Ontological Argument, refuted.

My first post in over a year...shocking I know! But I'm currently engaged in an email conversation with an intelligent theist I (so far) respect. Thus I'm taking enough care with my responses that I feel I should put them up on the internet for all to see. This person presented with my four arguments for the existence of a god: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. I'll be responding to each in turn over the next week or so. Here is my first response, concerning the ontological argument. Enjoy!

"The ontological argument, which might be the hardest to comprehend, is as follows:

1. If God exists then god would be the greatest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. God exists at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if God exists only subjectively, then he is not the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality (Objectively) as well as in the mind (Subjectively)"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can certainly see the appeal of this argument to one who already believes that a god exists; it's elegant and surprisingly charming. But despite the cuteness of the logic, there exist several flaws that leave the argument underwhelming. I'll discuss a few of the flaws I find most important.

Thanks to the phrasing of the first premise, it escapes the common flaw of treating existence as an attribute of a thing, rather than the condition that allows for attributes to apply. I don't have a problem with the first premise (for now).

The second premise contains some problems concerning the definition of "greatness". It is simply asserted that objective existence is greater than subjective existence, but this is not explained or justified. How is greatness defined, in this context? How is greatness measured here? What data are we using under this definition of greatness to compare relative 'greatnesses' that allow for this conclusion? This premise also plays into a fallacy of equivocation, but this is more clearly seen in step 4, so I'll skip to there.

Step four is where things break down, even if the validity of the three premises is granted. When we speak of an objective god, which the argument tries to prove, we're speaking about something that exists in reality outside of the mind. We're talking about a being. When we speak of a "subjective god", we're no longer speaking about a god external of the mind, and we're not talking about a being. We're talking about the concept of a god. You're already aware of this distinction, as indicated by the use of the phrase "idea in the mind" in step 3. The argument tries to compare existences of two different things: concepts and beings. Concepts don't exist in the way beings do, and beings do not exist in the way concepts do. There are not concepts outside of the mind, and there are not beings inside of the mind. So comparing the existences of these two is a categorical error.

In light of the criticisms so far, I'll restate the argument as I see it:

1. If god exists as a being, god would be the greatest being. --OK.
2. Beings are greater than concepts. --Why?
3. A concept of god exists. --OK.
4. If god is only a concept, he is not a being. --True.
5. God exists as a being, because he exists as a concept. --No.

Whichever way it is phrased, either your way or my simplified way, step 4 is obviously true: a concept is not a being. The argument then uses the yet unjustified assertion that beings are greater than concepts to conclude that god exists as a being simply because he exists as a concept. It completely ignores that concepts and beings are different in nature and in their type of existence. It's a fallacy. Noting that the concept of the greatest possible being exists does not allow one to conclude that any real beings exist that match the definition of that concept.

The argument tries to prove god by virtue of a definition. It seeks to define him into existence. The same logical steps can be applied to "prove" the objective existence of anything (if we allow for the implicit fallacies). For example:

1. If unicorns exist, they have the greatest horns of any animal.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. Unicorns and their great horns exist at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if unicorns exist only subjectively, their horns are not the greatest of any animal.
5. Therefore, unicorns must exist in reality as well as in the mind.

Or:

1. If "Gouda" exists, then he would be the smelliest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is to smell worse than to exist as a concept of smelliness in the mind.
3. We can conceive of the idea of the smelliest possible being.
4. But if Gouda's smelliness exists only in the mind, he is not the smelliest possible being.
5. Therefore, Gouda and his foul stench must exist objectively as well as in the mind.

In either case, I've only "proven" the existence of the subject by its own definition. Like I said, the existence of the concept does not allow one to conclude that a real being exists to match that concept. One cannot establish the objective existence of anything by examining its subjective definition as a concept.

That's about all I have to say on the argument, save one final point which I am completely confident will be met with criticism. Even if the argument were valid and successfully proved the existence of a god, it would at the same time disprove the existence of the Christian god. This is because the Christian god is not at all close to the greatest being one can conceive of. The greatest being I can conceive of would not carry out, command, and endorse genocide, infanticide, and slavery. I'm not too keen on beginning biblical criticism this early in the discussion, so hopefully the contents of the bible is a topic we can agree to save for a later date. But, it's up to you, since I opened my big mouth about it!