Ontological Arguments with Dr. Tyron Goldschmidt | (MoR. 30)

Can you prove God’s existence from your armchair? Ontological Arguments promise as much. But do they work? Today I’m joined by Dr. Tyron Goldschmidt to discuss these questions and more. Buckle up for a discussion than which no greater discussion can be conceived.  

Link to our document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13...

ARGUMENTS  

Anselm’s OA  

"GOD" = That than which a greater cannot be conceived

1. “GOD” is understood. (Premise) 

2. If “GOD” is understood, GOD exists in the understanding. (Premise) 

3. Even if GOD exists only in the understanding, it can be conceived to exist in reality. (Premise) 

4. GOD is greater if it exists in reality than if it exists only in the understanding. (Premise) 

5. It is impossible to conceive of something greater than GOD. (Premise)

6. If GOD exists in the understanding, then GOD exists only in the understanding or in the understanding and in reality. (Premise) 

7. Therefore, GOD exists in the understanding. (From 1 and 2) 

8. Therefore, GOD exists only in the understanding or in the understanding and in reality. (From 6 and 7)

9. Therefore, GOD can be conceived to exist in reality. (From 3 and 7) 

10. Therefore, if GOD exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to conceive of something greater than GOD. (From 4 and 9) 

11. Therefore, GOD does not exist only in the understanding. (From 5 and 10) 

12. Therefore, GOD exists in reality. (From 8 and 11)

Descartes’ OA  

-----Simple reconstruction  

1. A perfect being, by definition, has every perfection. 

2. Existence is a perfection. 

3. Therefore, a perfect being has existence (i.e., exists).

-----Elaborate reconstruction  

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive (understand, apprehend) to belong to the nature or essence of a thing does belong to its nature or essence. 

2. Whatever belongs to the nature or essence of a thing can be truly affirmed of that thing. 

3. Therefore, whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to the nature or essence of a thing can be truly affirmed of that thing.

4. I clearly and distinctly perceive that existence belongs to the nature or essence of a supremely perfect being.

5. Therefore, existence can be truly affirmed of a supremely perfect being (i.e., a supremely perfect being exists).

Plantinga’s Modal OA  

1. There is some possible world where maximal greatness is instantiated. (Premise) 

2. If so, then there is some world where a being has maximal excellence in every world. (Premise) 

3. If there is some world where a being has maximal excellence in every world, then the being has maximal excellence in every world. (Premise)

4. If some being has maximal excellence in every world, then it is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in every world. (Premise) 

5. Therefore, some being has maximal excellence in every world. (From 1-3) 

6. Therefore, some being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in every world. (From 4 and 5)

7. Therefore, some being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in the actual world. (From 6)

FURTHER READING ON OA’s:

(1) Ontological Arguments (Opp