Ontological Argument.

[beefycurtains.]

Probably wont make any sense, but what do you perceive as more perfect; Existence, or non-existence?

I'm just running through Descartes' ontological argument in my head, and realised that it's just something that's always bugged me.

For those of you who don't know what the ontological argument is, it's that God is supremely perfect, and a supremely being must exist by definition (I think that's).

I know there are other issues with this, but the part where it assumes existence is more perfect than non-existence has always left me wondering 'well why is it 'more perfect?'.

I'm not sure if i' making sense, so if i'm not just asked me to word it differently

[standardstate]

I agree with you that there is no obvious argument for saying existance is "more perfect" than non-existance - though I personally prefer to exist.

There are other problems with the ontological argument, and it is easily mocked. What has always surprised me is that it seems to be the argument that is most persuasive to philosophers, who presumably think about these things more deeply than I do.

[Herr Undead]

Perhaps you could explain the philosophy more or add materials. I've never read Descartes before, so I am unfamiliar with his argument here but it would seem there could be a various mix of interpretations here.

I take it that in the physical sense, he means the existance is less perfect because of the chaos that ensues with existance, while in non-existance there is no life to corrupt or create chaos. Often times people will claim that death is peaceful while living is hard. I do not necessarily agree with that viewpoint, but nonetheless that would logically lead to the breakdown of the philosophy. If there is no corruption within death and non-existance, and God is non-existant or exists within death according to his philosophy, then God as a supreme being is supremely perfect because of the "more perfect" state of death that he exists within.

[iwpoe]

The ontological argument is my favorite argument for the existence of god because it aims to achieve merely through pure reason the necessary existence of some entity which might be worthy to call god. That's a philosophic goal if there ever was one, and if you were to ask which of all the arguments for the existence of god (and there are basically only 3 to 5 such arguments and their variations) would be the most solid if it could be shown to be successful, I would say that this one would be it.

As for Descartes, I'm familiar with the section to which Matt refers and I'll try to talk about it some more in length when I have a bit more time.

[Proley]

I've been thinking about this argument as well, as I have been reading a philosophy textbook for enjoyment and the current chapters are discussing the existence of God. You gave me a chance to reread Descartes Ontological Argument and to read Kant's 'refutation' so to speak. Some resources on the internet that I've found about Descarte's argument are:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...s-ontological/
http://userpages.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/ideal2.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...descartes.html


I am more concerned with the notion that existence is a predicate opposed to whether existence is a perfection. In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, in response to Descartes' ontological argument he suggests that "Being is obliviously not a real predicate, that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing." I find this a much more convincing notion. From my understanding this means that when we say "God is"or "God exists" we are clarifying a concept (God) which we already understand to be. A predicate does not add to a concept, it clarifies the concept. So we can't say "God exists" in the same way we say "A triangle is three sided" (?). Another thing Kant's states is that if I reject God, I reject his predicates (omnipotence).

Kant goes on to argue against the idea of an a priori proof of God in general, "Our consciousness of all existence.. belongs exclusively to the unity of experience." Regarding existence, to me it seems we can't really decide whether existence or non-existence is more perfect. I think both could be argued as better or more perfect than the other.