence - otherwise you couldn’t know it or discuss it.
If I understand you, I agree, unless you're saying god exists. Not all ideas presuppose existence in the sense that, if they are invalid, they don't denote an actually existing entity and are therefore neither ontological nor epistemological. If a concept has no referent, then no cognitive work can be done with it. You don't get to define god into existence.
@@dougpridgen9682
Thanks for engaging my comment.
On my view, concepts identify existents, their attributes, actions and relationships. This is so whether they are particular existents or members of a class. It’s so whether they are ontological existents, or psychological/epistemological existents.
By *ontological existents* I mean those existents that exist independent of anyone knowing about them. They are physical extra-mental phenomena such as mountains, trees and planets. But also include non physical attributes such as life, consciousness, and mind (and its qualities of volition, reason, intellect).
By *epistemological* or *psychological existents* I mean those existents that depend on the human mind for their existence. They include all knowledge, human methods such as logic, language and math, all ideas, fictions, superstition, religion etc.
Existence/Reality
These two words stand for two different concepts - although they identify the same things. I bring this up because it’s germane to your question.
Existence refers to all that there is, without explicit reference to the nature of that which exists or the manner (mode) in which it exists;
Reality also refers to all that there is, but - explicitly or implicitly - includes in its meaning the nature or mode of existence of the existents it includes.
Things exist no matter what their nature is; things are *real* only if the nature of their existence is specified and they *really* have that nature. *Reality is all there is, as it is.*
Santa Claus is real as a common fiction used for the enjoyment of children at the Christmas season. In that sense he really exists. Here is the important distinction: *Reality does not include fictions such as Santa Claus as an ontological fact.* In that sense, he does not exist. In that sense the multiverse does not exist. It’s an idea. Its existence depends on the human mind. Without the human mind there would be no Santa Claus or multiverse.
Does God exist? Yes. God is a concept of Christian theology. God exists, *qua idea.* if there were no minds there would be no God, but there would still be planets, mountains and rivers. The latter are ontological. Their existence isn’t dependent on our minds. God is.
Superstition is believing God is ontological.
_>>if they are invalid, they don’t denote an actually existing entity and are therefore neither ontological or epistemologicalIf a concept has no referent, then no cognitive work can be done with it.
@@vinoverita You're welcome! Perhaps you disagree, but Rand only uses the word existents to refer to the independently existing, i.e., to metaphysics (ontology). If a concept refers to an existent, or is ultimately reducible to one, it's considered valid. If it doesn't or can't, it's invalid. Anything in the second category, like god, cannot be said to exist but is more akin to a sound, a word without content or referent. Otherwise you could simply define non existents into existence, which is a fallacy.
While what you said about fictional characters is true, they are understood to be exemplars and the story refers to things that could actually happen (Aristotle's principle of good art portraying what is possible and what is ideal).
God, by contrast, is believed to have impossible and mutually exclusive attributes that both contradict facts of reality and each other. He is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. To illustrate the point I refer you to reality, to Epicurus, or to the question can god create an object so heavy he can't lift it. On top of that, god is depicted as doing things like wishing the universe into existence from nothing, screwing up creation such that he has to send himself to earth as a human to die to create a loophole in a flawed scheme that he devised even though he's allegedly perfect, and so on. It's like a roadrunner cartoon and Yahweh is the coyote (except with a lot more horror and violence).
As for your argument about the multiverse, you might as well say theologians write volumes on spiritual topics. That doesn't mean they're doing cognitive work. You start with the evidence of the senses and induction. That's where the generalizations that serve as the premises for deductive arguments come from (deduction presupposes and necessitates induction). That's what makes reduction possible. So if multiverse or the ten dimensions of string theory aren't reducible to perception the words are empty and the simile of a cognitive process is empty and fruitless. It has no value to human life and is a waste of time other than perhaps leisure but that also requires honesty with oneself about the its nature. Nobody who reads Atlas thinks it's nonfiction and most who read the Bible think it's the literal, infallible, and inerrant truth of a disincarnate super consciousness.
That should be enough for you to see the contrast. Valid concepts advance knowledge, whereas invalid concepts lead to errors, conflict, and ultimately death. That's why Rand always said to check your premises (and the concepts of which they are comprised).
Remember, proper names are individuals, not concepts. So Galt, Roark, and so on, are not concepts. Man is. Yahweh isn't a concept. God is an invalid concept. Listen to Peikoff's induction in physics and philosophy course and you'll iron this kink out.
@@dougpridgen9682
Sorry for the belated response. I had a very busy week of work and couldn’t justify taking the time necessary to speak to your thoughtful commentary.
I think we’re largely in agreement with some minor differences in use of language and other (perhaps) not so minor philosophical views.
_>>Rand only uses the word existents to refer to the independently existingif a concept refers to an existent, or is ultimately reducible to one, it’s considered valid. If it doesn’t or can’t, it’s invalid>>_
The function of concepts is identification - be it of entities (their attributes, actions, states, and relationships) or methods (math, history, logic) or ideas (success, immortality).
For example, the concept “middle earth” identifies the human inhabited world in Tolkien's imagined mythological past. The concept identifies *that idea* in his large body of fantasy novels. Without the human mind there would be no “middle earth,” and without consciousness there would be no mind, and without life there would be no consciousness, and without the physical there would be no life. Hence, the hierarchy of existence establishes that “middle earth” is psychological. It depends on the human mind for its existence unlike, say, planet earth which is ontological.
Both “middle earth” and “planet earth” are valid concepts in that both identify some aspect of reality. The former *really* identifies a fictional idea - and the latter *really* identifies an ontological entity. Both are part of reality since *reality is all that is, as it is.*
In re of the concept “God,” what it identifies is an idea, which as you rightly note is incoherent. But its incoherence doesn’t make it an invalid concept since the function of a concept is to identify some phenomena of reality from all others.
The concept “God” identifies something other than the concept “immortality.” Neither identifies any ontological fact, but both do identify distinct *ideas* and thus are valid and meaningful. If this were not the case, you and I couldn’t even debate such things with theists. These would be mere sounds signifying nothing. While these sounds don’t identify any ontological facts, they do identify ideas - ideas billions of people fallaciously conclude refer to some aspect of ontological reality. Superstition is attributing a mode of existence to a phenomenon that it doesn’t have.
_>>so if multiverse or ten dimensions of string theory aren’t reducible to perception and the simile of a cognitive process is empty and fruitless most who read the Bible think it’s the literal, infallible and inerrant truth of a disincarnate super conscious
@@vinoverita I think you are conflating linguistically meaningful with epistemologically meaningful and thereby cognitively useful. The word god is linguistically meaningful and in that sense is different from nonsense syllables, but epistemically and cognitively they are similar. I agree with everything you went over, for the most part, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that we are neither omniscient nor infallible and sometimes deliberately dishonest. So it is not the case that every thing we can imagine and every sound we can utter is valid and meaningful. Otherwise we would be unable to distinguish imagination from cognition and noise from language.
If that’s what you think then that is a significant philosophical difference, which may be why you use the phrase my philosophy rather than Objectivism, since that modification changes the identity (for the worse in my opinion).
You don't know what sour is until the mind defines what sweet is. I was happy when I was young because I had no idea of success and thus no idea of failure. Nothing is good or bad but thought makes it so.
What is it about thought that makes a thing good? Is thought good or do you not think so?
The Devil wrote all religious texts. That's the proven argument.
QED
DNA is the most obvious proof of God
😂😂😂😂😂
@@illyavogel1660 😁 denial... it's the first stage of grief.
@@glennjohn3824 How so?
@@dougpridgen9682 impossible to be random or natural. It's a code implying a mind. The same mind that created us created the universe and the fact that we can understand ANY of it implies we were MADE by that entity. Nobody here can duplicate or replicate it. The more realistic and intelligent question is why isn't it?
@@glennjohn3824 Reality is the criteria used to determine what’s possible and what’s not possible. What’s possible is the explanation is causality and natural law. What’s impossible is that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, disembodied consciousness is the explanation, since such a thing has mutually negating, impossible and incoherent attributes and also lacks an operative brain and nervous system.