My problem with the Ontological Argument

Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one of the most famous arguments in Philosophy of Religion. It has been debated and reframed countless times throughout the last thousand years, and yet it seems to me that it does not stand on solid ground. In this video I delve into the reasons as to why I think this argument is invalid.
#philosophy #god #argument

[@squirrel7257]

followed through and explained, good job elias.

[@ManiH810]

The validity of the ontological argument is clear, if you accept the premise. I will present it side by side with a universally accepted mathematical proposition. Premise: 2+2 must by definition sum to 4 Conclusion: 2+2 sums to 4 Premise: God must by definition exist in reality Conclusion: God exists in reality These two arguments are both valid if one accepts the premise.

[@ManiH810]

Premise: God by definition must exist in reality Conclusion: God exists in reality Why must God by definition exist in reality? Because God is something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. We accept this. Two ‘somethings’: The empirical-entity-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought must exist in reality. Well duh! An empirical entity by definition exists in reality. So we can reformulate this interpretation of the word something as “That which exists in reality must exist in reality.” But Anselm would be completely wrong to interpret this something as an empirical entity. Why is this? We can not assume the existence of an empirical entity without any empirical evidence for its existence. Therefore we are left with the only other interpretation of the term something. The conceptual-entity-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought must exist in reality. This is what Anselm means by the term ‘something’ as he employs it in chapter 2 of the Proslogion. So this is what we have to critique and argue. Let us examine the proposition ‘The conceptual-entity-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought must exist in reality.’ Anselm says this proposition must be true because existence in reality is greater than mere existence in thought. This is already contentious but still, let us accept this condition and move forward. Can we not then rephrase the proposition into this: The conceptual-entity-that-must-exist-in-reality must exist in reality. What is a ‘conceptual-entity-that-must-exist-in-reality’ other than a hidden way of saying an ‘empirical entity’? Therefore even Anselm original formulation will end up being formulated as this ‘The empirical-entity-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought must exist in reality.’ Hence Anselm is assuming what he wants to prove. And as we have stated before, it is universally considered completely incorrect to assume the empirical existence of an entity without giving any empirical evidence for it. Therefore, Anselm’s ontological argument is actually a clever way of hiding the fact that he already assumes the empirical existence of God, without giving us any evidence for it. What Anselm manages to show in his ontological argument, is that the denial of the empirical existence of an empirical entity is absurd and contradictory, which is completely true. What Anselm fails to show is that God is an empirical entity. Rather he assumes that God is an empirical entity in his premise, and then goes on to correctly show why and how the denial of the empirical existence of an empirical entity is absurd and contradictory. Again Anselm proves no argumentation or reasoning for as to why he believes God is an empirical entity in the first place, which is why it is concluded that Anselm’s ontological argument incontrovertibly fails to prove the empirical existence of God.