John Bunyan
Puritan Board Freshman
The ontological argument goes as follows:
1- It is possible that God exists
2- If it's possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world.
3- If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds.
4- If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
5- Therefore, God exists.
Know the good thing in this argument is that it puts the burden of proof on the atheist, whom have to prove that it is not possible that God exists - meaning, that the concept of God is self-contradictory or impossible.
Now, I do not know of any sucessful argument to show that the very idea of God is absurd and impossible, so it seems that God does, matter fact, exist.
We could create an ontological argument against God's existence, however, which would go as follows:
1- It is possible that God doees not exist.
2- If its possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible world.
3- If God does not exist in some possible world, than God does not exist in all possible worlds.
4- If God does not exist in all possible worlds, than God does not exist in the possible world.
5- Therefore, it is possible that God does not exist.
The argument is coherent, so we need only to judge it's premises.
As a theist, it's my job to deny 1, and affirm that it is not possible that God does not exist, but how can this by done? Seems to me that to prove that God's existense is necessary in all possible worlds is an impossible task. How can I prove that something is impossible in all possible worlds? Seems to me that there is no way to prove that God must exist in all possible worlds without using steps 2 to 5 in the ontological argument to prove that God is a necessary being.
So, what is really important in the whole argument is wheter God's non-existence is possible in some world. But how can this be proven without other argument for God's existence?
The only way to prove God's existence is not impossible positively (for the lack of good arguments showing that the concept God is a incoherent one does not prove that it's not) is to prove that God does exist in some possible world, and to do this we must prove God's existence in the actual world (how can we prove that it is possible that God exists in any other possible world without reasoning in circles?), and to do this we need to use some other argument for God's existence, like the Moral Argument or the Teleological Argument.
What is the Ontological argument worth for, then, if it's crucial premiss cannot be proven without recurring to other arguments for God? Isn't the ontological argument better as a argument for God's aseity? Or am I just bad at thinking?
1- It is possible that God exists
2- If it's possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world.
3- If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds.
4- If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
5- Therefore, God exists.
Know the good thing in this argument is that it puts the burden of proof on the atheist, whom have to prove that it is not possible that God exists - meaning, that the concept of God is self-contradictory or impossible.
Now, I do not know of any sucessful argument to show that the very idea of God is absurd and impossible, so it seems that God does, matter fact, exist.
We could create an ontological argument against God's existence, however, which would go as follows:
1- It is possible that God doees not exist.
2- If its possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible world.
3- If God does not exist in some possible world, than God does not exist in all possible worlds.
4- If God does not exist in all possible worlds, than God does not exist in the possible world.
5- Therefore, it is possible that God does not exist.
The argument is coherent, so we need only to judge it's premises.
As a theist, it's my job to deny 1, and affirm that it is not possible that God does not exist, but how can this by done? Seems to me that to prove that God's existense is necessary in all possible worlds is an impossible task. How can I prove that something is impossible in all possible worlds? Seems to me that there is no way to prove that God must exist in all possible worlds without using steps 2 to 5 in the ontological argument to prove that God is a necessary being.
So, what is really important in the whole argument is wheter God's non-existence is possible in some world. But how can this be proven without other argument for God's existence?
The only way to prove God's existence is not impossible positively (for the lack of good arguments showing that the concept God is a incoherent one does not prove that it's not) is to prove that God does exist in some possible world, and to do this we must prove God's existence in the actual world (how can we prove that it is possible that God exists in any other possible world without reasoning in circles?), and to do this we need to use some other argument for God's existence, like the Moral Argument or the Teleological Argument.
What is the Ontological argument worth for, then, if it's crucial premiss cannot be proven without recurring to other arguments for God? Isn't the ontological argument better as a argument for God's aseity? Or am I just bad at thinking?