Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The ontological argument is unsound. — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The ontological argument is unsound.

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Strengthened Gaunilo-type objections can construct versions of the ontological argument that lead to mutually incompatible conclusions, such as the existence of a perfect solvent together with a perfectly insoluble substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the logical form of an argument is such that arguments of precisely the same form generate contradictions, then the argument must be unsound.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gaunilo-type parodies fail because 'greatest possible being' is a coherent maximizing concept, while 'perfect island' or 'perfect solvent' are not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that if maximal greatness is possible, it is actual, and no parody replicates this modal structure with a coherent property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The incompatibility objection only defeats versions relying on naive greatness-summing, not modal versions that ground greatness in broadly logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes and Leibniz argued that the ontological argument is sound conditional on the prior demonstration that the concept of a supremely perfect being is internally consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's existence follows necessarily from a coherent concept of maximal perfection, then the argument's validity cannot be defeated merely by generating structurally analogous but incoherent parodies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Related

    Descartes and Leibniz argued that the ontological argument is sound conditional ...Gaunilo-type parodies fail because 'greatest possible being' is a coherent maxim...If God's existence follows necessarily from a coherent concept of maximal perfec...If the logical form of an argument is such that arguments of precisely the same ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that if maximal greatness is possib...Strengthened Gaunilo-type objections can construct versions of the ontological a...The incompatibility objection only defeats versions relying on naive greatness-s...

    Similar

    The advocate of the argument from evil needs to be able to show that t...85%The ontological argument is a notable exception to the standard argume...84%If the ontological argument were sound, it would provide a rather deci...79%Rowe's argument is unsound.76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    What if one shifts to a slightly less abstract formulation of the argument from evil that is based upon the premise that the world contains a certain amount of evil, or upon the premise that the world contains at least some natural evil? Then one is including marginally more information. But one is still assuming, in effect, that most of the detailed information about the evils found in the world is completely irrelevant to the argument from evil, and a little reflection brings out how very implausible this assumption is. So, for example, consider a world that contains a billion units of na...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit