Boethius's Arguments for the existence of God

[Wesrock]

ServusDei1:

do you have good reason to believe that metaphysics make mere unfocused assertions?

Yes, it makes assertions that it can’t know to be true. Like things being perfect and imperfect. Who’s to say what’s perfect and imperfect?

Boethius’ argument presupposes acceptance of the realism of universals, imo, in which context the claim makes perfect objective sense. Boethius didn’t assume this in a vacuum, though. But I would agree that the claim that “universals are real” requires demomstration. It’s just tiresome to start from absolute scratch every topic.

If anyone thinks we can argue perfection as an objective truth apart from philosophical realism, let me know. Some have probably attempted such demonstrations in history, I’m just not familiar with them.

 

[Wesrock]

ServusDei1:

But the conclusion, the mind makes its own reality does not follow.

Like I said, people behave probabilistically, not rationalistically. If I put you in a room with three doors. And behind one of the doors was eternal paradise, and behind the other two lay a gruesome death. And I told you that the odds of paradise being behind door number one was 85%, behind door number two was 10%, and behind door number three was 5%.

Which door would you choose?

A rational person would always choose door number one. You wouldn’t expect them to choose door number one 85% of the time, and number two 10% of the time, and number three 5% of the time. Each individual should make the rational choice, 100% of the time. The results wouldn’t be probabilistic, they would be rationalistic.

But people don’t behave rationally, they behave probabilistically. They make irrational choices.

Think of it like an electron in the double slit experiment. If we pass it through the slits we have no idea where it will end up. It might appear at first as if the particle had free will. As if it chose of its own volition where to go. It’s only when we pass a great deal of particles through the slits that the true nature of the particles behavior emerges. It’s behaving probabilistically. It doesn’t have free will at all.

The same thing holds true for the behavior of people. When you look at them individually, they appear to have free will, but when you look at them collectively, they’re not behaving rationally as one would expect, they’re behaving as if their behavior is probabilistic not rationalistic.

People act like electrons, with a semblance of free will, but not actual free will. They simply don’t behave like rational people should behave.

So by your standards, I should assume there’s no actual rationality to the argument in this post? (Or any other argument, for that matter?)

 

[IWantGod]

It’s imperfect only if your goal is to create a perfect triangle.

Are you saying there is such a thing as a perfect triangle?

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

Also, if i draw a triangle sloppily, am i not correct to say that it is an imperfect triangle? Is that completely subjective?

It’s imperfect only if your goal is to create a perfect triangle. You, along with the rest of humanity, have collectively decided what a perfect triangle looks like. You’ve given it a nice neat clinical definition and everything. But it’s a definition that you created, and only through that self-created definition can you distinguish something as being perfect or imperfect.

And this is a metaphysical claim of anti-realism towards universals, either conceptualism or nominalism. If you’re against metaphysics and wish to be the ultimate skeptic you should avoid any positive claim.

 

[IWantGod]

You, along with the rest of humanity, have collectively decided what a perfect triangle looks like.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case, or are you going to bore me with more assertions.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I guess it is irrational if the point is to avoid suffering, but that sounds a bit subjective.

 

[Wesrock]

The easy part about being a skeptic is you can just question everything and throw out assertions without needing to put any thought into it

 

[Gorgias]

Perfect and imperfect are subjective terms, so yes, from an objective standpoint, the terms are meaningless.

You’re either being careless or haven’t given this much thought, I’m afraid. In fact, ‘perfect’ – that is, in accord with an ideal or definition – is something that is not only often objective, but also empirically measurable!

Here’s just one counter-example that refutes your assertion: imagine a circular or spherical object. One can easily measure its dimensions and find that it is, in fact, not perfectly circular or spherical.

For one, why are you characterizing order as being more perfect than disorder?

As long as there’s movement between the two, then there is – by necessity – movement between ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ states! So, it doesn’t really matter if you’re a bigger fan of ‘disorder’ than ‘order’ – as entities move from one to the other, we see that there’s at least a state that was (or now is) more preferable, and therefore, closer to the ideal!

The second problem is, what exactly is perfect order? Information theory says that perfect order equals nothing. So if the universe arose out of perfect order, then it arose out of nothing.

Wow. Just… wow.

First of all, what do you mean by saying “perfect order equals nothing”? I suspect that what you really mean – perhaps without realizing it? – is that there is no information stored in a homogenous system. (After all, if your USB drive is filled with bits set to ‘zero’, you might make the claim that “there’s nothing there”. (Even that would be erroneous, though: it represents a particular value – the value zero – which is, itself, information!)

Moreover, equating the storage of information in information systems with the state of the universe is ludicrous. Just by virtue of the fact that the Big Bang happened, we know that the state wasn’t homogenous, and therefore, we weren’t in a state in which there was no information present. So, no… you’re mistaken when you call the nanosecond after the Big Bang ‘perfect’ and ‘information-free’.

So if the universe arose out of perfect order, then it arose out of nothing.

By the way… you realize that Christianity asserts that God created the universe “ex nihilo” – that is, “from nothing” – don’t you?

Without disorder, you don’t have God, you have nothing.

Oh, my… now you’ve really stepped in it! Christians don’t assert that God is part of the created order. Therefore, you can’t look at ‘creation’ – or, prior to its coming into existence, ‘nothing created’ – and make the statement that God doesn’t exist!

(I sincerely hope you aren’t suffering under the misconception that Christians believe that God is some grey-beared man in the sky, are you?)

 

[Gorgias]

Now you’ve fallen into the same trap, you’re making an assumption, that the universe hasn’t always existed.

And… you can prove that, one way or the other, right?

Actually, what I wrote does hold up to scrutiny. All science can tell us is that our universe came into being at the Big Bang. (They cannot tell us what was – or wasn’t! – present prior to that event.) . And therefore, what I’ve stated isn’t an ‘assumption’ – it’s what we can know!

From your perspective it hasn’t, but you must always keep in mind that your perspective could, and probably is, wrong.

“Probably is wrong”? I’d love to hear your argument for that assertion. My intuition is that it’s somewhat more than probably wrong.

There doesn’t have to be a first cause. That’s just another example of a metaphysical argument based upon an unsubstantiated assumption.

OK… I’m game – and I asked for you to substantiate your claims, so here’s your chance! Please… tell me why there doesn’t have to be a first cause?

Once you remove their assumptions, all metaphysical arguments fall apart.

A couple of thoughts:

• All logical arguments have assumptions.
• An assumption isn’t, a priori, ‘wrong’, just because it’s an assumption.
• Aren’t you violating your own basic rule (“never assume what you perceive to be true… is true”)?

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry folks, I’ve got to go. So many questions, so little time. Bummer

Sorry you cannot – or will not? – attempt to substantiate your claims. So many unsubstantiated claims, so little time. Bummer.

As the old joke goes: what’s the difference between ‘agnostic’ and ‘apathetic’? I don’t know and I don’t care.

 

[STT]

The Existence of Imperfection Humans never truly encounter “perfection”. If, through some advanced technology, we were able to create a perfectly straight line, we would be viewing an image of perfection and not perfection itself; however, the fact that we are able to recognize imperfection in our world implies that there must be some ultimate perfection against which we are comparing everything to. Plainly put, “anything that is imperfect is imperfect because it is lacking in some way and falls short of perfection” (III,10, pg 86). The existence of imperfection presupposes the existence of perfection. We can identify imperfection only because we possess the knowledge that there is a full, perfect version of this thing. Not only must there be perfection then, but there also must be an ultimate perfection, to which all else is imperfect in juxtaposition. Anything that is lacking in perfection is thus inferior to something else that is more perfect and so on, until the ultimate perfection is reached. The ultimate perfection, compared to which all else is deficient in our world, is God, and it is because we recognize the presence of Him that we are able to identify imperfections as imperfect.

You need to show that there exist only one ultimate perfection, otherwise everything has potential to become perfect/God.

Nature is Ordered. Boethius proceeds to justify his argument that God must, in fact, exist by identifying Him as the being or force that is responsible for creating and maintaining the world. He suggests that the world, rife with natural tensions and differing parts, would not have been able to come together, and remain together, without a being or force that was able to unify it all. Boethius states, “This world would never have coalesced into one form out of such diverse and antagonistic parts had there not been one who could unify such diversity” (III, xii, pg 79). The extremely fixed order of nature, with its many systems that often oppose each other yet are somehow able to coexist, could not subsist unless there were some being who was able to regulate everything. Without some sort of glue to hold the universe together, the diverse elements of nature would tear each other apart, and creation would not be able to remain in such an orderly motion. Yet, we continually witness the seasons come with regularity, snowy winters are tempered by heated summers, and the earth continues to rotate on its axis. The extreme regularity and orderly coexistence of natural elements, which are inherently in opposition with each other, are proof that there must be some powerful force or being that is able to maintain them. This being is called “God”.

That could be god/gods too.

 

[ServusDei1]

Have you read the summa theologiae? I think it would answer your objections. Good luck!

 

[ServusDei1]

Sorry, didn’t press the reply button.

 

[Gorgias]

It comes from the fact that I’m rational and you’re not.

Sketchy. How do you know that you’re rational? Moreover, how do you know that others are not? Especially if you don’t know if they really exist – which would imply that they’re simply projections of your own imagination – why would you project interlocutors who are irrational? Wouldn’t it make more sense – if you were the only existence and you were rational – to create projections who were likewise rational? What would it say about you (and your rationality) if the projections you created in order to enter into dialogue were themselves irrational? (I mean… why bother, if your projections are irrational? Why bother creating straw men… if you, yourself, were rational?)

when I said that you’re irrational I’m talking about humanity in general

You don’t know that humanity exists. Therefore, at best, you’re open to the possibility that ‘humanity’ is really just ‘projections of your own mind.’ Why would your mind create irrationality to debate with yourself?

Folks, @oldnskeptical seems to have disappeared into the ether. Apparently, in tune with his solipsistic theories, he was only a construct of our individual minds.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m sincerely hoping that you don’t expect anyone to take these arguments seriously. Because they make the same fundamental mistakes that all metaphysical arguments make. They begin by making assumptions, and then deduce from those assumptions a conclusion that the assumptions were designed to produce in the first place.

So as arguments for the existence of God they’re pretty much worthless. But as arguments for the uselessness of metaphysics they’re priceless.

You’ve just described the feature of every deductive argument ever proposed. The “assumptions” you speak of are called premises in deductive logic, and the point of deductive logic is that conclusions are deduced from those assumptions… ah… premises.

So, the – according to you – “uselessness” of metaphysics, must apply ceteris paribus across all areas of philosophy, logic, and the very ability of human beings to reason effectively.

Congratulations, you have entered the illogic zone of post-modernism, where not a word YOU speak can be believed since every point YOU make depends upon YOUR own assumptions, which as YOU have pointed out, are “pretty much worthless.”

Why even bother to post since your own thoughts, likewise, suffer from “uselessness” according to your own ‘enlightened’ position.

 

[Gorgias]

For example, would it be correct to refer to a circle as an imperfect triangle? Would it be correct to refer to a square as an imperfect triangle?

It depends on the intent of the builder, doesn’t it? If s/he intended to build a circle or a square, but it ended up having three sides, then I would say that it’s an “imperfect circle” or “imperfect square”, right?

If not, then at what point is it correct to refer to something as an imperfect triangle?

At the point that it was intended to be a triangle, but it failed to be instantiated as such?

When is it correct to refer to something as being an imperfect example of something else?

Never, per se. A thing is an imperfect instantiation of what it is intended to be, not an imperfect instantiation of a different thing.

 

[STT]

You mean this: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm?

 

[IWantGod]

That’s an interesting question. If I should attempt to draw a triangle, but due to my extreme ineptitude I actually draw a circle, is it a circle,

It’s a circle, but due to your ineptitude you thought a circle was a triangle. It certainly isn’t an imperfect triangle, but it might be an imperfectly drawn circle.

 

[IWantGod]

Which would leave one with a conundrum, because it would mean that there’s no such thing as a triangle at all.

But there is such a thing as a triangle and a square and a circle, and if someone were to draw one as defined, then that would be to draw one perfectly. And if someone draws one sloppily we can still discern what they have drawn by it’s general shape and we can reasonably claim that it was an imperfect instantiation. So your argument must be wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

I would agree that there’s the concept of a perfect triangle, but I would also point out that the known laws governing our reality make the creation of such a perfect triangle impossible.

I think Boethius somewhat agrees with this statement. But in strictly mathematical terms there is such a thing as a perfect triangle. It has a real definition and you can hardly claim it to be arbitrary. And yes, we can try to draw one perfectly and fall short of that goal.

But if I draw an oval, how do you know if it’s an oval, or an imperfect instantiation of a circle? How do you know the difference? How do you know if it’s exactly what it’s supposed to be, or simply an imperfect instantiation of something it isn’t?

I admit that this can be difficult to discern, but i disagree that this works as a refutation, because one would have to say there is no such thing as a triangle or a circle or a square. But there clearly is such a thing.