For an explanation of the argument, I highly recommend watching the following video by Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr36HID62wM
Watching the video by Dr. Craig is vital if one desires to understand this blog post.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig's Summary:
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists
- Therefore, God exists
I agree with Dr. Craig on point 1. I think it is possible that a maximally great being exists.
I disaree on points 2 and 3. Dr. Craig makes the assumption that all possible worlds exist and are valid and fails to justify it.
Consider the following scenario:
In description x of the world, a maximally great being exists (and therefore it exists in all other worlds). However, if description x of the world were to be falsified, then that maximally great being would not exist. Whether or not the maximally great being exists is dependent upon the existence and validity of the 'possible world' itself.
For example, Nazgul exist in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Why is it that Nazgul do not exist in reality? Because Tolkien's world is not the actual world. If a maximally great being were to exist in Tolkien's world, it would not follow that the maximally great being existed in reality.
Therefore, the Ontological argument does not introduce any new insight on the existence of God. The question originally being asked was "does God exist?" which could be rephrased "Are the possible worlds in which a maximally great being exist valid?"
Conclusion:
Because whether or not the maximally great being exists depends upon whether or not the possible world exists and is valid, the Ontological argument in no more than a logical trick which fails to provide any evidence as to whether or not God exists.
I agree with your analysis Josh. I would like to summarize my criticism of the Ontological argument as follows:
ReplyDelete1. Dr. Craig implies that a maximally great being cannot have any limitations.
2. A being without any limitations must be able to defy all logical rules, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction. In other words, a being without limitations must be able to both exist and not exist simultaneously.
3. A being which may defy logical rules is logically incoherent.
3. It is not possible for a logically incoherent being to exist. (Premise 1)
4. Therefore, the “maximally great being” must in fact be subject to certain logical constraints.
5. By logical tautology, the “maximally great being” cannot simultaneously exist and not exist.
6. The “null scenario”—i.e. the case in which nothing exists—is possible. (Or at the very least, by implication and lack of contrary evidence, it is possible for a reality to exist in which there is no such “maximally great being.”)
7. By premise #3 of Dr. Craig’s syllogism, a “maximally great being” must exist in all realities.
8. #6 and #7 imply that the “maximally great being” must simultaneously exist and not exist in the null scenario, thereby breaking the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is not possible for such a being to exist.
9. If it is not possible for such a being to exist, the ontological argument fails.
(In other words, it is not possible for a being to be so great that it can transcend the laws of reality. )
I think it’s important to remember that God is limited by the laws of logic. He cannot create two hills without a valley between them; he cannot create a rock bigger than he can lift, and He cannot make two plus two equal five. It is dangerous to apply attributes to God that he does not have, because it results in inevitably faulty reasoning.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteAll I'm going to say is... You're awesome.
Interesting discussion, but I think there are a couple points that need addressing:
ReplyDelete1. I don't think Dr. Craig's understanding of "possible worlds" included the necessitaty of their existence. Indeed, estimating by his definition at around the 1:00 point, he seems to suggest that such worlds, and the things that exist in them, are not necessarily actual reality, just possibilities - just like Josh's LotR/Nazgul example.
2. I think that it takes a bit of reading into the video to think that Dr. Craig implies that a maximally great or greatest conceivable being must be beyond the constraints of logic. Indeed, judging by his statement around the 2:30 point - that a maximally great being would "exist in every logically-possible world - it would seem that his understanding of the term is contrary to what Brandon suggests. Also, I think Brandon's argument actually helps to disprove the notion that a being-beyond-logic, which cannot exist, can possibly be the greatest conceivable since, by the ontological argument's formulation, the greatest conceivable being must exist in reality. Therefore, I would posit that when Dr. Craig or Anselm or anyone else who uses the ontological argument as intended uses the term maximally great or greatest conceivable being, they implicitly understand it to mean the greatest, rationally-conceivable being possible.
I am certainly willing to continue this discussion. For now, I suggest that you look up some of the follow-up videos (starting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHXq_8n2O1I&feature=related ), as they seem to help solidify what Dr. Craig is trying to say.
Hey Zach!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I will watch those videos and let you know what I think.
I agree that what Craig means by 'possible worlds' can be taken in multiple ways. This fact makes it extremely difficult to discuss the topic because people may end up talking past each other.
I would like to respond to your #1 comment:
You said,
"I don't think Dr. Craig's understanding of 'possible worlds' included the necessitaty of their existence. Indeed, estimating by his definition at around the 1:00 point, he seems to suggest that such worlds, and the things that exist in them, are not necessarily actual reality, just possibilities"
I agree that Dr. Craig's understanding of 'possible worlds' did not include the necessity of their existence (and validity). That is his error. A maximally great being that exists in a 'possible world' which is, itself, an invalid 'possible world' does not exist.
I agree with Zach’s first comment. Having watched the video, I’d like to respond to his second comment. This is kind of a reiteration of my previous post.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of my previous comment was to demonstrate that a being able to satisfy the requirement of #3, i.e. “reality-jumping,” MUST be able to transcend the laws of logic. Dr. Craig does not acknowledge it, but when he says
“Now the third premise of a maximally great being exists [sic] in some possible world it exists in every possible world is true by definition because that is what maximal greatness means.”
he is defining the “maximally great being” to be far more powerful than is logically possible.
I watched the video that Zach recommended, and I will be doing a new post on it soon. Thanks for the recommendation, Zach! If you have more videos to share, just pop them on here and I'll check it out.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is a very abstract and difficult topic, so we may find that it is difficult to communicate. Despite this we should keep on trying to understand each other and Dr. Craig anyway.
It seems as if an agreement has been made concerning the set that describes Dr. Graig's "possible worlds". This set being {every possible world by the definitional uses of the word} i.e the imagined, physical, metaphorical, and cultural worlds. With this particular set it seems clear that Dr. Graig's argument is easily fallible.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, with this logic we take into account human error. One is no longer considering the logic with its particular sets, but upon a single set that can clearly falsify the argument. Every proven theorem and definition must take into account the sets that are valid for that particular theorem or definition.
For example: let us consider a group. A set is a group (G) if they satisfy: 1. Identity 2. Closure 3. Associativity and 4. Inverse. Now the sets of Z (Integers), Q(rational number), R(real numbers), and C(Complex numbers) under the operation of addition are all rings as they satisfy the definition. Although, Q under multiplication is not a group since 0 does not have an inverse under multiplication.
Therefor, since it has clearly been proven that the set that it seems as Dr. Craig has provided is false, let us then consider other sets that may hold true for this argument. For example the set of only the physical worlds (a subset of Dr. Graig's set).
In the example Z, Q, R, and C are groups under addition. They become rings when one adds in the operation of multiplication along with addition. Sorry I got ahead of myself.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteCould you explain what you are saying further? I am having difficulty understanding your meaning. Thanks!