Talk:Ontological argument/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Below is an argument about a link. I think that this argument is teetering dangerously close to personal attacks (although I did not see any). I did not read the entire argument after users started repeating themselves. But here is my *opinion* on this:

• Someone may add a link to his or her website if it meets wikipedia's standards for quality and overall reliability.
• Ultimately, one person's choice should not be completely accepted if there exists different choices that others think should be made.
• An exception to my opinion in the first bullet is in the case of original research. If a user adds a link to his or her own webpage (regardless of what it is about, by the way), it must in this case be completely comprised of information from other (possibly more reliable) sources. Otherwise, it is original research by technicality.
• Talk pages are not meant to talk about the article's subject. This means you cannot say "This is my opinion/2 cents/disproof/etc. of ...". Even if you are providing perfectly sound logic, it is not what this is for, and it can be considered original research in the context of adding to the actual article.

I am inclined to delete much of this talk page, but I will instead leave it up to those who originally made comments to delete his or her own. EulerGamma 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Everyone seems to be dancing around the real issue. This ontological argument is little more than circular logic if not outright sophistry. To rephrase the "modern description", God exists because, by definition, God exists. The religious context aside, this pattern is a well known logical fallacy. Ceran 17:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

What about Frege? I dont really edit wikipedia stuff, but my book mentions Gottlob Frege:

"Frege is a more recent objector. He distinguishes between "first-" and "second-order" predicates. First-order predicates tell us something about the nature of something - for example the horses are brown. Second-order predicates tell us about concepts - for example, the horses are numerous. Frege's objection to Anselm and Descartes is that they both seem to use existence as a first-order predicate, whereas it is actually a second-order predicate."

(Philospohy of Religion for A-Level, 1999, Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer, Edwin Tate)

There is also a section here about Bertrand Russell, stating that existence is not a predicate at all, but an extension of an intention... Hpmons 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

My own objection to the ontological argument is simply this: The only thing that it proves, is that we can conceive the greatest conceivable being to really exist. If we conceive that this greatest conceivable being really exists, it does not get any greater in our conception by really existing outside my conception.

From a wholly different angle, the argument uses the premisse that we can conceive this greatest conceivable being. It is very much the question whether we can conceive the greatest conceivable being. I think many theists would agree if I said that God cannot be completely conceived by us at all. There is also the question whether there even exists something like a 'greatest conceivable being'. There might well be for every conceivable being a greater one. Or there might be two beings such that neither is greater than the other, nor any being that is greater than both.

-- Andre Engels

---

I've done a bit of work on the article, and I think the it is a bit better. I've removed the first and second person references, and done a little work on set up. I don't think I've made substantial changes to the logic of Larry's presentation, (though by removing the second person, the argument now relies not on the reader's ability to have a concept of God, but on "someone" having that ability), but I have tried to clarify the presentation, and formalize it just a bit.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see several things happen to this page:

1. A subpage discussing how to understand Anselm's argument, and discussing the ways that the text is interpreted by contemporary scholars.
2. lLnks to contemporary reformulations like Goedels ontological proof as well as to pages which describe the counter arguments of people like Russel and Hume.
3. Some information about the presupositionalist interpertation of Anselm's notion of "faith seeking understanding" as it relates how we should understand his "proofs."
4. A link to the text of Anselm's argument in translation, and in it's origonal form.

    --Mark Christensen

---

Here's Larry's argument against the ontological argument.

I'm going to offer an objection of my own. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to restate the argument. It would take me too long, and it would be too hard to follow, for me to explain why I think my restatement is equivalent to St. Anselm's original argument. So you're just going to have to trust me that it is the same as Anselm's original. So here goes:

1. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the greatest conceivable being (call it B1) exists only in the mind.

2. But we can conceive of a being (call it B2) that is greater than any being that exists only in the mind.

3. So, we can conceive of a being (namely, B2) that is greater than B1 (since we are supposing that B1 exists only in the mind).

4. But then we can conceive of a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being (B1) which is a contradiction.

5. Therefore, our supposition in (1) is wrong; the greatest conceivable being really exists, and not only in the mind.

That's the argument. Here's my criticism: I think that (4) does not follow from (3). I fully admit premise (3). Yes, since we are supposing that B1 exists only in the mind, we can conceive of a being (namely, B2) that is greater than B1. In other words, we can imagine that that being, God, which, as we suppose in premise (1), exists only in the mind, did not only exist in the mind, but also in reality. Sure, we can imagine that. But that doesn't mean that we can conceive of a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being! Why would St. Anselm think that that follows?

Well, according to (3), we can conceive of a being that is greater than B1; and B1, remember, is the greatest conceivable being. So naturally you'd think that (3) entails (4), that we can conceive of a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being. But B1 isn't the greatest conceivable being, itself; B1 is a concept of the greatest conceivable being. It's an idea we have of the greatest conceivable being.

Why do I say that? Look at premise (1) again. It says: "Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the greatest conceivable being (call it B1) exists only in the mind." (Anselm's phrase is: "Exists in the understanding alone.") Now what is this thing, B1, which we say exists only in the mind? What is it? Is it the greatest conceivable being, itself, or is it, more precisely stated, a concept of the greatest conceivable being? Clearly, it's only the concept that can exist in the mind. We would never admit that the greatest conceivable being itself might somehow exist only in our minds. That wouldn't make any sense! In other words, when we say that the greatest conceivable being exists "in the mind," or "in the understanding alone," we just mean that we have a concept of the greatest conceivable being. And then we use the words "greatest conceivable being" as short for "concept of the greatest conceivable being." Make sense?

So here's my criticism summed up. St. Anselm's argument, as I presented it, claims, in premise (3), that we can conceive of a being that is greater than B1. But B1 is just a concept; even if it is the concept of the greatest conceivable being, it's nonetheless still a concept. And so of course we can conceive of lots of things greater than that concept. But premise (4) doesn't follow from any of the foregoing -- it just doesn't follow that I can conceive of something greater than the greatest conceivable being. All that follows is that I can conceive of something greater than my concept of the greatest conceivable being. Which is no big surprise!

---

I'm not well-versed in theology, so I saw this article and expected a discussion of ontological arguments in general, not of one particular ontological argument. Would it make sense to rename this article "Ontological argument for the existence of God", or is the argument so well-known as a theological argument that the last 5 words would be redundant? --RjLesch

I think "Ontological argument" is pretty much a fixed term for this class of God arguments. --AxelBoldt

---

This paragraph needs a little work. As do the rest of the criteques of the argument.

The simplest formulation of this is as follows:

The ontological argument states that if it is possible for God (as defined in the ontological argument) to exist, then God must exist. But it is also a logical consequence of the ontological argument that if there is no such God, then it is not possible for such a God to exist, and the ontological argument does not assert in that case that God must exist. Therefore, the ontological argument reduces to the somewhat less convincing tautological statement that "If God exists, then God exists", which neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

---

Does this argument *actually* have many defenders, or is the article just saying that just to be "super-neutral"? I've certainly never met any of them... - Khendon

Not many, but they exist. Some contmporary defenders, like Plantiga, are noteworthy enough... Anyway, I removed the last paragraph, because I think it is incomprehensible, furthermore, it makes strong claims which are not attributed. I can't do research to fix it, because I can't understand the content of the criteque, nor can discover the primary source for this criteque.

Problematic fourth criticism

Here's the original text by Charlesdarwin:

A fourth criticism is that the very definition of "God" is flawed. One can imagine something greater than the God of any religion. For example, the set of all possible worlds is certainly not the God of any religion, but it must be greater than any God, which can belong to only one world.

Technically, this criticism isn't a criticism of the ontological argument itself but of the attempt to link the perfect being "God" with a "God of any religion". A defender of the ontological argument would say that CharlesDarwin has only demonstrated that the conception of a God who rules only one world is incomplete, and that the God whose existence is supposedly demonstrated here is not bound to this limited conception.

I've pulled this text and replaced it with a rewritten text that talks about the fallacy of equivocation involved in moving from the perfect being to a particular conception of God.

Populus

I accept your version. --CD

One can conceive of a Superman with absolutely ALL of the attributes of perfection and EVERYTHING that is attributed to God including existence, but it would not be God; it would be your conceived Superman. The ontological argument is nothing but words which don't prove the existence of this conceived Superman or of God. --Ellis Elkins http://ChristianThinkers.InJesus.com

It is impossible, even in principle, to distinguish between two absolutely identical things, so they are the same thing. On the other hand, the conception of a thing is not identical to the thing itself. Furthermore, one cannot actually conceive of anything greater (in any way) than the greatest thing one can conceive of. So you are correct, the argument is invalid. A Christian questioning Christian arguments.... Are you a scientist? Fairandbalanced 22:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

I think that here disability or handicap should be substituted for "ability". Andres 17:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I've changed a line in the introduction. The assertion that contingent beings are "things that cannot exist" is wrong - "can not" exist is better, but open to misinterpretation (it means can (not exist), not (can not) exist). I've changed it to "things that may or may not exist, but whose existence is not necessary". Can anyone think of a more elegant way of putting it?

First proponent?

Actually, the Mu'tazilite theologian Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025) makes an essentially identical argument: to summarize (or perhaps caricature) it, God is defined as omnipotent, therefore he must exist, because if he didn't he wouldn't be omnipotent. Substitute "perfect" for "omnipotent" and you have the better known form of the ontological argument. - 64.81.54.23 18:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like some comment on this issue. I considered putting in the following:

The Mu'tazili theologian Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025) put the following argument in his Kitab al-usul al-khamsa:

"Then if it is asked "What is the proof that He is existent (annahu mawjud)? Say to him: Because He is omnipotent, and it would not be possible for a nonexistent being (ma`dum) to act, because His being nonexistent could not be related to a possible nonexistent [entity] (bi-l-maqdur.) Therefore He must be existent. If not, it would open the way to much ignorance." - #22, as translated in Defenders of Reason in Islam, Martin, Woodward, and Atmaja, Oxford: Oneworld 1993.

To paraphrase:

1. God is defined as an omnipotent entity
2. To be omnipotent, an entity has to exist
3. Thus God exists in reality as well as in concept.

but I can't make up my mind whether this counts as the ontological argument or not. It seems, at any rate, to be an ontological argument. Thoughts? - Mustafaa 02:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greatest Conceivable Evil

Would someone want to include the Greatest Concievable Evil as a criticism to Anselm's argument? My english and aptitude in philosophy is not so great but there are links to outside websites I could include. -JH

In so far as anyone has seriously put forward this as an argument, it might be worth a mention, but it doesn't get off the ground. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In most Medieval Christian philosophy, evil is assumed to be a kind of non-Being (a privation of God), thus the most evil thing would be nothingness itself, which of course already exists. More helpful is the 'greatest unicorn' or 'perfect island' argument, since those things don't imply something that's the thought to exist. --Carl 01:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

To make a very small change to Carl's input: evil is indeed a privation but a privation of the good. Theologically it is impossible for a privation of an omnipotent God to exist

According to whom? Without some kind of backing to claim evil is the privation and good is that which is is entirely arbitrary. Why could one not simply claim Good is the privation of Evil and until it is proven which has ontological magnitude and which doesn't, you are at an impass for which being, the perfect good or the perfect evil, exists? It seems to me that the greatest conceivable evil argument only fails to get off the ground if you make arbitrary assumptions about good and evil. Triumviron 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Theologically speaking, it is impossible for God to not exist, which does away with the need for any arguments in the first place.

Hebrew interwiki

Someone check that Hebrew interwiki link, it's a bunch of question marks instead of characters. Alensha 23:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the way you have your browser set up, I'm afraid. How you correct that will depend on the browser that you're using. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see Hebrew characters in my browser and several other Hebrew interwikis do work, but this seems to lead to an empty page... are you sure the interwiki of this article works? Alensha 13:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry — I jumped to a wrong conclusion, without checking properly. I thought that you were talking about the link, not the article linked to. Yes, the latter is empty (and nobody at the Hebrew Wikipedia seems to have noticed). I'll remove the link from this article for the time being. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't always express myself clearly in English :) Alensha 21:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objection

If I logically prove that, say, unicorns have one horn, I'm really saying "if I imagine a unicorn, then it has one horn". If you view the ontological argument in these terms, then it boils down to something like "in order for me to properly imagine God, I must imagine that he exists". It proves that God has existence as a property, but that's not the same as existing.

I know I didn't just come up with this. The formulation I've heard is "all Gods exist". I have no reference, though. Ken Arromdee 20:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed link

The following link Understanding the Ontological Argument by Wade A. Tisthammer was removed due to verifiability and original research concerns. The creator of this page is a Wikipedia user who can give permission to include information from his webpage here if he would like. However, this page should not be linked directly. Please see an associated discussion at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if this is not some grudge against me from my previous contributions, I suggest you explain exactly why you want to remove the link. Please explain in sufficient detail how the inclusion of the link violates Wikipedia policy, considering that someone else put the link here long before I became an editor here (user 81.178.209.158 who put it up on April 2004). (For one thing, Wikipedia policy on verifiability and original research apply to Wikipedia entries, not usually the links themselves, otherwise there are many links in Wikipedia that should be removed.)

If you do a little search you'd find that my web page on the ontological argument apparently warranted inclusion on numerous other web listings. Does becoming a Wikipedia editor mean that all of the editor's links must be removed? I'd like you to quote Wikipedia policy on that before you proceed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Your website does not rise to the standards of a verifiable and notable link. There are definitely many links in Wikipedia that should be removed. If the material itself is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, include it. Otherwise, there is no reason to have it linked. --ScienceApologist 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look on WP:Vanity the inclusion of a link to a non-notable personal webpage is listed as a vanity edit. It is subject to interpretation, but I have no doubt that this is a prime example of a vanity link. This isn't to disparage the author of the page, and I don't care that some other editor included the link in the first place, it still doesn't belong here. --ScienceApologist 12:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a linkfarm, but so what? How does that apply here? Why was user 81.178.209.158 wrong to include the link? I happen to agree with the user that it is worthy of inclusion. You have failed to explain why the link is not notable particularly given the existence of many web listings that include it. The page is not a page about any particular person (a "personal web page"), it is a link about the ontological argument. If this is not some grudge against me from my previous contributions, I suggest you explain exactly why the link needs to be removed. Please quote a specific section of WP:VANITY (as well as other sections if you think they apply) to justify your removal of the link. Remember, I was not the one who put the link here. It was only after I became an editor and mentioned I had a link here (after a dispute between us) that you desired to remove it. If this is not some kind of grudge against me for my previous contributions, you are going to have to explain yourself very carefully. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the direct quote from WP:VANITY:

The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)

This qualifies.

--ScienceApologist 20:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

But how? The web page may be written by a person (no surprise there), but it is not about a person; ergo it is not a personal web page (as I have said many times). Instead, the web page about the ontological argument, which happens to be eminently relevant to this Wikipedia entry. So it seems you have no grounds to remove this link. You have failed to show that this is a personal web page. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's your personal page and promotes your personal interpretation of the subject. And, like it or not, you are obscure. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, how is this a personal web page? You have once again failed to explain. It is written by me but it is not about me. (Rather, it is about the ontological argument.) If that's enough to make it a "personal web page" then a lot of other links are in trouble also (for instance, this link on the ontological argument was also written by a person). But it should not be surprising that web pages are written by people, and this hardly seems like adequate grounds to remove a links from Wikipedia. Note also that it was user user 81.178.209.158 who thought the web page was useful and added it to the list of external links--not me (and the link was added long before I signed up here). For the most part, the web page doesn't even promote my personal interpretation of the subject. It has plenty of rebuttals and ends with "disputable points" to keep the issue as neutral as any philosophy textbook. Again, if this is not some personal grudge against my previous contributions, you are going to have to explain yourself very carefully, and you have failed to do that. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The definition of a personal webpage is not that it is about you but rather that it is the one you own. The issue is not with the content, it is with the general policy of excluding pages that are the sole product of an obscure individual, included under their personal namespace. If you have a problem with this, start an RfC. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so if the web page is owned by a person (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it is a "personal web page" and cannot be allowed as a link? This is a very strange definition you have, and a very strange criterion. I suggest you quote Wikipedia policy to support your bizarre definition of a "personal web page." Note by your logic a number of other good links would have to be removed to. For instance, this link on the ontological argument is also owned by a person. But your objection seems very strange and nonsensical, not to mention nonexistent in Wikipedia policy. Many web pages are owned by people. It doesn't make any sense to remove them on that basis alone. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If the link is owned by someone who isn't obscure, or if the link contains material that looks to be considered a resource (for example, the other page you are talking about was listed in a Philosophy magazine) then it is not WP:VANITY. However, in my judgement, your webpage is neither of these and therefore is WP:VANITY. I suggest you get some more outside opinions on this matter, if you are unconvinced. An RfC might be a good idea. Or ask on the WP:VANITY talkpage. --ScienceApologist 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The person who owns the website is Raul Corazzon and I see no indication on the web page that he published in some philosophy magazine (if I missed it, please supply the quote). Even if that were true, Raul Corazzon still seems "obscure" enough. What's worse, you have failed to provide any justification for your bizarre definition of a "personal web page." If the web page is merely owned by an "obscure" person (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it is a "personal web page"? With the highly relevant content (e.g. a thorough description of the ontological argument linked to a Wikipedia entry on the ontological argument, and not having any actual vanity content) of the page itself being irrelevant? I think you need to cite Wikipedia policy on this one, and you have failed to do so. And again, that would rule out a good number of links, including the web page owned by Raul Corazzon. BTW, I have put up an RfC on this issue. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He was awarded a prize by a Philosophy Magazine for his website. I have no particular connection to raul Corazzon, and don't have an opinion on whether his page should be included here or not. But I do have an opinion on your site. If you choose to delete his site from the list of references, I won't protest.

The issue isn't one of ownership as much as it is of authorship. You are the original author of your essay on the ontological argument. As such, it represents your work. There is no problem with you adding information here as an editor, but the link is not subject to editorial control and we have to be careful that we link to appropriate references in Wikipedia. Let's see what kind of feedback you get from the RfC. --ScienceApologist 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, now we have a slightly modified definition. If a web page is merely authored by a person (even if it contains no actual vanity material) it is a "personal web page." Again, you have failed to cite Wikipedia policy as to why this is problematic, despite my request. If your objection against the link is not just a personal grudge against me for my previous contributions, I think you need to do that. (And again, please note that I was not the one who originally added the link to the Wikipedia entry.) Your objection once again seems very strange and nonsensical, not to mention nonexistent in Wikipedia policy. Many web pages are authored by people. It doesn't make any sense to remove them on that basis alone. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that my interpretation of policy amounts to a "strange" definition. I'm just going by what I believe is the most reasonable interpretation of WP:VANITY. You could ask for clarification on that talkpage, if you'd like. It doesn't matter that it was added by another user, it doesn't matter that it was authored by people, it doesn't matter that you are the author. It only matters that the person who authored it is obscure and the page is promoting a perspective on this subject that is not under editorial control and has not been vetted for content. --ScienceApologist 00:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so if the web page is authored by a person who is "obscure" (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it should be removed? Yes, it is me who claims that this is strange, but that thinking hardly seems inappropriate. I'd like you to quote Wikipedia policy on that, but again you have failed to do so.

Here's what I believe is the most reasonable interpretation of WP:VANITY: the notoriety of the web page’s author is not relevant (confer the genetic fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy). I’ll say it again: whether the author is obscure or not is irrelevant, what matters is the content. For instance, suppose we have Joe Bloggs as a Wikipedia entry:

Joe Bloggs is a 33-year-old chef from New York, New York. His hobbies include baseball and poker, and he's currently single. His childhood dream was to become a cowboy, but now he dreams of being a novelist.

This qualifies as vanity material because it is about an obscure person, Joe Bloggs. Similarly, any link that promotes otherwise obscure individuals (e.g. that features their bio, pics etc.) would be a vanity link. A web page authored by an obscure person that contains no actual vanity content does not by itself make it a vanity link. What matters more is what the actual page contains and what it’s being linked to. In this case, we have a web page about the ontological argument linked to a Wikipedia entry on the ontological argument. This web page is not vanity material under the Wikipedia definition. That's my interpretation, and it seems far more reasonable than a criticism that is based entirely upon the ad hominem fallacy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your article on the ontological argument is neither authorative, notable, nor referenced by other verifiable sources. Therefore we are right in excluding it and your advocacy here strikes me as violation of WP:VANITY. --ScienceApologist 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? So far the only person who wants to remove it is you. Yes, I am advocating the inclusion of the web page, but please remember that I was not the one who originally put it there. Another user apparently thought it was notable and included it in the list of links. Who are you to say it is not "authoritative" or "notable"? On what grounds do you have to make those claims? I did my homework, I reported the viewpoints accurately (even if I don't agree with them). A multitude of web listings apparently found the web page "notable" enough for inclusion. Additionally, if we go by the Wikipedia definition of the term "notable" the web page under discussion meets exactly that definition (since it is about the ontological argument, and if this subject is not notable the entire Wikipedia entry should be scrapped). What about being "referenced by other verifiable sources"? The ontological web page does make reference to Anselm, Gaunilo, and Kant; three very notable writers on the issue (and gave references where they've written it). Besides, there are many other web pages that contain no citations, and even those that consist of over a dozen verifiable citations you are willing to remove those links as long as I am the author (see this discussion). Again, if this is not some personal grudge against my previous contributions, I would like you to quote Wikipedia policy to that supports your objections. So far, you have been unwilling or unable to do that. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade, I will agree with ScienceApologist on this - the article is original research published to the net by yourself, and as such is problematic. This article should restrict itself to peer reviewed sources. In any case, the argument presented in your web page confuses the de dicto and de re modes of "god exists" in the first premise, by ignoring existential quantification, and so is invalid. Banno 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the RfC and I have to say the major problem is one of original research not so much vanity. Wikipedia should not be a home for pet theories or interpretations. Peer review is very important for a valid encyclopedia. If not it will be viewed as poor resource and if that is the case we are all wasting a lot of time. David D. (Talk) 03:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on original research has to do with the entries (the articles themselves); it says nothing about the links (otherwise, a good number of links need to be removed). I have inserted no original research in the Wikipedia entries. Also, the percentage of original ideas in web page under discussion is much smaller than you might think. Nearly all of the material has come from my own reading on the topic. For instance, I did not invent Gaunilo's criticism, nor did I invent many of its rejoinders, nor did I even invent the formal proof establishing the deductive validity of the symbolic logic form of the ontological argument. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Links should be to peer reviewed material or at least to sources that agree with peer reviewed material. If wikipedia links to web site it is an endorsement of quality. At least it should be. David D. (Talk) 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer-review is good for scientific journals, but with Internet pages that generally just isn't the case. Besides, as I said there is very little original research in the web page. It presents both viewpoints of this philosophical argument (as any good philosophy textbook would do). Wikipedia links aren't necessarily an endorsement of quality by the way (and it's unclear why web page under discussion isn't of good quality). If it were wouldn't we have to remove creationist websites from the creationism Wikipedia entry? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in the latter case i suppose one goes to the best available source. But for your own arguments they seem to be on topics that have been published. I am no expert but how do i know your opinions are valid? At the end of the day that is what a personal web site is represents, someones interpretation of information, data and arguments. Such an interpretation could, for all anyone knows, be dead wrong. Even if everything on the page is excellent scholarship how do we know you won't change the text on the page? David D. (Talk) 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

By and large the points raised in the web page are not my opinions. Nearly all of it comes from what I’ve read on the subject. Like any good textbook on philosophy, it presents viewpoints and arguments that have been raised by both sides of this philosophical issue. One is free to agree or disagree with either viewpoint presented. Either the ontological argument is sound or it is not. Obviously, at least one opinion on this issue has to be wrong, but then that means somebody is right. I put "disputable point" segments at the end of a number of sections to try to keep it as neutral as possible.

Your other concern, "Even if everything on the page is excellent scholarship how do we know you won't change the text on the page?" That's going to be a possibility for any web page, not just mine. I may change the text when it comes to correcting typos and other revisions, but I have no intention for changing its essential content. My word is the best I can offer, but that's going to be true for any owner of any web page. The good news is that this Wikipedia entry is peer-reviewed. So if one day you find that the link contains porno instead of the ontological argument, you're free to delete it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You say "That's going to be a possibility for any web page" and this is true and it it a worry that wikipedia could be linking to bad source material. It's bad enough that some pages on wikipedia propagate misconceptions but these usually get picked up. Source web sites cannot be corrected and editor may not even be checking them for their content. This is why source material is better if citing published material since it has usually been peer reviewed or at least juat reviewed. David D. (Talk) 06:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

i just noticed your first paragraph. With regard to the content on your web page I admit I am not qualified to comment on it. My opinion here with regard to links to personal web pages are just precautionary with regard to all web pages. I am not singling your web site out specficially and certainly my opinion has nothing to do with the content. The content is for others to judge. David D. (Talk) 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Publication and peer review is for scientific journals, whereas web pages are somewhat different. If it's any consolation however, the web page under discussion did pass editorial review for the open directory project (see below). Let's also keep in mind that we're not talking about a personal web page, at least not in the sense of WP:VANITY (in this case, merely being written by a person doesn't make it a "personal web page" or vanity material). --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Banno, even if the article is original research (and the vast majority of it isn't) note that the Wikipedia policy on this applies to Wikipedia articles, it says nothing about web pages as I told David. Still, your analysis of the argument intrigues me. I assume you're referring to the symbolic logic form. Why exactly do you believe it to be invalid? The proof is sound as far as I know. Do you believe a law of logic was applied incorrectly? And if so which one and why? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade, your page is a lucid account of the ontological argument. It is especially clear in its presentation of modal logic. What is at issue here is not the quality, or even the accuracy, of what you have written. The question is, is this a suitable reference for a Wikipedia article? Is it a reputable source? Let's break this down. Does it have a large readership? Not according to its backward links [1]; It is self-published; The site is apparently run by a single person; It has apparently not been peer reviewed.(Some articles on the Wiki have links to self-published PhD thesis, but this work does not appear to have been submitted for peer review or for any sort of evaluation. These are the reasons it is an unsuitable resource. Banno 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)\

The Wikipedia policy on reputable sources you cited was meant to apply to citations in Wikipedia entries rather than the standard lists of external web links provided at the end (as suggested by explicitly referring to books and journals and making no mention of websites). And as I said, peer-review is good for scientific journals, but by and large it is not true for websites. The closest thing I have to peer-review is having others read it (as philosophy students) and thanking me for putting up the web page, but especially getting it listed on the open directory project (ODP). The open directory project goes through a process of editorial review on whether to include a given web page in the directory. From the open directory:

We care a great deal about the quality of the ODP. We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted.

Hopefully, the web article passing this editorial review counts for something. Now, does the web page have a "large" readership? Well, that depends on what you mean by "large" but this page does have tens of thousands of hits. The "backward link" you tried for google is not reliable because of a typo in the web address. Try this and you'll see there are a couple dozen websites that link to the web page under discussion. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, the web article passing this editorial review counts for something. -- This is an excellent question to raise in policy discussions. I suggest asking it at Wikipedia Talk:Cite sources or Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability. I suggest that merely being listed at ODP doesn't really count for anything. --ScienceApologist 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfc - Please do not take my comments as an attempt to be an authoritative voice. I know very little about the subject and I am only commenting on Wiki policy.

First, I am not inclined to think of this as true vanity, because the site does not promote the individual. I believe Wade A. Tisthammer has a point that the policy on neutrality is mainly for articles. Although, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines does ask for "credible, neutral, and independent" sources, I think that is moot when dealing with an article with multiple POVs. In fact Wikipedia:External links explicitly states that in such an article, "a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link" should be linked.

Once again, please note that I am only stating my view on the policy. I do not know enough on the subject to evaluate if this article truly falls within the scope of a "multiple POV article." - Ektar 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, Wikipedia policy on citing sources applies to Wikipedia entries, it says nothing about links. Otherwise there are plenty of good links that should be removed (since many of them just present the facts without giving citations). In any case, the consensus seems to be that this web page does not qualify as a vanity link (probably because it contains no actual vanity content). You may have a strong desire to remove my web page listing from Wikipedia, but it seems a little extreme to say that qualifying for the ODP doesn't count for anything. After all, it has passed their highly selective editorial review. So what basis do you really have for your position? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how ODP works. What are they reviewing? Making sure there is no porn is one extreme. The other is they send it to an expert in the field to make sure it is factualy correct. Or is it somewhere in between? i suppose i am curious as to what does not get accepted. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You can visit their website and look around for more info. So far what I've been able to gather is that they pride themselves in being highly selective. Additionally, there are "community editors who evaluate sites for inclusion in the directory," calling the editors "our experts, and all submissions are subject to editor evaluation." Add to this that its backward links [2] seem to indicate a fairly large readership, and that the web page contains no actual vanity material, do you have any objection to the web page's inclusion as a link? If you want to be further reassured, I suggest you read the web page yourself and check it against to reputable sources on the topic (perhaps you have an encyclopedia on your computer that confirms some of the information on the web page). But so far nobody here (including ScienceApologist) has been able to point to any factual inaccuracies. His main concern seemed to be if the web page was a vanity link (which it patently isn't considering it contains no actual vanity material). --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A consensus needs to be built on this issue. I vote for removal. Here are my thoughts to add to any consensus-building.

• I agree that IF the link was originally added by someone who was not Wade Tisthammer, it was not vanity when it was added. However any attempt by Wade to keep the citation after others proposed to remove it should qualify as vanity - in other words, Wade should be disqualified from defending it under the vanity rule. He should leave it to others to defend his link. (This is a moral argument. If it isn't Wikipedia policy, it should be.)
• As regards the argument that the page contains no vanity content, IMHO in the case of academics, our propagation of our ideas (especially the original ones) is the very essence of our vanity (in the everyday sense).
• I also agree that the link must be valuable in a very general sense - in other words, it must stand out from other material available on the subject. With so much literature devoted to the ontological argument (i.e. a thousand years during which a vast number of leading philosophers and theologians have had their own shot at it), the quality of linked material must be incredibly high to justify retention. Wade could be a truly great philosopher and yet still not merit a link in this article, even if he was great enough to have a whole Wikipedia article on himself, surely? When I visited his page, I cannot say that it struck me as being of this incredibly high standard - it may be good and nothing to be ashamed of, but it does not deserve to be singled out from all the other work done on the subject. Caravaca 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The web page contains very little original ideas. And if mere propagation of ideas constitutes vanity, all the links should be removed since they all contain ideas. The web page contains a number of useful features that the other web pages lack (such as an easy explanation of the modal ontological argument in symbolic form to establish deductive validity). I created this web page because other resources (in my opinion) did not present the argument as neatly and clearly as it could have. Am I the creator of the web page? Yes. And I suppose I do have motive to have it stay. However, ScienceApologist decided to remove it only after we had a dispute and as soon as he found out that one of my web pages was linked here. I thought putting up the RfC would help matters, as I see no reason why this web page should be singled out for removal. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here because of the RfC. I believe that the removal of the link is justified on the grounds that Banno and Caravaca have already stated. Ancawonka 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I also came here in response to the RfC. I believe the link in question is simply unnecessary. If there is any information pertinent to this article on Mr. Tisthammer's webpage that is not already included, he can (and should) feel free to add it and thus improve our article, and if there is not, then the information in the link is redundant with what is already included in the article. Links to philosophical encyclopedia articles on this topic are useful for the purpose of allowing the reader to verify the content of this article by comparing it to official reference works with known philosophical standards; links to primary source texts are useful for obvious reasons; links to important pieces of secondary literature - and by "important," I mean the sort of thing that any philosopher who was going to write a new article on this topic would have been expected to read - are useful as a starting point for further exploration; but links to websites that merely provide a differently-worded explanation of the topic at hand without being distinctive in any way are redundant. If we have written a good article about ontological arguments, people should have a thorough enough understanding of the topic by the end that they won't need to read another explanation. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Difficulties

Logically speaking, there are two things about the modal argument that leave me ill-at-ease. The first is that in simply using G = "God exists", you do not distinguish between the de dicto and the de re interpretations - that is, between "in all possible worlds there is something which is god" and "there is something which in all possible worlds is god". So your argument does not differentiate between one god that exists in all possible worlds, and each possible world having a distinct god. While this is not a damming criticism, I think it points to a certain lack of rigour in the argument.

The second problem is that the first two assumptions appear to beg the question. the first says "in all possible worlds, if god exists then he exists in all possible worlds". This of course rules out possible worlds in which god does not exist - either god exists in all possible worlds, or not at all. Combine with the second, that god exists in some possible world, and of course your conclusion follows. But it is with these two assumptions that critics of the argument take issue. In other words, the modal argument presented appears to simply skate over the real issues.

Wade, I am not a logician; but don't you think that if the issues could be presented so simply, the likes of Plantinga and Gödel would have done so? Yet their arguments are very much more complex than the one presented on your web page. Ultimately, that is the reason for my thinking it should not be included. If the article had been through some proper review process before a group of philosophers or logicians, then it might be eligible for inclusion. But not as it stands.

Now we must take care not to turn this into a discussion of the argument, since the Wiki is not a forum. If you wish to discuss the argument further, I suggest we move over to a proper forum rather than continue here. Banno 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To that end, I've taken the liberty of starting a thread at [3]. Banno 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your apparent confusion:

The first is that in simply using G = "God exists", you do not distinguish between the de dicto and the de re interpretations - that is, between "in all possible worlds there is something which is god" and "there is something which in all possible worlds is god".

In modal logic, G means that G is true in the actual world. The interpretation "in all possible worlds there exists something that is God" is not correct, neither is "there is something which in all possible worlds is God." There is no "box" next to the constant G, so it's unclear where you got the phrase "all possible worlds" merely from the constant itself. If there are no modal quantifiers, the propositional constant G only means that God exists in our world. In the context of the modal ontological argument, the existential quantifier is simply not needed here.

Regarding $\Box$G, this would translate as "God necessarily exists" or "God exists in all possible worlds." Attaching an existential quantifier is unnecessary here, but to clarify your apparent confusion let's examine this further.

If we were to choose between de dicto and de re, we would choose de dicto, which in symbolic form would be the following:

$\Box \exists {x}G$ Necessarily, some x is G (i.e. in each possible world, there is some x that is God)

--Wade A. Tisthammer 01:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to continue this discussion in the forum. Banno 02:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes of course. I'll make a post there soon. --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Part two (I had to cut it off to eat the pizza I put in the oven). You said,

The second problem is that the first two assumptions appear to beg the question. the first says "in all possible worlds, if god exists then he exists in all possible worlds". This of course rules out possible worlds in which god does not exist - either god exists in all possible worlds, or not at all.

There's a bit of a contradiction in the last statement, since [](G --> []G) doesn't rule out possible worlds in which God does not exist. However, you are correct (and I explicitly stated this in the web page, see the "Disputable Point" section under the first objection) that the modal ontological argument suggests that either God exists in all possible worlds or he exists in none of them (which can be derived via the first and third premises). Now if God exists in at least on possible world (the second premise) then God has necessary existence.

How is the argument question begging? The definition you seem to be using is that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true also. But this is going to be true for any deductively valid argument and so does not seem problematic (additionally, the first two premises by themselves don't result in G; Becker's postulate is also needed). Thus, the fact that the veracity of all three premises means the conclusion is true is not the same as question begging. It only implies that the argument is deductively valid (remember, valid just means that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well; one can still attack the argument by attacking the veracity of the premises).

I should note again that this form of the ontological argument is not of my own creation. It is only one of many forms of "Either God exists in all possible worlds or none of them + God is at least possible" which I have seen in Philosophy for Dummies, a philosophy teacher's website (see here, though the first premise is incorrectly stated as it would prevent the valid use of modal modus tollens, and the author puts forth a mistaken form of modal modus tollens) and various other places. The ontological argument web page has been informally reviewed in some philosophy forums to better ensure accuracy. Incidentally, this is what helped correct the mistake of modal modus tollens (in hindsight, I probably should have caught that earlier) and be replaced with a more accurate version and application. The logic now appears to be valid, even if it is unsound. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Folks, I trust you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule? Please take care. Banno 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC response

The website in question is in violation of WP:RS, and cannot be used as a reference on anything but it's author. If the author of the website had "professional or academic standing" to write on the subject, this would be debatable. Hipocrite 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The RFC responses are listed in the "removed link" section, but I'll respond to it here. Note that WP:RS was meant to apply to citations in Wikipedia entries rather than the standard lists of external web links provided at the end (as suggested by explicitly referring to books and journals and making no mention of websites). Otherwise, would we not be required to remove many creationist links from creationism? Additionally, it hasn't yet been shown that the web page under discussion is an unreliable source of information--unless perhaps you can cite some inaccuracies there. Currently, the web page is going through another informal review at a philosophy forum (this one started by Banno instead of me; see above) to ensure accuracy. Additionally, the web page has been listed on the the open directory project, which says:

We care a great deal about the quality of the ODP. We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted.

Perhaps that counts for something as well. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not correct with respect to the jurisdiction of WP:RS. Additionally, WP:EL. There is widespread agreement that people should not link to their own website, to the point that I am proposing it to WP:EL right now. Hipocrite 16:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting something, I was not the one who originally inserted the link here. It was someone else who put the link here. Even then, it isn't clear why your objection would hold true (confer the genetic fallacy, what difference does it make who adds the link as long as it's valid?).

If I am not correct in my interpretation of WP:RS, please quote a section from it that supports your point regarding the standards of what web links to include. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Then your objection against the inclusion of this link is groundless. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Hipocrite. There has to be a compelling reason to include any link which is not a cited source because Wikiepdia is not a link farm and certainly not a search engine optimisation mechanism. I see nothing controversial in removing this link. I suggest you go and get on with that encyclopaedia we're all supposed to be working on. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Beware that I can make the same sort of statements. I see nothing controversial in letting this link stay. I suggest you go and get on with that encyclopaedia we're all supposed to be working on. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm true, but I never said otherwise. The user who initially put the link here obviously thought it was useful. I think it is useful because it clearly and neatly explains the ontological argument and its various aspects, including the modal ontological argument in symbolic logic form (which is not presented in the other links as far as I know) to establish deductive validity. The user who removed it did so after a dispute we had and as soon as he found out that I had a link here. The motives are questionable, as are the reasons to remove it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This argument is flawed as most users here have not had any dealing with you and still agree that the link is/could be original research and should not be cited as an outside source. If you feel so strongly that the material on that page is well sourced and NPOV then write it into the wikipedia article. At least then those that disagree can edit the information. In the present form only you have control over the information on that cited page and this is why it is a bad source. This is not personal it is just obvious. I am sure there are many other links like this in wikipedia but that does not set a precident for this link. It just means there are many other links in wikipedia that need to be removed. David D. (Talk) 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To the very least, the overwhelming majority of the web page contains no original research. Also, let's not forget that the Wikipedia policy on original research applies to Wikipedia articles, nowhere is it said that it applies to web links. Otherwise, a number of good links would have to be removed (even though I don't think they should be removed). --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In my mind it does not matter if it is not original research. It COULD be original research and this is a bad precident for wikipedia. Even if it is not original research the page could be propagating misconceptions. They are prevalent on the web. For these reasons I would not agree to similar links in other pages either. David D. (Talk) 05:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is not original research? Well, any web link COULD have original research (and remember what I said about this Wikipedia policy seeming not to apply to web links), and any link COULD be propagating misconceptions; so again this does not seem any reason to single out this link for removal. It would perhaps be different, of course, if you could actually show something wrong with the web page. If unsupported allegations and unfounded conjectures of "coulds" and "maybes" were enough, this would rule out virtually any acceptable link. So far, it appears the user was reasonable and correct to include the web page in the list of web links. It contains a good deal of useful information on the topic at hand. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As any reference librarian will tell you, a page listed on the angelfire.com personal webspace isn't likely to be considered a viable source. Excluding them as a general rule is similar to excluding blogs as sources of information external to the blogs themselves. --ScienceApologist 06:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So now your argument is to discriminate based on the company that hosts a given website? I think you should read up on the genetic fallacy. Besides, I hardly think that having a different company host the web page would change your views if I was still the author. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade you make two points, first:

"It would perhaps be different, of course, if you could actually show something wrong with the web page."

This is irrelevent to the argument this is a debate about whether wikipedia should be linking to personal web pages NOT whether they are any good. of course some might be good. As i mentioned above I am in no poition to judge your web page, my comments are based on common sense. I have seen more web pages with factualy incorrect information than not. So it makes sense to exclude them. Second you comment:

"If unsupported allegations and unfounded conjectures of "coulds" and "maybes" were enough, this would rule out virtually any acceptable link."

You have got it in one. Just how many url's are there in the encylopedia britannica? There are plenty of good verifiable hard copy sources. Let's use them. Using google and linking to pages that look OK is a lazy way to write an encylopedia. David D. (Talk) 06:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's think about this: what makes it a personal web page (I suggest you define it)? The web page is not about a person, it is merely written by a person. Many web pages happen to be written by people. Additionally, "I have seen more web pages with factualy [sic] incorrect information than not. So it makes sense to exclude them." Then why single out mine? You make it seem as if external links should never be used, and there seems to be no good reason to single out mine. The user who added the web page thought it was useful, and there seems to be no reason to think why not. It has features the other web pages lack (such as an introduction to the modal ontological argument in symbolic logic form in such a way that the layperson can easily understand). I would suggest a replacement such as this one, but it incorrectly parses modal modus tollens and does not explain the symbols. Perhaps worse, the web page is written by a person. But since that person is not me perhaps ScienceApologist would not object in having it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you understand me perfectly. No web pages especially if written by a person. You could cite peer reviewed literature and articles couldn't you? You keep saying that your page is not original research so where did you get the information? A book? Another web page? Did you use more than one source? I don't see why you have a problem with this? And just because a web page has edu at the end does not make it any more reliabl;e. Not to mention that such pages often disappear depending on when courses are being taught. Finally i am not picking on your page. I was responding to the request for comment. If you don't like my comment that's fine, but don't be silly and make this out to be some kind of witchhunt. David D. (Talk) 09:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"It sounds like you understand me perfectly. No web pages especially if written by a person." If so, then you should campaign to remove all external links from Wikipedia. As it stands however, it is permissible to have a list of external links in Wikipedia. And there doesn't seem to be any good reason to single out mine. ScienceApologist only removed the link after we had a dispute and after he found out that I was the author. This individual has justified the removal with some very spurious reasoning. For instance, it just seems so terribly arbitrary that a web link is to be rejected based on the number of people who own the website. Thus, I was hoping for the RfC to help introduce a little reason and sanity here.

Where did I get my information for the web page? A number of books, articles, and one formal proof I found on a philosophy teacher's web page (with the parsing of modal modus tollens corrected). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you didn't get comments that were to your liking. I would recommend you cite the books and articles since they are a known quantity. I would note they too could have flawed arguments but they are more reliable than any web site. Again , sorry i cannot give you the 'sane' answer for which you were searching. David D. (Talk) 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The question was whether or not to include a particular web page on the list of external links. One must admit that a response like "Destroy all external links!" seems a bit extreme and not very helpful when it comes to why (and if) we should single out this particular link for removal. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote to illustrate why Wade's website should not be a source from WP:RS:

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

--ScienceApologist 06:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But again, it is not a personal website. The web page is not about a person, it is merely written by a person. In the context of WP:VANITY merely being written by a person does not make it a personal web page. Many web pages happen to be written by people. And again, WP:RS applies to general citations in Wikpedia articles; it says nothing about the standard external web links. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal website != website about a person. Personal website = website owned exclusively by a single person under a personal host domain. --ScienceApologist 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Define "personal host domain." That the web page is owned by a person seems to make little sense in disqualifying a link (e.g. I still think Raul Corazzon's web page is a very good resource for researchers). It would be like blacklisting a business because it is a proprietorship. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum Is it just me or does it seem terribly arbitrary to remove a web link based on the number of people who own the website? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

a personal host domain is a domain devoted to providing webpages to persons who want to have their own space for publishing on the internet. E.g. angelfire. --ScienceApologist 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, any company that provides services in hosting a website for individuals is a "personal host domain." If this were true for a web page, and if the web page was merely written by a person, then under these criteria you've mentioned it cannot be listed on the external web links. Such criteria seem arbitrary at best and would unnecessarily bar some quality web links (e.g. Raul Corazzon's web page). --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cult of the Infinite Mystery of the Banana (and other absurd references)

Following the debate about link removal (above), I checked out all the external links in this article. The three bottom links (as at the time of writing) range from the unreliable to the absurd. One of them actually had the page title "Cult of the Infinite Mystery of the Banana" (plus no content worth mentioning, of course). I have therefore decided to cut out all three links as well (and replace them with a couple of better ones I found to compensate). Caravaca 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding the "Banana Cult" one, but I see no reason to remove the others. I've put them back in. Perhaps you can come up with a good reason for their removal? --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade, the reason you want the other two back is because one of them references you again. The reason for removing the two further ones is that they also fall under unreliable sources (see WP:RS). Please do not start edit wars. If you know anything about the literature for ontological arguments, you know perfectly well that those links fell far under the bar for a medium-sized encylopedia article. Anyone looking over the edit history for this article will also spot that I've spent a lot of time going over the references and footnotes in this article in detail, bringing them gradually up to academic standard and without referring (even indirectly) to a single idea of my own ever. I haven't exactly seen you contributing selflessly. Caravaca 05:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the reason I wanted them back. I thought they were good sources. This link for instance seems quite useful for researchers. You claim they are unreliable sources. Okay, let's talk about that. What makes them unreliable? You have not explained.

I have contributed a number of times to Wikipedia, such as resolving a dispute regarding the size of the Death Star. I’ve also helped to do away with a few straw men in intelligent design and the second law of thermodynamics. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the Cult of the Infinite Mystery of the Banana. If you had taken time to read instead of taking a holier-than-thou attitude and dismissing the site because of the somewhat eccentric title, you might have noticed that there is a transcription of philosopher Colin McGinn's description an discussion of, guess what? The Ontological Argument.

This transcription (from the Jonathan Miller TV Series The Atheism Tapes) is a good summary from a serious contemporary thinker, and as such is a valuabe resource. I suspect that should I add the link, you will remove it again, so I present you with the opportunity to correct your own error. Here's a link. Libraryjuice 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Much of this article is original research, without attribution of many of the various counter-arguments and analysis to anyone in particular. These counter-arguments and analysis need to be cited or removed. -- noosphere 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and will check back in a few months to be sure that it has. Otherwise, I will remove them myself.

These philosophers were great men, and it is foolish for us to simply assume that we can just come up with objections against them- especially without devoting even a fraction of the time they did to solve it. Unless you actually find objections and correctly state them, you will end up with nonsense like this: "Nonexistence is boundless, timeless, omnipresent, simple" NO, non-existense is NOT omnipresent or boundless because space itself implies existence of SOMETHING- even vacuums, etc, are a product of existence: they exist. But I start to ramble.

The point is, if you;'re going to have a good objection- especially considering this is an encyclopedia- you'd best just attribute it to an actual philosopher.

Equivocation

I can prove a unicorn has one horn. That really means "If I imagine a unicorn, I must imagine that it has one horn". For God, the argument proves "if I imagine a God, I must imagine that it exists".

God may exist in this sense (have existence as a property) without existing in the sense of being real. And I know this isn't original with me. Can anyone find a source for it? Ken Arromdee 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV stuff on non-existence

Have removed "a statement which is rejected as patent nonsense." as it is unsubstantiated; it is the view of the writer, unless recognised philosophical discussion on this point can be referenced. mr_happyhour 30 Apr 2006

Problematic Section

I deleted the following section.

It can be argued that nonexistence is greater and more perfect than existence. The elements of existence are asymmetric and interact because of their imperfections. If they were perfect they would be static. Nonexistence is boundless, timeless, omnipresent, simple, etc. Existence is defined by its limitations. Furthermore, for any number of things that exist, one can imagine twice as many that do not exist, or the set of all sets of them, etc.

First of all, the elements of existence are asymmetric? According to who? Things interact because of their imperfections? What? Does perfection have to be static? I can conceive of a perfectly changing perfect thing, at least in the abstract. Nonexistence is nothing by definition and can not be either timeless nor omnipresent nor simple, nor anything else for that matter. Who defines existence by its limitations? Existence can be infinite. And I'm pretty sure one can not imagine anything that does not exist, as if you can imagine it it at least exists as an idea. I know various philosophers have argued otherwise, but these conclusions need cites from reputable philosophers if they are to be reinserted. Roy Brumback 09:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Anselm and reason

One of the most important thing about Anselm, from a historical point of view, is not his proof, per se. Rather, it is the way he used reason, or perhaps I should say, the way he understood the capacity of reason.

Note that in Proslogium Anselm repeatedly writes that something is better than something else. In order for his to think that one thing is better than another, it must be true that he has a capacity to compare things. Thus, when Anselm says that God is "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived," we can consider not only the content of the claim but the capacity implied in order to make such a claim.

In Anselm's way of seeing things, this comparative faculty is crucial. It is, if I can use a simile, like a ladder: by comparing things, seeing one thing as better than another, one begins a process that ultimately leads toward God. Since God can be thought of as the best, or the most perfect, the means by which we understand (this comparative faculty) is the means by which one understands both the world and God.

I do not have, at hand, a resource that affirms this to be true--but surely someone does. And, surely, this is an important idea, as regards Anselm's argument.Dr. Davidson 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mathematical form"

Recent addition by anon:

(A being with all perfections) is equal to (a being that exists[A being that possess existance]).

This is not true, unless you accept that I am a being with all perfections. If what is being said is that "if a being has all perfections then that being exists", it is (arguably) true, but that's not what "is equal to" means.

In a similar way, we can replace the variables with other nouns. This form works for things other than God.

(Rabbit) is equal to (a being with hair).

(A being with hair) is equal to (a being that flies.)

Therefore, (Rabbit) is equal to (a being that flies.)

The reason that the Rabbit example doesn't make sense is because you must accept all of the terms (A,B,and C) as true before the argument makes sense.

This seems to be a confused expression of the difference between a valid argument and a sound one. The example is not sound, but it is valid. It isn't at all clear what "makes sense" means - "is sound", probably.

People usually accept the B and C parts of the Ontological argument with regards to God because it makes sense.

Unlike this sentence. "People usually accept" that a supremely perfect being must exist and therefore God exists? Really? Where's the proof?

--ajn (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Response to Mathematical Form"

The idea of a sound argument is semantics, but I'm willing to accept your criticism. The statement should probably say "is sound" rather than "makes sense."

The idea is that the Ontological argument is NOT sound. The Mathematical Form is a criticism of the Ontological argument expressed through mathematical logic.

The final statement should probably go something more like "People who accept the Ontological argument probably except it because they are willing to accept that B and C are true, not because the argument itself is sound."

It is your criticism of the ontological argument, and therefore original research. Don't put it back into the article again. --ajn (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article appears to ignore the fundamental problems with this section

The use of logic to justify belief in God is a reasonable act. That God is justifiable by logic is an incorrect assumption. I have never met anyone who could sustain an argument about proof of God's existence or non-existence. That this page is not linked strongly to one entitled "Belief versus Objectivity" is harm to our children who may read this.

In my review of this article I found it biased towards BELIEF.

That BELIEF is ANTITHETICAL to SCIENCE should be obvious to a scientist .

That logic is not infallible has been proved by logic ("This statement is false."), but is besides the point of God's existence.

There is no room in an encyclopedia, a SCIENTIFIC endeavor, for BELIEF.

Xchanter 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter