A question concerning the ontological argument

[Kilbourne]

Regarding creation ex nihilo, it is my understanding that it just refers to God’s creation out of no pre-existing stuff.

 

[belorg]

It is absurd because it contradicts the definition of God as TTWNGCBT.

And what if that definition is absurd?

 

[belorg]

Regarding creation ex nihilo, it is my understanding that it just refers to God’s creation out of no pre-existing stuff.

Which is absurd.

 

[Kilbourne]

And what if that definition is absurd?

That is, IMHO, the only way to attack the argument in whatever form.

But then you would have to demonstrate why TTWNGCBT entails a contradiction or is incoherent.

 

[Kilbourne]

But note the implications of this. If the definition of God as TTWNGCBT makes sense (is conceivable), then God must exist. Either the idea of God makes sense and He exists necessarily, or the idea of God is nonsensical and his existence is impossible (just like a round square).

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have also lots of porblems with premise 2. I have no idea what “beings” can be thought of or not. I also happen to think that a being who can create soemthing from nothing is nonsense since I happen to belivee that ex nihilo nihil fit

Your argument ex nihilo nihil fit only works to disprove God if you define God as “nothing.”

From nothing, nothing comes eliminates God only if it means the same as “From God, nothing comes.”

That God brings into being things that previously did not exist is not the same claim as “From God (or nothing), nothing comes.”

Actually, in order for you to believe the Big Bang came from nothing you would have to believe ex nihilo nihil fit.

The theist does not assert that at all, but that all “things” came to be because of the creative power of God, who is not "nothing,’ but, instead, the source of everything that exists, which is an adequate translation for TTWNGCE or TTWNGCBT

 

[belorg]

But note the implications of this. If the definition of God as TTWNGCBT makes sense (is conceivable), then God must exist. Either the idea of God makes sense and He exists necessarily, or the idea of God is nonsensical and his existence is impossible (just like a round square).

“Making sense” and “being conceivable” are not exactly the same, Kilbourne.
The correct way of saying this would be, “If the definition of God as TTWNGCBT entails no contradiction whatsoever, then God exists necessarily”
The problem is: the concept of God is too ill-defined for us to be able to know whether it entails contradictions or not. It is, as yet, impossible to know exectly what “TTWNGCBT” entails. Until we do know that, the OA is utterly useless.

 

[belorg]

Your argument ex nihilo nihil fit only works to disprove God if you define God as “nothing.”

From nothing, nothing comes eliminates God only if it means the same as “From God, nothing comes.”

That God brings into being things that previously did not exist is not the same claim as “From God (or nothing), nothing comes.”

The claim is not that the universe is “from God”, that would be “creatio ex deo”. Creatio ex deo is logically possible, but has lots of unwanted consequences for Christian theism.

Actually, in order for you to believe the Big Bang came from nothing you would have to believe ex nihilo nihil fit.

I don’t believe the BB came from nothing.

The theist does not assert that at all, but that all “things” came to be because of the creative power of God, who is not "nothing,’ but, instead, the source of everything that exists, which is an adequate translation for TTWNGCE or TTWNGCBT

That’s creatio ex deo, Peter. The classic theist’s claim is that God created ex nihilo.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The claim is not that the universe is “from God”, that would be “creatio ex deo”. Creatio ex deo is logically possible, but has lots of unwanted consequences for Christian theism.

I don’t believe the BB came from nothing.

That’s creatio ex deo, Peter. The classic theist’s claim is that God created ex nihilo.

Are you saying that the classic theist claim means that God himself was “nothing,” as implied by “from nothing nothing comes?”

I think you are abusing logic, here.

The classic theist’s claim is that God (perfect everything) created the universe (something) where nothing existed before. This is consistent with Big Bang cosmology, but does not mean anything like, “from nothing came everything.” That would be your skewed rendering of the claim.

 

[Ghosty]

I’ve mentioned this in other threads on the topic, but it fits here as well I think. One major problem with Anselm’s argument is that it’s based on things that can be thought of, but the truly “greatest possible being” would be beyond conception. So the greatest being that can be thought of would not be anywhere near God. Since God transcends all possible conception and thought, any argument based on conceiving of God automatically fails.

Any being that could create the universe, that is the root of all existence, would necessarily be beyond the capabilities of any created being to properly conceive of. Any thought of God that we have in our minds is automatically less than God, and not only because it is a “mental reality” as opposed to an “actual reality”, but because a “being that is its own being” is beyond composition, and any mental construct in the human mind is a composition by definition. Whatever it is that can be conceived of as “the greatest being that can be thought of”, it’s not a “being that is its own being”, not truly infinite, not simple and beyond composition, and that is the only kind of being that could be called God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[fred_conty]

I’ve mentioned this in other threads on the topic, but it fits here as well I think. One major problem with Anselm’s argument is that it’s based on things that can be thought of, but the truly “greatest possible being” would be beyond conception. So the greatest being that can be thought of would not be anywhere near God. Since God transcends all possible conception and thought, any argument based on conceiving of God automatically fails.

Any being that could create the universe, that is the root of all existence, would necessarily be beyond the capabilities of any created being to properly conceive of. Any thought of God that we have in our minds is automatically less than God, and not only because it is a “mental reality” as opposed to an “actual reality”, but because a “being that is its own being” is beyond composition, and any mental construct in the human mind is a composition by definition. Whatever it is that can be conceived of as “the greatest being that can be thought of”, it’s not a “being that is its own being”, not truly infinite, not simple and beyond composition, and that is the only kind of being that could be called God.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

There is also this. If I think of a mirror in my mind which has its own existence in my mind, this mirror is not the same mirror that exists in reality outside my mind. They both have their own unique existence and have different identities because of the places they exist. So one is not the other, but they are two distinct realities.

So the interior thought of TTWNGCBT is not the same as the exterior being of TTWNGCBT since they each have a separate existence and one is not the other. So since the reality of TTWNGCBT does not exist in the mind, then it is incorrect to say so.

 

[Kilbourne]

“Making sense” and “being conceivable” are not exactly the same, Kilbourne.
The correct way of saying this would be, “If the definition of God as TTWNGCBT entails no contradiction whatsoever, then God exists necessarily”
The problem is: the concept of God is too ill-defined for us to be able to know whether it entails contradictions or not. It is, as yet, impossible to know exectly what “TTWNGCBT” entails. Until we do know that, the OA is utterly useless.

Hey belorg,

Any definition of deity is necessarily of the utmost abstractness. Maybe that’s why you find it “ill-defined”? What better definition would you recommend?

Kilbourne

 

[Kilbourne]

I’ve mentioned this in other threads on the topic, but it fits here as well I think. One major problem with Anselm’s argument is that it’s based on things that can be thought of, but the truly “greatest possible being” would be beyond conception. So the greatest being that can be thought of would not be anywhere near God. Since God transcends all possible conception and thought, any argument based on conceiving of God automatically fails.

Any being that could create the universe, that is the root of all existence, would necessarily be beyond the capabilities of any created being to properly conceive of. Any thought of God that we have in our minds is automatically less than God, and not only because it is a “mental reality” as opposed to an “actual reality”, but because a “being that is its own being” is beyond composition, and any mental construct in the human mind is a composition by definition. Whatever it is that can be conceived of as “the greatest being that can be thought of”, it’s not a “being that is its own being”, not truly infinite, not simple and beyond composition, and that is the only kind of being that could be called God.

Peace and God bless!

Hey Ghosty,

As Fr. Robert Barron has pointed out in one of his lectures (“The Very Strange God of Anselm”), even Anselm recognized that God is beyond conception. I am paraphrasing, but he said something like, “God is not only TTWNGCBC, he is also greater than I can conceive.” Even though our conceptions of Him will always fall short (we will never completely capture God in our thoughts), that doesn’t mean we can’t think about Him in a meaningful way. But it is the via negativa. Ultimately, we are left with “God is not that,” or “God is greater than that.”

 

[Kilbourne]

Ghosty,

There is also this. If I think of a mirror in my mind which has its own existence in my mind, this mirror is not the same mirror that exists in reality outside my mind. They both have their own unique existence and have different identities because of the places they exist. So one is not the other, but they are two distinct realities.

So the interior thought of TTWNGCBT is not the same as the exterior being of TTWNGCBT since they each have a separate existence and one is not the other. So since the reality of TTWNGCBT does not exist in the mind, then it is incorrect to say so.

Hey Fred,

The total reality of God does not exist in the mind of man as a datum of consciousness. But we do grasp small, finite aspects of Him, and those exist in our mind. TTWnGCBT is is a highly general and abstract attribute of God that we can understand, not in its specificity and concreteness, but as a metaphysical truth.

 

[Ghosty]

Hey Ghosty,

As Fr. Robert Barron has pointed out in one of his lectures (“The Very Strange God of Anselm”), even Anselm recognized that God is beyond conception. I am paraphrasing, but he said something like, “God is not only TTWNGCBC, he is also greater than I can conceive.” Even though our conceptions of Him will always fall short (we will never completely capture God in our thoughts), that doesn’t mean we can’t think about Him in a meaningful way. But it is the via negativa. Ultimately, we are left with “God is not that,” or “God is greater than that.”

The problem is that the whole proof of the Ontological Argument depends on the conception of God, and the reality of that very conception being the key element that makes it greater than the mental construct. If “the thing which nothing greater can be conceived” is less than God even when it exists in reality then its existence in reality is not proof of God. All you’ve proven is that something that is less than God must exist in reality, and that’s assuming that the Ontological Argument stands up to the other attacks, which I don’t believe it does.

Peace and God bless!

 

[belorg]

Are you saying that the classic theist claim means that God himself was “nothing,” as implied by “from nothing nothing comes?”

No, I am not.

I think you are abusing logic, here.

The classic theist’s claim is that God (perfect everything) created the universe (something) where nothing existed before. This is consistent with Big Bang cosmology, but does not mean anything like, “from nothing came everything.” That would be your skewed rendering of the claim.

The classic theist’s claim is that God is omnipresent, so there can be no ‘where nothing exists before’. So it seems to me it’s the calssic theist who is abusing logic.

 

[belorg]

Hey belorg,

Any definition of deity is necessarily of the utmost abstractness. Maybe that’s why you find it “ill-defined”? What better definition would you recommend?

Kilbourne

I don’t recommend any definition. But Anqzlm’s definition is, as you say, ‘of the utmost abstractness’, so whatever can be conceived does not bring us anywhere near a concept of God…

 

[Kilbourne]

The problem is that the whole proof of the Ontological Argument depends on the conception of God, and the reality of that very conception being the key element that makes it greater than the mental construct. If “the thing which nothing greater can be conceived” is less than God even when it exists in reality then its existence in reality is not proof of God. All you’ve proven is that something that is less than God must exist in reality, and that’s assuming that the Ontological Argument stands up to the other attacks, which I don’t believe it does.

Peace and God bless!

Mornin Ghosty,

Anselm’s definition focuses on just one divine attribute, namely His unsurpassable greatness. No theist I know denies that God is unsurpassably great, for no lesser god is worthy of worship.

So the definition, while it only addresses this one divine attribute, nevertheless makes a true statement about God. It doesn’t completely define God, but it captures one aspect of God’s nature.

And the argument proceeds to show that God’s unsurpassable greatness entails His necessary existence. This is especially explicit in the second form of the argument.

So, just because the definition doesn’t completely capture God (admittedly an impossibility), that doesn’t mean that we can’t draw conclusions about God’s other attributes from our definition.

 

[Kilbourne]

I don’t recommend any definition. But Anqzlm’s definition is, as you say, ‘of the utmost abstractness’, so whatever can be conceived does not bring us anywhere near a concept of God…

Mornin belorg,

I think Anslem’s definition is perfectly fine. It makes a positive, definite statement about God, namely that God is unsurpassably great. What is wrong with that? You seem to think there is no conception of God. You haven’t explained why that is true.

 

[belorg]

Mornin belorg,

I think Anslem’s definition is perfectly fine. It makes a positive, definite statement about God, namely that God is unsurpassably great. What is wrong with that? You seem to think there is no conception of God. You haven’t explained why that is true.

Anselms’s definition is vague. What exactly is “unsurpassably great”? Is being personal “greater” than being impersonal?
Is being “good” greater than being “evil”?

None of these questions is answered by Anselm’s definition, because
1 we do not know what “greatness” entails
2 unsurpassable “greatness” by definition means “as great as possible”. And since we have no way of knowing what is or isn’t possible, the definition is useless.