These are the standard objections to argument #13 on the list provided here...
This is the argument...
1 It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2 "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
3 Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4 Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5 But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
6 Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
Standard Objections
The basis of the argument is the concept of God as the greatest being in order to imply that God exists. Otherwise there could be something greater, but this being would also be God.
An obvious way to highlight the fundamental flaw of the argument is to substitute something else for the word "God". For example ,
- The Perfect Pizza means "a pizza than which a greater pizza cannot be thought."
- Suppose that the Perfect Pizza exists in the mind but not in reality.
- Then a pizza greater than the Perfect Pizza could be thought (namely, a pizza that has all the qualities our thought of the Perfect Pizza has - plus real existence).
- But this is impossible for the Perfect Pizza is "a pizza than which a greater pizza cannot be thought."
- Therefore The Perfect Pizza exists in the mind and in reality.
Obviously - no one would reasonably conclude that the existence of the perfect pizza has thus been proven. Would they?
Note: The logical principle here is that true premises and a false conclusion can never occur in a valid argument. So if we can construct a similar argument to a given argument with the same form, with true premises and a false conclusion, then the given argument is invalid.
The definition of God as "that than which a greater cannot be thought" is impossible to understand and is circular - it defines the thing it is trying to prove. If person A asserts they can think of something greater than God, person B can either say "no you can't" or they could say "the greater thing you are now thinking of is God". So God is whatever you think God is.
The argument compares the concept of existing in the mind with the concept of existing in reality. But an argument can only deal with concepts, not existent things in the external world. It is not logical to compare the value of the idea of 100 dollar bills with 100 real dollar bills. (On a wider point - it is wrong for anyone to suggest the 20 arguments are 'evidence". The arguments are based on logic, nor evidence. Inductive arguments are not evidence).
The concept of existence is itself problematic. Although we assume existence in our daily conversation and arguments, we do not prove existence. For example - You wouldn't describe your newly born baby to your friends and then say "Oh by the way, my baby really exists." Existence cannot be proven. As Kierkegaard points out, you cannot prove the existence of Napoleon by his deeds, because to mention his deeds is to assume the existence of someone who did them. So any such argument presupposes the existence of the subject it talks about.
Another flaw in the argument is the equivocation of different meanings of the word “God." - (1) A god who exists in reality and (2) a god who exists only in the mind. This leads to the collapse of premise 4 - Then a greater than God could be thought (namely a being... etc.) If this Greater God is a "thought" then it is a thing that exists in the mind. It doesn't exist in reality just because we have a thought that it exists in reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment