An Argument for the Existence of God

[emprworm]

it is unlikely anyone in here will actually read this. It was recently written by a Christian scholar named Chris McHugh. It is even over my head, but is a very fascinating argument for the existence of God. It is contained in 2 posts.

---

It is a foregone conclusion among philosophers of religion that logically valid modal ontological arguments for the existence of God can be formulated. The problem with such arguments, which prevents them from being conclusive proofs, is the challenge of grounding the truth of a few controversial premises. It is my contention that the modal ontological argument can be modified so that each of its premises is necessarily true. I begin with an exposition of some representative attacks on the traditional form of the modal ontological argument. I then show that the controversial premises in the argument can be modified so that they are necessarily true. Finally, I examine some likely objections to the proof.

Consider that there are some things that cannot possibly be unreal. For example, logical laws and mathematical truths do not have the possibility of being mere fictions. In any possible world, there are certain truths like A=A and 2+2=4. Of course, there are some things that do have the possibility of unreality. For example, there are possible worlds in which the Statue of Liberty does not exist. Many philosophers throughout history have argued that one can analyze the idea of God to show that, much like a logical law or mathematical truth, God cannot have the possibility being unreal. Such an argument might go something like this:

1) If God is conceived to be something without deficiency of any kind, then God cannot be conceived to have the possibility of not existing. [This proceeds from the intuition that having the possibility of non-existence is a form of deficiency.]

2) God is conceived to be without deficiency of any kind. [This is from the definition of God as an absolutely perfect being.]

3) God cannot be conceived to have the possibility of not existing. [From 1 and 2]

The above argument may leave one with the suspicion that there is a fallacy involved somewhere. Fortunately, such fears can be allayed by the recognition that this type of argument can be rendered in formal logic so that there is no controversy over its validity.

Charles Hartshorne, in The Logic of Perfection, states the formal version of the modal ontological argument in this way,1 where "q" = There is a perfect being, "N" = It is logically necessary that, "~" = It is not the case that, "v" = or, and "p -> q" = p strictly implies q:

(1) q -> Nq (Anselm's principle)

(2) Nq v ~Nq (excluded middle)

(3) ~Nq -> N~Nq (Becker's postulate)

(4) Nq v N~Nq (from 2 and 3)

(5) N~Nq -> N~q (from 1)

(6) Nq v N~q (from 4 and 5)

(7) ~N~q (intuitive postulate)

(8) Nq (from 6 and 7)

(9) Nq -> q (modal axiom)

(10) q (from 8 and 9)

Premise (1) is St. Anselm's principle that an absolutely perfect being can only exist if its existence is logically necessary. Premise (7) is the assumption that the existence of a perfect being is not logically impossible. Each of the other premises is either a truth of logic, or is the product of a logically valid deduction.

While the argument is clearly valid, it does have its detractors who contest the truth of the premises. For example, while accepting the logical structure of the proof, atheist philosopher Michael Martin avers that the proponent of this argument must conclusively demonstrate the consistency of the God-concept before one is warranted in accepting premise (7). He writes:

"There seems to be little doubt that the argument is valid. The crucial question is whether the premises are true. Clearly the most important ones for our purposes are premises (1) and (7). On Hartshorne's view, (7) is the hardest to justify. He recommends using one or more of the theistic proofs that he claims demonstrate that perfection must be at least possible. But this seems to have things backward. The theistic proofs presume that the concept of God is coherent; they cannot demonstrate it. Furthermore, ...there have been many attempts to show that the concept of God is incoherent. Before one can claim that it is coherent, one at least needs to show that these attempts have failed. Hartshorne has not done this, and consequently premise (7) is unjustified."2

Martin continues his attack on the argument by attempting to infirm premise (1). He claims that if Anselm's principle (that absolute perfection entails necessity) is accepted, then one can use the logic of the ontological argument to prove the existence of all sorts of strange "perfect" entities. Martin writes:

"It would seem possible to 'prove' the existence of the super absolute evil one [a being like God in all ways except that it is absolutely evil] by a modal argument identical to Hartshorne's, the basic difference being the interpretation of q. Statement q would now mean 'A perfectly evil being exists.'"3

While the above criticisms of Hartshorne

[emprworm]

(CHRIS MCHUGH CONTINUED)

I will now examine some objections to the proof in order to forestall some of the more common rebuttals.

One may attempt to counter the argument with the contention that it is not legitimate to conclude the existence of something solely through analysis of its definition. It may be argued that affirmations of existence are always extrinsic to definitions because they are judgments about what has been defined, and can never be part of the descriptions themselves. The famous Kantian criticism of the ontological argument, for example, argues that the term "exists" can never be part of a definition:

"By whatever and by however many predicates we may think of a thing

[Egeides]

In fact I'll certainly read it in 48 hours (week-end) but maybe you could resume this in a paragraph for others... (if it can be made)

[SurlyPIG]

Yikes. Like I have THAT kind of time...

[emprworm]

Yikes. Like I have THAT kind of time...

considering that this is about whether or not God exists...and our very existence rests upon that question...i think you should make some time!! :)

[sneezer3]

Where did you find this at?!? :)

Looks preety intresting. But i don't think you can convince any athiests on here, because there to to religious. :- But it is the most importent question in someones life. Because if there is then all of us are in a heap of trouble.

[Acriku]

Not everything involving the existence of god is meant to convince all those religious atheists Sneezer ::)

I'll read it tomorrow, after work :)

[SurlyPIG]

considering that this is about whether or not God exists...and our very existence rests upon that question...i think you should make some time!! :)

I'm willing to bet, if I did read it, I would think of it as straw-pulling, desperate, unrealistic statements formulated by someone trying to justify his own beliefs by converting others by attempting to appear as superior, so I'll pass for now and save us both some time. I have spring break off next week so I'll probably read it then if I must.

[Egeides]

Where did you find this at?!? :)

Looks preety intresting. But i don't think you can convince any athiests on here, because there to to religious. :- But it is the most importent question in someones life. Because if there is then all of us are in a heap of trouble.

I personally have less to do with convincing, more with sharing and the other taking what he wishes. And me doing same towards him. This is why I am looking at the wisdom of many religions, and seeing new things once in a while that I may agree with.

[Caid Ivik]

Looks like our dread legion falls on knees before this nice argument, emp ;D

[Miles]

Looks like our dread legion falls on knees before this nice argument, emp ;D

Don't get too excited Caid. This is a lot to digest all at once, so it will take me a little while to respond.

At first glance though, I have a couple problems.

1. to prove soemthing's existance by a definition of that being seems circular somehow. I know that this is responded to in the post, I'll have to read further and see.

The statement that says we conceive of a perfect being, and a perfect being doesn't have the possibility of not existing because that implies imperfection seems awfully circular.

2. Another problem is that he uses a perfect being as his definition. That being with no deficiencies. What exactly contstitutes a deficiency? And what is perfect?

3. Maybe the logic behind this is valid. I won't argue that, like emprworm, I find that this philosophical jargon is a little over my head, but I think this is a prime example where logic fails because of faulty human input.

That input being the definition of the perfect being.

[Caid Ivik]

Problem is not that you don't believe in His existence, but that you cannot understand Him. You have too relativized mind, without the main definitions of good and evil, as written in Bible. What is perfect? Including all good characteristics on so superior level, that it can be called only God. You need straight definition of "good" to understand it, as you cannot count content of circle without absolute definition of Pi. All is in Bible, other thing is if you will accept it.

[Acriku]

So Caid, to understand God you must read the bible (atleast that's what I gathered from your post)? Which bible? The NKJ version?

[Caid Ivik]

Read this and you won't need any questions.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

[emprworm]

the argument is the opening statement of a formal debate on www.infidels.org the most popular atheist website on the net.

so far, there has been no rebuttal. the atheist moderators of the debate are beginning to feel that the challenger has fled, thereby giving the victory to the theist.

here is the latest statement from the debate moderator:

Jobar

Moderator

I've been noticing McHugh coming here to EoG several times in the past days. Mr. McHugh, I am not aware of what is taking him so long, but one of the major advantages of debate in a written forum like this one is that there is ample time for thought and careful writing. I am willing to wait as much as a month before I become impatient; if for any reason you cannot wait that long, or if you wish us to, we will see if it is possible to poke up Mr. Krueger a bit. You may send a private message to any of the moderators or administrators of II; I understand that you would not wish to post here, given the circumstances.

And, I hope that you are finding our amateur theologizing (a-theologizing?) interesting. Jobar.

McHugh (the philosopher that wrote the argument I posted), made his opening statement and so far, his atheist opponent is no where to be found.... :O

i wonder if the atheist is conceding the debate?

at any rate, this debate will be very interesting.

Here are the qualifications of the two debators:

McHugh, arguing for theism: Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, M.A. Boston College, B.A. Boston College. an independent scholar and Christian apologist. He has several forthcoming articles in PHILO, and is also a referee for that journal. McHugh is one of a small number of philosophers worldwide invited by Quentin Smith to publish a paper in a special upcoming "invited authors only" symposium issue of PHILO. He has engaged in debates with such philosophers as Graham Oppy, Ted Drange, George H. Smith, and Richard Gale.

Doug Krueger, arguing for atheism: is the author of What is Atheism? A Short Introduction (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), and his articles have appeared on The Secular Web and in American Atheist magazine. Krueger has a B.A. and an M.A. in philosophy and he is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Krueger is the co-founder, with Darrel Henschell, of the Fayetteville Freethinkers, and they appear regularly on the local public radio station, television stations, and their articles can be seen in the local newspaper All About Town. Krueger has participated in numerous formal debates on the existence of god and secular ethics.

[Miles]

Problem is not that you don't believe in His existence, but that you cannot understand Him. You have too relativized mind, without the main definitions of good and evil, as written in Bible. What is perfect? Including all good characteristics on so superior level, that it can be called only God. You need straight definition of "good" to understand it, as you cannot count content of circle without absolute definition of Pi. All is in Bible, other thing is if you will accept it.

Even if I did believe in the existance of God, then what is to tell me what is good and evil? Surely you don't think that christianity has the only definitions. What seperates christianity to make it the absolute truth about good and evil?

This is still the flaw that I see in this logical argument. The difficult part is the fact that the logic might be sound, but it is much more difficult to spot the flaws in the data inputed. perfection is a relative term, as is defficiency. This person puts too much faith in human input and perception.

[Acriku]

Empr - it took people a while to figure out the fallacies of the Causal argument, so don't be so quick to say it is foolproof.

[emprworm]

nothing in this universe is full proof, Acriku, from our perspective anyway. You don't need a "full proof" argument to believe in the rationality of God's existence any more than you need a "full proof" argument that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. all you need is evidence and sound reasoning.

[Acriku]

Of course, this argument is reasoning and not evidence - but is it correct reasoning? Is the person using good logic, and not being fallacious? That's the question.

[Davidu]

This is waaaay to advanced and I think it would take a while (for me at least) just to igure what that guy tries to say. Take your time and don't jump to conclusions unitll you're all sure you've understood it right.

Religion and divinity tend to be infinite as acception. Each and every person has its own interpretation of the divinity.(the persons that beleive without judging and thinking are not worthy of God).

Therefore no definition of God, good and right can be 100% accurate.

We're trying to explain something that we don't know for sure what it is... or if it actually exists.

//--

There might be a corelation between divinity and the essence of good:

English: God - good

Deutch: Got - gut

but this aplyies to these 2 cultures (I don't know other germanic cultures)

In Romanian the word good (bun) had at one time the meaning of ancester, grandfather, forefather, therefore meaning wisdom, not divinity.

[Acriku]

Latin - good = bona, bonus, bona. god = deus. Hmm...bonus - deus? Any correlation would be coincidental, IMO.

[Davidu]

Well, that's what I said... in latin there's no correlation.

But there seems to be correlation in the germanic languages. Maybe these cultures consider the divinity as pure good, while the latin tend to consider it more human: dominus, deus, with divine powers but human weakness.

What do you think?

[Acriku]

I think we would have to look at the etymology of each word in question to determine such causes.

[Davidu]

That would be interesting, but I don't have the time...

Many things can be found out of ethymology.

One Romanian scholar tried to make a Great Romanian Ethymologic Dictionary. He explained all the meanings of thw words. He worked for years and when he died he reached letter C.

[emprworm]

the argument I presented is highly complicated. I am finally understaning his variant of the anselm argument, and I think its brilliant.

to those laymen in here like myself having a hard time understanding his argument, or don't want to read it thouroughly, here is a very toned down version of it:

existence is greater than non-existence.

1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived. (Axiom)

2. If God did not exist, something greater than god would exist. (Axiom)

3. But no greater thing than god can be conceived. (Axiom 1, repeated)

4. Because #2 is in contradiction with #1, therefore 2 cannot be true.

If 2 cannot be true, therefore, God must exist.

In other words:

1. Someone who doubts the existence of God at least knows what God is: the greatest thing that can be conceived

2. It is greater to exist outside the mind then just in the mind.

3. Therefore someone who doubts God says that something greater can be thought of than God.

4. This is in contradiction with the definition of God, and therefore cannot be true.

5. Hence God exists.

Even though this is a simplified version of his argument, you STILL have to read over this a few times until it "clicks".

Now, the original argument I posted covers this logic in great detail, and refutes possible rebuttals. Once you understand what I am saying here, you will probably have a better grasp on the original argument.

It is a fascinating read, and utterly brilliant!