The Real Ontological Argument

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Richard Dawkins describes the ontological argument for the existence of God to be an infantile one. He pronounces himself offended at the very idea that “such logomachist trickery” could be used to produce such grand conclusions. And he’s correct to reject it, in my opinion, as ontological arguments boil down to the idea that if something can be conceived, it therefore must exist. [1.]

- It would appear both Dawkins and Day misunderstand the argument. The argument only concerns God; it doesn't apply to anything else. We're talking about the ultimate ground of Being, not bicycles or islands. (One monk thought he'd refuted Anselm's ontological argument by saying that thinking of a perfect island meant one existed. This is silly on many levels; there being no way to define a perfect island being merely one.) Ontology concern itself with the 'ground' of ultimate reality; or more simply with ultimate reality.

- People fail to ask why it is we can conceive of God. (Or of arguments for God's existence.) They seem to take this ability for granted. I think this is a mistake. I can't imagine an animal conceiving of a perfect god; or imagining that the fact it can conceive of god is proof god exists. People take such a virtuoso piece of thinking too lightly. In my opinion it's only because man has the (gifted) nature he does that he's capable of thinking at such a lofty level. ie. its' because man was made in god's image that he's capable of thinking about God. If he didn't have such a 'god-friendly' nature communication and relationship between god and man would be impossible. Because God desired such communion He made man in such a way as to make this possible.

- I don't think the ontological argument proves god's existence, but I think it gives evidence of God. It gives us evidence that man is not a material object, is not some kind of 'super-charged' animal who gained certain mental 'added extras' through some random success at survival. (i.e. evolution) It gives us evidence man is who God's word tells us he is.

- What Dawkins thinks of the argument is meaningless, as he knows less about philosophy than I know about astrology. He's claiming the ontological argument is just playing around with words; but what Anselm is doing is presenting a logical argument. The argument succeeds or fails on the basis of the premises; which in this case aren't universally accepted.

- When Dawkins says there is no God he's making an ontological statement. He's saying that reality does not include a creator God. The trouble with this is that he has no right (foundation) for making such a claim. He claims he's a mindless bit of matter, that was created by random mutation (i.e. error) and is governed by selfish genes. This then gives him no basis on which to make meaningful comments about reality. i.e. how could such an entity know anything about reality? (In his dismissal of the ontological argument he seems to be using logic; but he has no basis for logic. Materialism can't give an account of logic that makes sense.) When he says 'religion' is the cause of war he's making an ontological statement; but he has no basis to make such a claim.

In summary; the real ontological argument is that evidence for God exists in the ability of man to think of God, to think of something than which nothing greater can be thought. Only if the creator God portrayed in the bible exists, would such a thing be possible. It is possible, therefore God exists.

Notes;
1. The Irrational Atheist - Vox Day/106
2. Ontology;
'The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances and accidents. - Century dictionary
3. 'In Chapter 2 of “The Existence of Nature and God” Anselm′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows:
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality. [Wiki]
- I can't see that #4. necessarily follows (but perhaps my lack of insight)
- How is it man (this trousered ape according to the views of the highly evolved) can think of something 'than which nothing greater can be thought'? If God is this 'something' and I think God is; then a bit of matter on planet earth has long ago climbed the ultimate summit in the universe. I think this makes the idea he's the result of pond scum plus copying errors and time is the dumbest idea of all time. (Unless we offend, let's call M2M evolution the least great idea of all time.)
4. I apologize for talking about Dawkins again; as I think I promised to stop this deplorable habit. (What it's like for Dawkins himself, to be talked about as incessantly as this I don't know. I can't imagine it's a positive thing for person's sense of reality or proportion.)