No, you cannot replace God with any finite thing. It is one mark of finitude for an object to be different than its concept - or for the thought to be different from the being. A unicorn (as a concept) can be different from a unicorn as a being. A unicorn (as a concept) exists. It doesn't follow from that that the unicorn (as a being) must also exist. The same cannot be said about God (the infinite Being).Can't you replace "God" with any x? — anonymous66
Like literally every 'ontological argument for God' ever, the OP assumes its conclusion. All the argument can show - all every such ontological argument can show - is that if God existed, the argument would hold true. — StreetlightX
No. There is no "if" or material conditional at all. That's just a way to rephrase the content of the argument.Notice the material conditional, 'if'. The passage should read: 'If God existed only in our imaginations, he wouldn't be the greatest thing we can think of, because, if he existed, God in reality would be greater. Therefore, if God existed, God would exist in reality".
Every 'ontological argument for God' engages in this slight of hand: beginning with a material conditional and then silently dropping it along the way. Once you know to look out for it, its kinda fun to play the 'spot the illicit shift from conditioned to unconditioned (from 'if' to 'existence') in all 'ontological arguments'. The OP's phrasing, 'God in reality would be greater', actually retains the conditional lanaguge even as it pretends not to notice it. — StreetlightX
(1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality (assumption for reductio).
(2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)
(3) A Being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)
(4) From (1) and (2), a being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God.
(5) From (3) and (4), a Being greater than God can be conceived.
(6) It is false that a Being greater than God can be conceived (by definition).
(7) Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. — Alvin Plantinga
(1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality (assumption for reductio).
(2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)
(3) A Being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)
(4) From (1) and (2), a being having all of God's properties plus existence in realityiswould be greater than God.
(5) From (3) and (4), a Being greater than God can be conceived.
(6) It is false that a Being greater than God can be conceived (by definition).
(7) Hence,it iswere God to exist, it would be false that God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. — Alvin Plantinga
(2*) The concept of a being that necessarily exists is logically coherent. — PossibleAaran
Actually, it is not all that clear what it means to say "The concept of a being that necessarily exists is logically coherent." I hold the same opinion as you regarding necessary existents: with no constraints on possible worlds other than the rules of logical inference, there should not be any. — SophistiCat
The fundamental vision practitioners of this magic show about our reality, their true metaphysical framework, is a demonstration of the ideality of the real and the reality of ideation; so long as a magician is skilled and driven enough to dissolve the boundaries between the two. All spells ensnare a portion of our shared narrative, carve out the magician's place upon it through sheer will, and tear the new narrative screaming from the ideal into the real; from the immaterial to the material. Though often overlooked, the powers of chaos magic are pregnant in all uses of language: and what black arts this thread can teach.
The mechanism is by taking the distinction between the actual and the ideal and dissolving it; which works by recognising it (assuming it) as already dissolved — fdrake
No, you haven't fixed it. You've made it into a non-sequitur.Fixed it. — StreetlightX
As a non-native speaker, your change of "is" into "would be" in (4) seems fair. But this change does not solicit the corresponding change you've added to the conclusion, that's just arbitrary. In fact, the conclusion that follows can probably remain unchanged.(1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality (assumption for reductio).
(2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)
(3) A Being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)
(4) From (1) and (2), a being having all of God's properties plus existence in realityiswould be greater than God.
(5) From (3) and (4), a Being greater than God can be conceived.
(6) It is false that a Being greater than God can be conceived (by definition).
(7) Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. — Alvin Plantinga
Then we account for the hypothetical being, and the atheist has to show that God doesn't exist in the understanding.(1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality (assumption for reductio).
(2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)
(3) A Being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)
(4) From (1) and (2), a being having all of God's properties plus existence in realityiswould be greater than God.
(5) From (3) and (4), a Being greater than God can be conceived.
(6) It is false that a Being greater than God can be conceived (by definition).
(7) Hence, it is false that God would existsin the understanding, but not in reality. — Alvin Plantinga
No, you haven't fixed it. You've made it into a non-sequitur. — Agustino
(7) Hence, it is false that God would exist in the understanding, but not in reality. — Alvin Plantinga
Modal arguments have the distinction dissolved in the background, hidden in the accessibility relation. — fdrake
Your version is a non-sequitur, since the conclusion you presented does not follow from the premises.I didn't make it into a non-sequitur. It is a non-sequitur. — StreetlightX
(1) is an assumption. The conclusion is in accordance with the assumption. That's why we say that it is false that God would exist in the understanding (assumption (1)) and not also in reality.Leaving aside that you've changed the sentence structure so that it no longer reflects the proposition (1) that it needs to mirror so as to disprove (the entire point of the exercise) — StreetlightX
Even if this is granted, the "would" is coupled with the if of God existing in the understanding, not with the if of God existing in reality.'would' must be coupled with an 'if' — StreetlightX
(3) A Being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)
(4) From (1) and (2), a being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God.
(5) From (3) and (4), a Being greater than God can be conceived. — Alvin Plantinga
Why not? (3) establishes only that such a being can be conceived, not that it is also greater than God. It is (4) that establishes this. Thus (5) is a conclusion combining both (3) and (4) to tell us that a Being greater (the greater comes from (4)) than God (as conceived in assumption (1)) can be conceived.5) doesn't make sense. — Michael
The conclusion is in accordance with the assumption. — Agustino
Even if this is granted, the "would" is coupled with the if of God existing in the understanding, not with the if of God existing in reality. — Agustino
Then all the argument shows is that a being who is imagined to be real and have God's properties is greater than a being who is imagined to be imaginary and have God's properties. — Michael
Then all the argument shows is that a being who is imagined to be real and have God's properties is greater than a being who is imagined to be imaginary and have God's properties.
— Michael — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.