You can watch William Lane Craig giving the Ontological Argument for the existence of God on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr36HID62wM
This argument is what I call the 'Neverland supper' of theistic arguments - as with the lost boys' food in Peter Pan, Craig is trying to manifest God by closing his eyes and using his imagination to believe it into existence.
This is the syllogism in Craig's words verbatim from this video:
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
So, let's have a look at this.
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists.
Craig is conflating a possibility with a hypothetical idea. Hypothetically you can posit the idea that a 'maximally great being exists' but that in and of itself doesn't make it possible. If you want to say that something is possible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is possible. All Craig does is assert that it is, with no evidence and flawed logic. As Hitchens rightly says, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
We can't get to 2 because 1 is flawed, but for the sake of argument - again, Craig is making the same mistake (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that it is an intellectual error rather than a conscious deception) confusing the idea of a hypothetical reality, which only exists in the mind of the person thinking about it, and a possibility as being something that might exist in some alternate reality. Again, bald assertion, no evidence, faulty logic.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
This is contingent upon Craigs own definition - which literally means that is so because he says so. What is a possible world? Does he mean an alternate universe in the multiverse? Or does he mean an abstract hypothetical - because the latter does not exist, only the idea of it exists in Craig's mind.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Another bald assertion and non-sequitur. All we have here is Craig's say so. It's the same fallacy of conflating 'possible worlds' with alternate realities or hypothetical ideas. He's trying to manifest God directly out of his imagination.
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
This is where the supper manifests directly from your imagination into your bowl... which is great unless you actually have an appetite for real truth.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
That's not really a 'therefore' as it's implicit in the previous premise, he could have skipped this one.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
And here's a rabbit I've pulled straight out of my ass! Let's call him Zeus!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Convincing arguments rely on logical conclusions drawn from non-controversial premises. Hiding the weakness of your argument in the premises is pretty dishonest.
Here is my version of his argument:
Premise1: People who use avatars with moustaches, have 7 heads and laser beams growing out of their backs.
Premise2: Sir Random's avatar has a moustache.
Conclusion: Therefore, Sir Random has 7 heads and laser beams growing out of his back!
Even worse, Craig's conclusion might not even follow from his premises: where did he get "maximally great being" = god from? Veritas nailed it: "And here's a rabbit I've pulled straight out of my ass!"
So he's played fast and dirty with the premises and with the conclusion(s). I'm pretty sure he knows better. I'll refrain from guessing his reasons for doing such a thing.
I find that insulting! I have 8 heads. And it's plasma beams. Heathen. (Lol)
God cannot be said to exist until someone can demonstrate that he/she/it does. This is one of the many attempts that have tried to demonstrate it, it fails, as they all do.
Premise 1 : It is possible that a maximally great Cheshire Cat exists.
Premise 2 : If it is possible that a maximally great Cheshire Cat exists, then it exists in some possible world.
Premise 3 : If a maximally great Cheshire Cat exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4 : If a maximally great Cheshire Cat exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5 : Therefore a maximally great Cheshire Cat exists in the actual world.
Premise 6 : Therefore a maximally great Cheshire Cat exists.
Conclusion : Therefore .... :)
Yes, I know your meaning, but in that same breath you've created the opportunity for an infinite loop.
You mean a Cheshire Cat smile so maximally great that the two corners loop around and connect with each other like a serpent swallowing it's own tail?
Precisely!
Let's use Craig's premise in another way.
1) An orange elephant COULD be hiding behind the sun.
2) If the orange elephant CAN exist behind the sun, it's possible that other elephants exist behind other suns.
3) If this is true than orange elephants exist behind every sun.
4) Therefore there is an orange elephant behind our sun.
5) Is a repeat of 4.
6) 6 is a repeat of 5.
7) Is just calling said orange elephant god.
It isn't logic at all. It's just screwball babbling trying to appear as logic. It's a set of inane statements that basically repeat themselves that offer no prove or critical thought.
In other words, it's pure unadulterated bullshit!
In presenting his version of the ontological argument (see the YouTube presentation mentioned by Veritas_Vincit's post), William Lane Craig defines a "maximally great being" as the greatest conceivable being. No greater being can be conceived. It is all-powerful, all-knowing, and it would exist in every logically possible world. By 'world' he means a total reality rather than some planet X in our universe.
Without a rigorous yardstick to define and measure "greatness" it is a mere assertion that a 'maximally great being ' defines anything at all. For example, greatness might not be linear! We might have a situation whereby "A" is greater than "B", and "B" is greater than "C", but "C" is greater than "A". That might be the best we can get. Moreover, how do we even compare two beings to see which is "greater?" Without a yardstick the concept of a top dog is meaningless. Without a clear yardstick the whole idea of a 'maximally great being' is hopelessly lost in a fog.
An imagined being does not mean a real, existing being. Attempts are normally made to drag an imaginary being into existence by counting "existence" as a necessary property that a 'maximally great being' must logically have. Craig seems to do this when he says that such a being would exist in every logically possible world. But that is an illegal use of qualifiers! Existence cannot be a legitimate property. If all the usual defining properties of some object are checked off by an observer, the property of "existence" is redundant. If one of those properties is missing, then the property of "existence" is contradictory.
Craig tells us that a 'maximally great being' is all-knowing. Such a being, therefore, should have a perfect understanding of how a particular pill bug is looking at life at any given moment. However, that understanding can't be perfect if it is diluted with a knowledge of that being's own existence or other knowledge. Hence, the 'maximally great being' could not have perfect, total knowledge at any given moment. A perfect knowledge of a pill bug's consciousness would preclude knowledge of everything else. Indeed, once the 'maximally great being' gets totally inside a pill bug's mind, he, she, or it might forget that he, she, or it is a 'maximally great being'!
Craig's argument confuses two, different meanings for "exists." Existence of unicorns in an imaginary world involves a different use of the word "exists." Let us say that a unicorn "imagi-exists" in some possible world other than our own, a world that doesn't actually exist. Using a different word to mark a different meaning will help expose the nonsense below.
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.
Who knows? No meaningful yardstick for greatness has been defined, meaning that the definition for a 'maximally great being' might not refer to anything at all, or the whole concept might be incoherent. Furthermore, imagined existence does not mean actual existence. What does it mean to say that it is possible for something to exist? Either it exists or it doesn't! At most, Premise 1 is saying that a 'maximally great being' (if that refers to anything) is consistent with our best understanding of reality. That is, we would not be totally surprised if it showed up. On that point we could vigorously disagree!
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great
being exists in some possible world.
That possible world would have to be our own world. Imaginary worlds don't support actual existence. They support only imagi-existence. Premise 2 says nothing that we already don't know. It's mere presence is evidence that something is wrong with Craig's reasoning as he would not bring into play a useless premise.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Imagi-existence in some possible world that is not our own world does not translate to actual existence in one possible world--our own world. So, Premise 3 is false.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a 'maximally great being' imagi-exists in every possible world other than our own, and if it actually exists in our own world, then YES, it does exist in our own world! If "A" then "A." We still have that big IF. (If Craig wishes to bring in other possible worlds that actually exist, then let's have the evidence!)
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
Nope! We never got past that big IF.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists.
Nope! Premise 3 is false and we still haven't shown that such a being must conceivably exist. (The definition of a 'maximally great being' may well be incoherent or it may imply that no such being could possibly exist.)
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
Not only do we get all of the above errors but it now comes with all the supernatural baggage of a Christian God! (I assume that Craig is not offering this as a proof for Zeus.)
Another way to look at all these "boot-strap" arguments (arguments that make no reference to the real world of atoms and energy but make conclusions thereof; you lift yourself by your own boot straps!) is as follows:
We are really dealing with a purely deductive argument since no meaningful reference is made to the real world of atoms and energy (or anything that can affect that world). The thing about a purely deductive argument is that it CANNOT PROVE the existence of anything that is not already a part of its axioms (premises). Moreover, the axioms of a purely deductive argument are neither true nor false! They are givens, the points you choose to start with. If you want to play chess you start with the axioms of chess; if it's checkers, you use the axioms of checkers. Those who wish to study Euclidean space make use of a certain postulate; those who wish to study hyperbolic space replace that postulate with another. It's not a case of one being right and the other wrong. The take-home point is that an atheist never has to accept any axiom or axioms that assumes God's existence.
The only way out is to claim that the axioms (postulates, premises) are a sufficiently accurate description of reality. That is, you have now provided a means for evaluating the axioms which are now true or false. But that requires evidence and the evaluation of that evidence brings in the uncertainty of inductive reasoning. We are no longer in a purely deductive system and cannot claim the absolute certainty of deductive reasoning. (Purely deductive reasoning confers certainty since there is no need to prove the axioms right.) I don't recall Craig bringing in any evidence, do you?
Deductive reasoning is useful in testing models to see if they correctly predict things. (If your assumptions lead to a contradiction, then at least one of them is wrong.) Deductive reasoning also brings out truths that may be deeply hidden in the axioms--something that every mathematician appreciates not to mention Sherlock Holmes (in one of those "possible" worlds)! However, if you want to explore the nature of the real world, then you have to adopt the inductive reasoning that scientists use. That entails some uncertainty and, always, a need for evidence. You begin with the evidence.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Right, so if a TacoBell 7 layer burrito exists in some possible worlds, then it exists in every possible world. Apparently even in worlds that don't have TacoBells. Isn't apologetics fun!
Only when you don't take it seriously! Mwahhahahaha (hacking fit) ow
At least this one sticks to what he believes:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I would suspect this to be more aptly insulting and still accurate
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being' .
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being, then a maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being in some possible world, then it can vanquish in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being in every possible world, then it vanquishes in the actual world.
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being in the actual world.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great evil can vanquish a maximally great being
Conclusion: Therefore devil beats God's ass silly.
An interesting argument Charvak! Is there a philosopher in the house? I think you are on safer ground in bringing in another "maximally great" being rather than offering a simple substitution for a "maximally great being" as others have done.
Greensnake - "rather than offering a simple substitution"
But that is kind of the point:
1: Whether an argument is valid or invalid is determined entirely by its form.
2: If an argument is invalid, then every argument with the same form is also invalid.
3: Any argument with all true premises but a false conclusion is invalid.
4: All arguments constructed from uniform substitution have the same form as the original.
That is why it does not matter how silly the substitution is. Often times the sillier the better!
Generic scientist: But I have proven to you that iron exists! Generic man: Did you do it using XXXXXXX style? GS: Uhhh.....no. GM: Dosent matter then! It's out the window! False! Untrue! GS: But.....but... GM: (with a wide, "friendly" smile) Come'on, now. No buts. (Smiles so wide it's creepy) You know how this world works!
Nyarlathotep, You might well be right here, but I was concerned that Craig's odd definition might create a different kind of variable. (For example, an algebraic variable can't be substituted in for a vector variable because they are of fundamentally different forms.) Thus, Charvak's use of a similar variable seemed safer in that it totally sidestepped the issue at no extra cost. A "maximally great being" (properly unpacked) would presumably have properties that, say, a pumpkin would not have. As another example of variable confusion, consider the statement: X+1 = X. We could just subtract X from each side, leaving us with the absurd 1=0 which makes it absurd for every variable X. However, if X stands for infinity then there is no error! (Infinity is not in the same category as numbers, so its substitution would be illegal in the sense of the equation.) If you are able to get an authoritative answer on a simple substitution in Craig's argument, I'd love to know how it turns out!
I understand your concerns, but we are not talking about tensors of unknown rank, we are talking about simple phrases. "Maximally great being", "pumpkin" and "the fish that got away" are well-formed formula (syntactic objects); they are the same type, they are interchangeable.
Let's consider the validity of a simpler argument:
1: If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are reptiles.
2: All dogs are mammals.
3: Therefore, all dogs are reptiles.
1: If A, then B.
2: A.
3: Therefore, B.
Your concerns seem to imply that the validity of this argument is dependant on the what types of objects A and B are. However, this argument is always valid, with any substitution! So your concerns do not seem applicable.
Nyarlathotep,
form: modus ponens
1: If A, then B
2: and A
3: If (1 and 2), then B
The pause that refreshes! Your point does require some thought. We can't conclude from this that B is true, because you gave it a false value in line 1. However, if the argument is viewed as a whole: ((A->B)^A) -> B {note that -> connects the 2 if-then statements and ^ introduces the next premise}, then it seems that it has a valid form even if A is true and B false. A form is valid if and only if true premises can never lead to a false conclusion, and you can see this by constructing a simple Venn diagram: A is a circle within B (or maybe equal to B). You pick a point within A. Therefore, you are in B. If the premises are true then you can't go wrong. But if they are not true, then this valid form of argument might give a conclusion that is false. Everybody got that? There will be a pop quiz tomorrow!
Diverging somewhat, as my foggy spectacles clear up a little, in order to destroy Craig's argument we would either have to show that it is invalid or that it is unsound. If Craig's argument is valid, then no substitution of variables can make it an invalid argument. If it is not valid, then you must find true premises that lead to a false conclusion.
If Craig's argument is merely unsound, then you must challenge the truth of one or more of its premises.
Conclusion: Substituting nonsense in and getting nonsense out accomplishes neither goal and, hence, leaves Craig's argument intact.
Charvak's argument is more than just a substitution. It seems to set up a mirror image argument that rivals Craig's argument. Since both can't be right, Craig would have to challenge the truth of Charvak's devil-being, but what arguments could he advance that could not be used by Charvak? If Charvak can, in fact, match every argument Craig gives for the possible existence of his super-being, applying the same to his devil-being, then it seems that neither being can logically exist. A successful argument for either would rule out the other. If they are equally supported, we can't say that we have a sound argument for either.
Greensnake - "If [Craig's argument] is not valid, then you must find true premises that lead to a false conclusion."
Greensnake - "If Craig's argument is merely unsound, then you must challenge the truth of one or more of its premises."
You can find both cases in line 3. This is classic apologetics, hiding conclusions inside premises so they are not challenged. Look closely at it.
Nyarlathotep,
It seems to me that "Premise 3" is really an argument with some steps left out. I just don't see it any more than you do. I don't see how imagined existence gets translated into real existence.
Having said that, I still think that the biggest, most promising target is right at the start in Craig's peculiar definition of his being. (It would still be a problem even if the argument he gave in his lecture was an over-simplified version of his real argument.) If he can't come up with such a being then his argument becomes totally ludicrous!
The next step (for those who are sill interested!, us die-hards at the bottom of the barrel when all the other apples have sensibly fled) would be to study up a bit on the subject. I find it hard to believe that Craig, with a PhD in philosophy, would make an obvious blunder that has remained uncorrected for years. We are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg. You might try, if you can pull it off, to contact Craig and put your question to him. If you do it nicely and don't mention that you are one of those "dirty, little atheists" who knows, you might even get some kind of response.
Greensnake - "I find it hard to believe that Craig, with a PhD in philosophy, would make an obvious blunder that has remained uncorrected for years"
Before I went to college (and met a few people with PhD's in philosophy) I would have totally agreed, but now I'm not so sure!
Nyarlathotep,
Philosophers do seem to have an ability to build their favorite sand castles in the sky. You hear about these famous philosophers and, upon taking a closer look, wonder how the hell they could unload such crap! But they do it with a lot of smoke and mirrors rather than by falling into simple blunders. (Simple blunders would soon be corrected by someone in for the long haul.) My days of being awed by philosophy are long gone, but I do believe that there is such a thing as good philosophy and that can be fascinating.
Anyway, we have done enough work. Time for a little fun! Check out the following two youtubes. In the first, we get some quick and beautiful insight on Craig's argument. In the second, Craig gets hammered on his cosmological stuff by someone who is truly brilliant (and a good debater). Good medicine for Sir Random's tummy (some of it).
youtube.com/watch?v=GALtT5doyzI (last is capital i)
youtube.com/watch?v=XOqKZqPy9T8
Oops! The last one was for the full 2 or 3 hour debate. Check out a few highlights.
youtube.com/watch?v=M1c_GlAjvy4 (that's a small L)
An interesting rebuttal occurred to me just now. A "maximally great being" is the greatest being than can be conceived of. Conception, i.e. the logically possible, is not tied to the real world of atoms and energy. It may be the case that whatever being one conceives of can be topped by another conceived being. Unlike the real world you don't necessarily run out of sand grains. If that's the case then you are stuck with an infinite series, and there is no place you can stop and say "This is the maximally great being." Think of simple counting numbers. 5 is greater than 1, but 100 is greater than 5, but 1000 is greater than 100, and you never arrive at a maximally great number. I don't recall William Lane Craig even addressing this problem. He simply ASSUMES that his definition is free of such defects, that it will logically produce one being rather than three or none!
Premise 1 states: "It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists." However, a better understanding of the definition for a "maximally great being" might conceivably lead to the statement "No maximally great being can logically exist." Since Craig's argument claims to have produced a "maximally great being," without ever addressing this potential problem, it cannot be complete and is therefore unsound.
Does anyone else feel COMPLEATLY MINDFUCKED after reading this topic now? Cause I sure do. Oye vey.
I feel a little woozie myself! It's like picking up well-oiled jellybeans with ivory chopsticks! Hang on tightly--It gets worse...
Oh Gorden Benet. Somebody hand me a sick bag. No, not a flimsy plastic one. I want one of those good ones they have on planes, ye blaggerd....
It is as if the lack of substance or actual evidence is displayed when they try to use a vomitus of words to justify their belief.
Its just circular arguments going round and round and round leading nowhere.
If they had any proof they would be in your face with it a long time ago. Since they lack any evidence they try twisting words. I don't think it makes sense to even waste a moment debating people that use this argument.
Charvak,
That's the one thing you can take to the bank. If any of these smoke-and-mirrors arguments carried any real proof it would be all over the place! Conservative radio talk show hosts would have a field day! We would never hear the end of it! My feeling is that all of the ontological arguments have been junked by most philosophers some time ago. In his YouTube lecture, Craig himself hinted that philosophers had problems with his first premise even as I do. Sounds to me like another case of wishful thinking in the form of philosophical sand castle building.
Philosophy is not a very effective tool of discovery. From Plato on to Chalmers philosophers have asked "What is mind?". In the 21st century Chalmers ( like Descartes ) believes the mind enters the brain at the pineal gland. Mind-Body dualism is the pinnacle of thousands of years of intensive philosophical research. Not once in thousands of years did philosophers discover the role of the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, neurotransmitters, or neurons . Craig thinks he has discovered the mind of God in his little word play but Philosophy is not science. Making a valid argument is not dependent on the truth of the premise.