Position:Home>Philosophy> Can anyone explain to me the cartesian ontological argument?

yeah!. i've answered this many times before!.

1!. I have an idea of a perfect being (God)

2!. In every cause there must be at least as much reality as there is in the effect

3!. I am imperfect

4!. Given that I am imperfect (3) I cannot be responsible for the idea of perfection that I hold (1)

5!. Therefore, given that every cause must be at least as great as its effect (2), whatever caused my idea of perfection (1) must be perfect!. Therefore a perfect being exists and this is God who created me!.

basically, an imperfect being cannot conceive of the absolute perfection that is God, so there must be a God from which created us and planted that very conception within us!.


edit: hey!. beware of the answer below mine!. i think she just wanted some points and tried to best me!. but that is NOT the Cartesian ontological argument for God!. that is AN ontological argument!. but the one i outlined above is the actual one that Descartes uses in his Meditations!.

email me if you are still unclear on it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Okay!. So this argument is used to rationally support the existence of God!. Logical fallacy alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert!

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible (from Anselm), i!.e!. the greatest possible being (by definition)!.

2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality (also from Anselm)!. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances!. So, God might have existed in the real world!.

3) If something exists only in the mind (i!.e!. does not actually exist) but is possible (in the sense that was defined in 2), then that something might have been greater than it is!. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind (i!.e!. a nonexistent, imaginary mountain) might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality!.

4) Suppose God (the greatest possible being, from 1) exists only in the mind and not in reality (i!.e!. God does not actually exist; which is the negation of what this argument attempts to prove)!.

5) Then there is a possible being (from 2 and 3) that is greater (than the being in 4), namely God existing in reality!.

6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God (from 5)!.

7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible
(from 1), then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible (from 6)!.


Defining God as “the greatest possible being” has a number of interesting consequences!. One of them is that it becomes significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that God is not possible!. For instance, God is said to have perfect power: omnipotence!. But can God create a round square!? Can he defy such basic rules of logic!? The theist under this definition of God could reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent!. Thus, this theist could respond by claiming that God cannot do what is logically impossible, but He can do anything that can be done!. If a certain level of one of God’s traditional qualities is proved “impossible,” this theist could then lower the bar on that aspect of God down to where that quality is possible, such as from, “God is omnipotent and can do literally anything,” to “God is omnipotent to the greatest possible extent!.”

http://www!.angelfire!.com/mn2/tisthammerw!.!.!.


*Edit*

Shrugs!. I was more interpreting on the varying expressions which Descartes gives to the ontological argument!.

For more variety!.
I am not trying to "out best" you!. I promise!. *Smiles*

Yes, you have the strict version of Descartes from his Meditations!.

Give him the ten points, Daffyd dear, I would never bother or be willing to continue this in the form of email!. He (Brian)deserves it!.

But I am sure you already know at least the basics of the
"ontological argument", or it wouldn't have killed half of your brain cells!. Right!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---