There are a couple of big problems with the ontological argument.
Perhaps more than a couple but they aren't with the form of the argument. There are all sorts of opinions and philisophical ideas that attack one or the other of the premises. That causes a problem with the argument (at least for those who hold these ideas) but the problem is that its unconvicing because the premises are disputed.
I note that you specifically say in your premise q, "the(re) exists the idea of perfection".
"the(re) exists the idea of perfection" , does not equal "there exists a perfect being".
The cosmological argument takes refuge in the ontologogical argument because it commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent
It simply doesn't do that.
Affirming the consequent is
q
p implies q
Conclusion:
p
The pattern here is
q
q implies p
Conclusion:
p
""A hundred real thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers. For as the latter signify the concept, and the former the object and the positing of the object, should the former contain more than the latter, my concept would not, in that case, express the whole object, and would not therefore be an adequate concept of it.... For the object, as it actually exists is not analytically contained in my concept, but is added to my concept ... synthetically; and yet the conceived hundred thalers are not themselves in the least increased through thus acquiring existence outside my concept." (B627)"
That is just a detailed argument against "q implies p". If you find the argument convincing then you respond to "q implies p", with "q does not imply p", and this deny the argument by denying the 2nd premise. You also list other arguments against the premises. You can pile them up as high as you want but they don't support your claim that the original argument is affirming the consequent, even if they do make the original argument unconvincing to you and perhaps many other people.
Tim |
