Talk:Ontological argument/Archive 3

Plantinga argument

I'm not a philosophy type of a guy, but can't this argument be turned on its head and made to disprove the existence of God just by making the following edit.

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and 2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3. Maximal greatness is possibly NOT exemplified. That is, it is possible that NO being exists that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that NO omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists 5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that NO omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5) 6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being DOES NOT exist.

128.237.243.249 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not as I understand it. The reason why it cannot be turned on its head is that we reach premise 4 (in the original) because of the definition of maximally great being (which is a necessary existence). Basically necessary existence is greater than necessary non-existence or non-necessary existence, so in any possible world in which a maximally great being exists it necessarily exists, and therefore:

4. Possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

One cannot merely throw out Necessarilies in modal logic, and the reason why Plantinga is not doing this is because in the argument necessary existence is bundled up in the concept of a maximally great being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.209.16 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Several questions

I have several questions which I think in answering would improve the article as it now stands.

• First, should the article reflect that some scholars (notably Karl Barth, and Jean-Luc Marion) point to some issues associated with the title "ontological" in relationship to Anselm's argument? As is noted in the article, this word is a label applied at a later time...
• Second, what does Anselm mean by the word "prove?" Certainly, for some modern apologists (e.g. C. Hartshorne) the word is used in the sense of a deductive argument designed to "prove beyond all reasonable doubt." However, Barth argues that Anselm means something quite different along the lines of "explain." Further evidence in support of this reading is given in the first chapter of Cur Dues Homo?.
• It seems that the conclusion of the second form of the argument is more properly states as "God exists necessarily"? That is quite a different conclusion than is currently stated.
• Would the quality of this article be improved if more context was provided for Anselm's argument? The article fails to mention Proslogion I where Anselm give his explanation for arriving at the definition and sets the whole of his argument in the context of prayer.

I have some further questions, but I think these might be enough to deal with in one shot...

This is quite right - there is all the difference in the world, Barth would maintain, between an arguement that tries to convince someone of the existence of God on grounds other than of his revelation of himself as God, and 'faith seeking understanding' in which the believer tries to satisfy himself that God's existence is reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.15.210 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Title

This article shouldn't be called "Ontological argument" but "ontological argument for the existence of God". An ontological argument can be any argument in ontology, which has nothing to do with god per se, but only concerns being as a principle.

--???

I agree, this complicates the definition, requiring the difference between an "ontological" argument, and this specific use, to be clearly distinguished. There are arguments that only the existence of God can be proven ontologically, but such an assumption has no place in the page title (Gaunilo's island seems to be at least an equally worthy argument demonstrating the opposite). Arguments concerning God should be moved into a section; other ontological arguments should accompany it. Gaunilo's argument should probably be displayed twice, with the main paragraph as a rebuttal to the ontological argument supporting the existence of God. --Sgutkind 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Not being familiar with ontology, I was misled. I've created an entry for "Anselm's Argument" that's identical to this page as a suggestion that that might be a better title for this article. Funetikahl 06:30, 25 June 2007 (West Coast time)

Greatest Conceivable Being?

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the article make a distinction between the 'Greatest Conceivable Being' and Anselm's actual term of "that than which a greater cannot be imagined"?

There is a subtle difference between the two. The Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) is not necessarily infinite, as it is confined by the limitations of the human mind to conceive. It also places some limits upon God, in that the GCB can still be described. These characteristics may also be disputed. (For instance, if my conception of the GCB is omnipotent and omniscient, but not benevolent, I can argue that benevolence does not make something greater.) On the other hand, "that than which a greater cannot be imagined" (NGC) must necessarily be infinite, because it is always possible to improve upon something by adding another characteristic. It avoids dispute upon its characteristics, as it is not necessary to define it.

I'm aware I may not have made my point very clearly, but I still think there is a difference between the two and referring to the NGC follows truer to Anselm's ideas. Trick 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, except that "than which a greater cannot be imagined" is a mouth-full. I don't understand your acronym, GreaterCannotImagined seems more in order; perhaps all references to GCB should be literally replaced by "GCI", after an introductory use of the acronym.Jonathan48 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it doesn't really matter what the acronym is (I was basing it from 'none greater conceivable') as long as the article makes the clear that Greatest Conceivable Being is not what Anselm originally discussed.Trick 09:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where you are quoting the word imagined from, but most forms of the argument I see use concieved as in "God is a being greater than which nothing can be concieved" or "that which nothing greater can be concieved." I'm afraid imagined could end up being a dysphimism, and focus the article on the rebutals, rather than on the acurate protrayl of the argument. Additionally, the argument is for existence, not for charecteristics. Thus Anselm was proving the existence of God, not his omnipotence, or benevolence. --Dmarney 10:45 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I was mistaken - it is "conceived", not "imagined". Even so, there is a difference between "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" and "greatest conceivable being". Thanks for the edit, anyway. Trick 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Technically, if greatness does not form a linear order, then "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" and "greatest conceivable being" are not the same, only the latter being necessarily unique. I'm not sure if this technical difference changes the argument, which I think assumes greatness is a linear relation, or just ignores this technicality. Can you explain how this difference is significant? --Merzul 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It could be argued that Anselm was allowing for the possibility of a being that cannot be conceived by the human mind when he said "that than which a greater cannot be conceived," whereas the phrase "greatest conceivable being" limits the being to what can be conceived. I still don't know how this would possibly be significant to the argument. -- TonyB 1:25, 18 April 2007 (Saskatchewan time)

Relevance of Gaunilo rebuttal?

Concerning the paragraph in the section on Gaunilo's island that begins with "However, the Island is qualitatively different..." Whose argument is this? It's not sourced, and its relevance to Gaunilo's objection is unclear. I get the impression that this paragraph attempts to rebut Gaunilo. If it does, then it needs to be made more clear exactly why the temporality of an island affects the validity of Gaunilo's analogy. If it is not an objection to Gaunilo's logic, then what is its purpose? Jbelleisle 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat related to the GCB discussion. Gaunilo's argument concerns the "greatest conceivable (blank)", of which there are many types, while Anselm's argument is about the thing which is second to none. It is singular and necessarily independent of time, unlike the island. Guanilo's absurdity doesn't necessarily extend to include Anselm's God, because it is reasonably believable that one really great (perfect) thing exists, but not reasonably believable that all perfect things exist.

Other criticisms also have notes at the end, briefly critiquing the criticism. I don't think critiques of criticisms should be allowed, because it is hard to draw a line on where they should stop, until the article becomes a book with the intent to debate the ontological argument until the existence of God is resolved absolutely. Jonathan48 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument is Anselm's response to Gaunillo, and thus should be clarified as such. The development of the argument took place in this debate, and so the interchange between the two arguments is imperative if the article is to acurately reflect the develelopment. In short, that paragraph is poorly written. A solution might be to begin slowly rewriting and developing the content to a more thurough. Though created as a tool for Christians, the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics has an extensive and well written summary of both the arguments and later developments. Its format may yeild itself well to improving that of this article. --Dmarney 10:54 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited in a response to Anslem's response, as it is usually considered insufficient. To the extent that Anslem is trying to create a unique logical syllogism that applies to entities but not islands, he fails to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastid (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Content

• Criticism of Descartes

"1. I exist
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists."

This reasoning seems as absurd to me as:

1. I exist.

2. I have an idea of an invisible, self-willed flying elephant acting better than myself and being more perfect than me.

3. As an less perfect being I would be unable to creat such a concept.

4. The concept must have come from the invisible, self-willed flying elephant.

5. To be a better being than myself the invisible, self-willed elephant must exist.

6. This elephant exists.

In other words: why does the concept of something greater than human being have to come from this very thing?

MaybeNextTime

The real problem is proposition #3. It's the key to the argument, but there's no basis for it. We can recognize something with flaws, for example, to recognize the difference between a broken tool and one that is not broken. It's a small step from being able to recognize a flaw to being able to concieve of something without flaw.--RLent 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No the point is that your elephant is not defined maximally - i.e. there is no way in which the existing elephant would contradict the imaginary elephant as defined - but with the ontological argument a God which existed would be greater than one which did not, therefore the one which does not is not maximal, which leads to a contradiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.15.210 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Descartes' contention, for what it's worth, is that the concept of something must come from a being at least as great as the being in the concept. Thus the concept of an invisible, self-willed flying elephant must come from a being at least as great as such an elephant. For instance, it might come from such an elephant or it might come from God. So one can't conclude that such an elephant exists, but only that something at least as great as such an elephant exists. In the case of God, one has an extra step in the argument. First one concludes that something at least as great as God exists, and then one argues that anything at least as great as God must actually be God. 141.161.73.85 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Richard Dawkins Objection to the Ontological argument??

You're on the right track, though, just you haven't taken it far enough. Imagine that I am silly. I am in fact, severely silly. I am so silly that, just looking at me, you can imagine such a thing as the Silliest Thing In the Universe. Therefore, this thing exists?? What about the adjective evil? Why do we not conjecture the existence of the Evillest Thing if we have the the idea of comparitive evil? What about Bizarre, Forgetful, Grumpy, Wilful? Or Bashful or even Dopey?

The fact that you can name a few things that are on a sliding scale (smallest, smaller, small, large, larger, largest) doesn't, by itself, magically 'poof' into existence those things which are conceivably at either end of that scale. Isn't that obvious? 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Palantinga

"By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. :(Premise)" - he did not assume that the maximally great being has free will, which he should have, because without free will the :being he's talking of would not be maximally great as it'd be limited by the fact of doing only good. Free will is the ability to :choose between good and evil, and a perfectly good being cannot choose the latter, so it's no longer maximally great. The rest of :his argument is thus irrelevant.

He also took a note on the fact that in the end we can assume that the probability of God existing is 1/2. It's worth mentioning :that this probability decreases when we ascribe cetain input made to the Universe post creation to God (e.g. flood, plagues etc.).

MaybeNextTime

• This wikipedia article is not asserting that either argument is valid. Jonathan48 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The article must state both argument and counter argument. However, it must also be made clear that the article does not support one or the other. The above is another rebutal, and while interesting, does not help resolve the question of the article's nuetrality, perhaps the opposite. --Dmarney 10:57 25 December 2006 (UTC)

isn't plantinga's argument logically self-contradictory? if maximal greatness is not necessarily exemplified, then there is a possible world in which there is no being of maximal greatness, and this precludes the possibility that it is necessarily true that such a being exists. plus, if such a being by definition must necessarily exist if it exists at all, then doesn't the possibility that there is no being of maximal greatness imply that it is necessarily true that such a being does not exist? or to put it more simply, plantinga's argument is essentially meaningless, since it sweeps opposing possibilities under the carpet. 207.161.45.234 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Ontological, from ontos, means being. Thus the argument is an argument from being, or that God is a neccesary being. The introduciton states that it can be proved a priori. I think this is a misappropriation of the word, especially since Anselm had access to such an idea, and did not use it himself. Correctly stated the Ontological argument is not so much a proof as Anselm's reconition of the neccesity of God's being. I recommend that we change the first sentance to something along the lines of.

Ontological, from the greek root ontos, is a proof for the existence of God based on the statement that God is a neccesary being, that his existence is neccesitated in and of itself. (I would have made the edit myself, except that I could not find a way to do so. Enlightenment if you please.)

Regarding the rest of the introduction, it also contains various other problems.

• "if we can concieve of God, then God exists" Unfortunately this is not quite accurate. Anselm does not make this statement, instead he states that God's definition is "a being that which nothing greater can be concieved." God exists not because we can concieve him, but because existance in reality is greater than existence in the mind. I know it's a bit nitpicky, but stated as such, this favors Gaunilo's response. Correctly this misstatement will allow for a balanced description.
• "it is self contradictory to state that God does not exist" What is contradictory is to state that a neccesary being does not exist, or rather as Anselm stated it is logically neccesary to affirm that existence is neccesary to a neccesary being. (I know my tounge is tied just writing it.) Again, while exhausting, only a more detailed definition is appropriate to accurately convey Anselm's position.
• Rather than stating that there have been a long history of detractors, something along the lines of its fame for being so heavily debated, as it happens to be by far one of the most contested proofs of God's existence.
• The final paragraph is unhelpful to the body as a whole. For the third time it summarizes Anselm, and this time includes Descartes. It would be more appropriate to list out the major contributors to the idea of the Ontological argument, and save the actual discusion of such for the specific secitions.

D. M. Arney, M.A. 11:09, 25 December 2006

Hello, I think you are right in most of your points, but note that classification of ontological arguments is extremely difficult. The current definition is in accordance with Oppy's definition in his Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry. But this is a tricky issue, see for example the discussion where he argues that the use of "referential vocabulary" is the key feature of these arguments. Clearly his detailed discussion is far too complicated for what we would like here, but I think it good to follow his general definition. There are bigger problems in this article, and you seemed interested in writing something about the response to Gaunilo, I think this is a good idea, and I would be interested in how the overload objection can be refuted, since I didn't understand Anselm's own reply. So if you will write something using a proper source, it would be excellent, and I think it is completely okay to source a Christian apologetics guide, as long as you cite the used source in the text. --Merzul 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Heading "Anselms Argument"

Where can we find an open source translation of Anselm's original work? This notated version is confusing, and uncited. D. M. Arney, M.A. 11:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 translations available online: Sidney Norton Deane, David Burr, and Jonathan Barnes. The last one is used here, and is now sourced, but I don't know why this source was chosen. I don't think it is more confusing than the others :) However, I'm not sure it is quite as free as the others, and maybe the website hosting that translation is violating Barnes' copyrights. --Merzul 11:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and verification...

I have now worked on verifying many sources and I've added as many as I could find. I have two questions. First, what exactly is the NPOV problem in this article; up to the revisionists, when things get complicated, there is nothing really controversial. My second questions is about the section on Plantinga, and if anybody knows exactly what Richard M. Gale argues for in that book (I added the citation using google book search), I'm concerned that he is used here completely out of context. I don't know what are his views on the revised argument, because while he does claim that the "possibility premise" begs the question, but I'm not sure he considers this a serious objection to the argument, especially in the attempt of establishing that belief is at least rational. he says if something begs the question it might still be true, etc. So anyway, the Plantinga section needs verification. --Merzul 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Gale has argued in print that the S5 ontological argument is question-begging because a part of what it is to understand the nested modal operators in "possibly necessarily God exists" is to understand that that proposition entails that God exists. (The clearest statement of this response is probably in Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss, "A Response to Oppy and to Davey and Clifton”, Religious Studies 38 (2002) 89–99.) Although an argument can be sound while question-begging, I suspect Richard Gale will agree that an argument that begs the question against x provides x with no epistemically rational reason to accept its conclusion. 141.161.73.85 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for giving that reference. I should have digital access to that journal so I will take a look at it. Meanwhile, can I remove the dubious tag based on your judgment? And if you are confident this is fair representation, then maybe I won't even have to look it up :) --Merzul 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it is so, he would probably agree, the reference you have given is very explicit, the reason for my concern was mainly a simple naive intuition that Richard M. Gale was being used on the "wrong side" of the argument... I didn't have time to look deeper, so leaving it with a footnote would be very dangerous. --Merzul 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm Richard Gale's co-author in that article, you can be confident. :-) 129.62.170.152 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have clarified in the footnote what was in the original source that caused my confusion. The above source makes it 100% clear he thinks it is question begging, but so the issue was that he doesn't think begging the question will defeat the more modest formulations of the argument, and for that it seems one need more complicated strategies. --Merzul 15:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is a bit biased. The philosophers who agree with Anselm are introduced simply as "philosophers" but the ones who disagree with him are dubbed "great philosophers." I would say that both lists have comparable gravitas. - DanSSwing 23 Feb 07

changed to 'An ontological argument for the existence of god is one which uses the logically flawed method of a priori "proof", that is,...' you must state that a priori is a logically flawed "proof" that violates reason.--64.230.99.243 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejected by aquinas

User:Roy Brumback, STOP REMOVING SOURCED MATERIAL. Have you even read Aquinas's Q2 that you asked to check??? I would read it again more careful before questioning Bertrand Russell's judgment. And if you don't like Russell, some more neutral sources are here and here. And why have you weaseled Kant's statement? It used to read that "Kant believed to have refuted the argument", this is a direct and non-controversial statement: Kant obviously did believe he had refuted it and we are not assuming his refutation was successful; but now this read as "some believe that Kant refuted...", which is instead a weasel-worded statement that actually presumes the refutation is successful. Finally, you removed the sourced quotation from Oppy that the ontological argument is not persuasive for someone who does not believe in God. Please, instead of removing well-sourced material from the article, what is really needed is to improve the treatment of the modern versions of the argument. --Merzul 12:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, have you? It is clearly the ontological argument, as it says God's existence is self evident and I quote

"But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident."

Now how is this not the exact same thing Anselem said? And as for his reply, here it is,

"Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist."

which he made to clarify why not everyone thinks it is self evident that God exists or how it is possible that a self evident proposition, which Aquainas clearly holds God to be, is able to be mentally denied. Maybe not everyone defines God that way, but Aquainas seems to. And maybe not everyone gets the point of the proof, which you are taking as him refuting the argument, when he really says that they just don't get the point. So he holds that God is self evident in itself but not always self evident to us, which is why the idea of God not existing can be mentally admitted. The reasons Aquainas gives for God being self evident are clearly that God comes naturally to everyone's mind (which is true, belief in supernatural forces running nature is one of the three things, along with tool use and prohibition of incest and child sex, that all human cultures share), the ontological proof, and the self evidence of truth as well as God being his own existence.

If it really says that in Russell's history, then Russell is simply wrong. And one of those web sites clearly just repeats Russell, and the other says the answer is ambiguous, but it takes it as a rebuttal, which I'm pretty sure is not correct. Cited material is only allowed if its true, and that statement is not. Unless you can find Aquainas actually denying the argument, which he clearly uses here, then the statement will not be included, as I have shown it is simply not true. And the other opinion is just a opinion. It gives no reason behind it. And it's redundant to say Kant believed what he himself argued. Why else would he have argued for it. And as I said, not everyone agrees with him, so how is that weasly? And as for Dawkins, he just denies all ontological philosophy outright, because its not scientific with data coming from the outside world. But of course philosophy isn't scientific, its philosophy. Roy Brumback 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"If it really says that in Russell's history, then Russell is simply wrong."

Too bad. No original research. Wikipedia may not use Aquinas as a source directly because using Aquinas that way means interpreting what he said, and we're not allowed to make that interpretation. Interpretations must come from secondary sources such as Russell. If you think Russell is reading Aquinas wrong, find another secondary source which claims that Aquinas should be read in a different way. Ken Arromdee 08:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Clearly, Russell, Kimma, and Holt are worth more than any of our own analyses. It is not my job explain how one should read Aquinas, but obviously a good start is to understand the structure, i.e, what are "objections", "I answer that" and "reply to objections"... But that's really irrelevant, because I most vehemently disagree with the statement "cited material is only allowed if it is true"! Cited material is only allowed if it comes from a reliable source. Well, here is the ultimate in terms of reliability, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, although not directly about Aquinas it claims that "the great majority of scholastic philosophers have rejected the ontological argument". Now, Mr. Brumback, I ask you again, would you please stop deleting sourced material. You can flag them as dubious or add a "verification needed" tag, but I'm very offended that you just delete material that I have spent a lot of time looking up in reliable sources. And it very disturbing that you are very selective in deleting the material that I add, for example, you keep removing Oppy's general objection, yet you are happy to keep Oppy's refutation of Gasking. This selective deleting of anything that is not "the truth" is a clear violation of wikipedia policy, and I am ready to start an edit war to defend my view that Russell, Oppy, Klima, Holt, and Dawkins are indeed more reliable sources than Mr. Brumback's personal opinion. --Merzul 13:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you're offended, but did you actually say we can put in cited untruths? Are you actually serious? And it is not OR to simply say what a primary source said, and Aquinas clearly used the argument. That's not an "interpretation", it's a simple statement of fact. What do you think he's saying here? Do you think he's not using the argument? Then why is the existence of God self evident, which he clearly holds? And you have not told me why someone's personal opinion, with no reason behind it, belongs in here. Because he's really smart or important or something? Come on. You can easily then put in someone else saying they "really really" believe in it, and that's getting a little silly. And as I said, Dawkins simply objects to ontological philosophy, and that's fine, but if so then why bother talking about the argument at all, since you reject its philosophical method? And which scholastic philosophers rejected the argument, as it seems that most western philosophers actually believed in it till Kant? Roy Brumback 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask me to explain these things? I'm not an expert and that's why I have cited you many famous philosophers, and here is another: the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Simon Blackburn) also claims that Aquinas rejected it. I'm taking a break from this article, because I'm editing wikipedia to learn not to argue. So about citing untruths, you are right, YES, I was indeed serious, and I will repeat it again: if Bertrand Russell and Roy Brumback disagree, I would go with the blue link. Good luck with this article! --Merzul 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will still try to explain where Aquinas rejected it. First of all, he obviously states the argument, not to support it, but to refute it, and his key point is probably the following (but you must read it carefully, and not immediately draw conclusions based on the first sentence): "Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects." So my interpretation: the statement is indeed self-evident to anyone who knows the true nature of God, but the true nature of God can only be known and therefore His existence can only be demonstrated through the "effects" or essentially non-ontological arguments such as those he uses in his Quinquae viae! And if you think about this, it is not very distant from Dawkins's objection :P --Merzul 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry if you're offended, but did you actually say we can put in cited untruths? "

We are not allowed to decide that something which is cited is an untruth, if any sort of interpretation is involved. Ken Arromdee 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "opinions"

We are making progress! :) I have to slow down my wikipedia activities now that the holidays are over, so I will just state my view on the remaining issues. Basically, I disagree with User:Roy Brumback on wikipedia policy. It seems we have completely different views of a good article, he objects to including a criticism recorded by Graham Oppy:

And you have not told me why someone's personal opinion, with no reason behind it, belongs in here. Because he's really smart or important or something? Come on. You can easily then put in someone else saying they "really really" believe in it, and that's getting a little silly.

Absolutely not, it wouldn't be silly at all, provided they are, yes, notable philosophers. It is precisely the kind of article I would like to read: "Graham Oppy, in the Stanford Encyclopedia records the following general objection... However, Bertrand Russell has at some point claimed to be convinced by the ontological argument" or whatever reasonable persons we can find that "really really" was convinced by it. Instead of deleting sourced material that isn't "the truth", we should represent the different views, including yes non-truths, if it is presented by notable philosophers! Note that the section is called "Criticism" so even the criticism of Richard Dawkins is in my opinion justified. In fact, the criticism recorded by Oppy, the one given by Hume, and that of Richard Dawkins are all general objections to a priori arguments that fit quite well together. --Merzul 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But Hume gives a philosophical reason to reject ontological arguments for existence, whereas Dawkins simply says he doesn't trust philosophical arguments that don't use data from the outside world, not why he doesn't trust them, just that he doesn't. The same goes for Oppy. Roy Brumback 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand you. You basically want us to add argumentation that is reasonable and justified by logic, not just add conclusions based on authority as I do. This is of course a reasonable viewpoint! I still believe my approach is more practical on wikipedia, because judging what is reasonable and good argumentation is very subjective. At least I understand your reasons for deleting it and so I'm no longer offended, I just politely disagree with you. --Merzul 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

The "D" in deoxyribonucleic acidism Philosophy

This school of thought, began in 2002, uses "V for Vendetta" as an analogy to logically describe the existence of God.

1. A man who wields one knife is an aggressive, subhuman brute without any reason. He is the ultimate imperfect being.

2. A man who wields two knives is a talented craftsman and has high reasoning faculties. He is Man at his finest.

3. The One who wields three knives is God. Because Man at his finest can only wield two knives, only God could wield three. Therefore, God exists.

Really? If that such a school of thought exists is true, feel free to re-place it in the article. However, I believe that it is probably not, and thus I'm about to remove it.--Islomaniac 973 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A question of bias

Why is it that René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and Alvin Plantinga are spoken of as philosophers, while David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers are referred to as "great philosophers"? This shows a bias in the writing toward the latter viewpoints.--Snthor 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)snthor

Thanks for pointing it out, I doubt it was intentional though. --Merzul 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hegel

It might be nice to have some mention of Hegel's unique take on the subject. 70.146.15.172 01:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No Hegel yet? 68.81.106.2 05:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

page move

there are more arguments present in this article than just that of anselm. perhaps moving anselm's argument to a new page and developing it would be a better solution than a wholesale move of the article? --Kaini 02:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)