Modal Ontological Argument

[ateista]

I disagree, our perception is what it is, like a “fact”. It is only our interpretation of, or conclusions drawn from, the perception that can be correct or incorrect. Whether illusion or not, we perceive that things have occured “before”, we are “now”, and we anticipate something “after”. The limitations on our perceptions only makes them incomplete, not incorrect.

I am not sure what you mean. The future either exists, or not. If it does not exist, then it is absurd to say that it is “knowable”. If it exists, then it is knowable, but then our concept of free actions is nonsensical.

 

[davidv]

I am not sure what you mean. The future either exists, or not. If it does not exist, then it is absurd to say that it is “knowable”. If it exists, then it is knowable, but then our concept of free actions is nonsensical.

From our perspective, the future is unknowable. Does this mean there is no future? I don’t think so, unless at this instant all existance ceases. To me this means that our nature allows us to anticipate “a future” without the abiltity to know the content of that future. So, at least as a conceptual entity, “future” exists. Our everyday experience seems to support this, as “now” is yesterday’s “future”.

 

[ateista]

From our perspective, the future is unknowable. Does this mean there is no future?

If there is a future as a reality - then all the choices to be made tomorrow are already “resolved” or “made”, therefore all of our choices are illusionary.

I don’t think so, unless at this instant all existance ceases.

I have no idea where this came from.

To me this means that our nature allows us to anticipate “a future” without the abiltity to know the content of that future.

Sure.

So, at least as a conceptual entity, “future” exists.

As a conceptual entity, absolutely. But as a reality?

 

[john_doran]

The singularity is a mathematical point.

so says GR. not quantum mechanics.

what’s that line about “all we have are theories”, again? and that we’re inevitably going to learn more?

ateista:

The concepts of space and time cannot be defined within a singularity.

not true: the equations of GR stop working at the singularity, because of infinite quantities (curvature, mass, etc.). this isn’t the same thing as those variables not being definable.

ateista:

The current mathematical models are only applicable to the universe starting at a fraction of a second after the singularity changed.

right, because before that we need a theory of quantum gravity. and we don’t have one.

ateista:

Since time is not an independent variable, it makes very good sense to ask, what do you mean by “points of time”? That was the phrase you used.

i don’t think “independent” means what you think it means…

time is a dimension with extension, like space. a “point of time” is (analogously) like a “point of space”.

i don’t understand the problem.

ateista:

Well, usually I am not in the business of making predictions, but I can say with absolute certainty that we are not at the point of total knowledge - therefore I predict that our explanations of reality will change.

sure. but change isn’t necessarily the same thing as “become more accurate”.

ateista:

What do you mean by the “standard model”?

the standard model of particle physics - it’s what we call the current theory of fundamental particles and their interactions.

it is the theory of quarks, leptons, and the forces (except gravity) and their bosons (photons, gluons, W, Z).

ateista:

As for the cosmological models in general (and the Big Bang theory in particular) we can say that they only pertain to the observed part of the Universe.

ok (with the caveat that our principled inability to observe the conditions proximate to the initial singularity doesn’t prevent us from acquiring knowedge about it).

that doesn’t change the fact that it is not meaningless to talk about the duration of the initial singularity.

 

[davidv]

If there is a future as a reality - then all the choices to be made tomorrow are already “resolved” or “made”, therefore all of our choices are illusionary.

I don’t understand how the first necessitates the second. Please explain.

Edit: first “future as a reality”; second: “choices are illusionary”

 

[Hastrman]

But here is the key thing: Anselm discovered that the question of God’s existence (not presupposing anything about his attributes) boils down to only two choices. Either He exists or the very idea of God as the GCB is nonsense. Looking at the OA this way, one realizes that Anselm really made great progress in the Great Debate. There really are only two positions that make any sense. Empirical atheism and empirical theism are nonsensical positions.

No, the Ontological Argument, even as Anselm formulated it (and Descartes did it better), is so much nonsense. It opens the door to unthinking fideism, the enemy of all real religion–and makes it possible to deny that God is knowable by natural reason, which is nonsense.

The Scholastics’ argument from contingency, which Mortimer Adler has also used, and which is also used mutatis mutandem in Hinduism, is a much stronger proof.

 

[ateista]

so says GR. not quantum mechanics.

what’s that line about “all we have are theories”, again? and that we’re inevitably going to learn more?

So we have two theories where the “interpretations” differ. General relativity has been established a long time ago and has not been shown incorrect - so far. It may not be able to explain the singularity, because in the singularity the laws of physics are fundamentally different. As you said, even quantum mechanics cannot explain the singularity, we shall need something new (quantum gravity) for that.

So, all we can say that according to the best theory so far, the time within a singularity is zero.

There is another thing. Time is very problematic in many respects, it is much less understood than many aspects of reality. The equations which use time as a variable would be correct if we substituted “t” with “minus t”, so, in theory time could go in the “other diection”. It does not, and no one knows why.

Also, according to some assumptions, time is not a continuous phenomenon, it moves in discrete values, and the smallest unit of time is the Planck’s constant. If that is true, then the time will actually go down zero before we need infinite mass and curvature.

It is possible that there will be a unified theory, which will incorporate GR as a subset, and which will enable us to understand the behavior of physics within a black hole, or the singularity.

Up until that happens, the best approximation is to say that within a black hole and the singularity the “time” goes to zero.

We can speculate as much as we want, but it is just that: speculation.

ok (with the caveat that our principled inability to observe the conditions proximate to the initial singularity doesn’t prevent us from acquiring knowedge about it).

The key word here is “knowledge”. We speak of knowledge when the mental model of reality correctly reflects reality, meaning that the model allows us to make predictions about reality, and when the measurements verify that our predictions were accurate. Knowledge is not possible without an information channel, which allows observations and measurements.

To our current knowledge there is no physical phenomenon which will espace a black hole. Therefore knowledge cannot be obtained from within a black hole. That may, of course change. There may be new theories, with measurable predictions which can be verified, and then we shall be obtain knowledge about the singularity or the black holes.

Up until then we are speculating, theorizing, which is a great way to spend time, but nothing more.

 

[ateista]

I don’t understand how the first necessitates the second. Please explain.

Edit: first “future as a reality”; second: “choices are illusionary”

Ok. I need to ask one question before I go any further: “Do you think that there are choices in the past?” - meaning that the past can change? Observe: I did not say “were there choices in the past?” rather “are there choices in the past?”.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Ateista,

I sed:

Originally Posted by FrankSchnabel View Post
Our discussion on materialism arose because we were trying to clarify what the word “exist” means. We quite easily agreed that things can exist conceptually (C-existence) and physically (P-existence). We posited something we called X-existence because I, as a theist, was unwilling to say things only existed conceptually or physically.

You responded:

Yes, and we agreed that your position is worthy to be contemplated as a hypothesis. I am still at a loss of what the properties of X-existence may be, and how to gain knowledge regarding X-existence. So far I cannot see in what manner it is different from C-existence.

Well let’s first show that there is X-existence. Then we can explore its attributes if we can.

I attempted to do so by pointing out the inability of philosophical materialism to make sense of change. If all that there is is some kind of stuff, ultimately the basic building-block of space-time-matter-energy (whatever it may end up being), and nothing new is ever added, then nothing can change. But materialsts admit that change happens, and the novelty that is added over time is real.

If something must always be added as we progress from one event to the next, some novelty injected into the process in order for there to be a process at all, then it is X-existing stuff.

It also is intuitively wrong to say that, as we move from the singularity to the Big Bang to the present state of our expanding universe, that it is all explainable in terms of the original stuff that existed in the beginning.

 

[ateista]

Well let’s first show that there is X-existence. Then we can explore its attributes if we can.

I attempted to do so by pointing out the inability of philosophical materialism to make sense of change. If all that there is is some kind of stuff, ultimately the basic building-block of space-time-matter-energy (whatever it may end up being), and nothing new is ever added, then nothing can change. But materialsts admit that change happens, and the novelty that is added over time is real.

I am really not sure what are you saying here. Do you mean that we need some special X-existing entity to explain why 2 hydrogen atoms will fuse into a helium atom at the temperature and pressure in the stars? That is change. Or why the temperature difference in the atmosphere will cause air movement (wind)? Which is also a change.

It also is intuitively wrong to say that, as we move from the singularity to the Big Bang to the present state of our expanding universe, that it is all explainable in terms of the original stuff that existed in the beginning.

Unfortunately intuition can be seriously misleading - as an epistemological tool. It is great as a starting point for some new insight, but it cannot be used in the sense as you did: “intuitively A cannot explain B” (whatever A and B might be).

You have to bring up actual, specific instances of that change and show that for “this” specific reason we must take that “intuitive” leap. Why a natural event is unexplainable in natural terms. And that is where you have your work cut out for you.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

No, the Ontological Argument, even as Anselm formulated it (and Descartes did it better), is so much nonsense. It opens the door to unthinking fideism, the enemy of all real religion–and makes it possible to deny that God is knowable by natural reason, which is nonsense.

The Scholastics’ argument from contingency, which Mortimer Adler has also used, and which is also used mutatis mutandem in Hinduism, is a much stronger proof.

Hi Hastrman,

The OA, being an a priori argument, is the best example of God being knowable by natural reason. I don’t quite see how it leads to unthinking fideism. If it has any danger, it is that it leads to panentheism and not traditional theism.

Anselm’s OA has been misunderstood by both its admirers and critcs throughout the centuries. It has been refuted only in its weaker form set forth in Prosl. II. The stronger version in Prosl. III, the one which everyone misses, is a formidable proof. Check out Hartshorne’s Anselm’s Discovery for the complete rundown.

cordially
the Schnabster

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Me:

I attempted to do so by pointing out the inability of philosophical materialism to make sense of change. If all that there is is some kind of stuff, ultimately the basic building-block of space-time-matter-energy (whatever it may end up being), and nothing new is ever added, then nothing can change. But materialsts admit that change happens, and the novelty that is added over time is real.

you:

I am really not sure what are you saying here. Do you mean that we need some special X-existing entity to explain why 2 hydrogen atoms will fuse into a helium atom at the temperature and pressure in the stars? That is change. Or why the temperature difference in the atmosphere will cause air movement (wind)? Which is also a change.

Let’s go back to Democritus and his “atoms” or uncuttable, indivisible beings. Modern particle physics still holds to such a notion. From these basic, irreducible units we get all space-time-matter-energy.

So thinking at this fundamental level of reality, we can conceive of a single atom and multiple atoms. If we move from an individual atom to, say, an arrangement of thee atoms in the shape of a triangle, what do we have? Is it more than just three solitary atoms? IOW, does this arrangement present more reality than the atoms alone that make the arrangement? If so, what is this “more”? And how can there be more, if atoms are all that exist?

 

[ateista]

Let’s go back to Democritus and his “atoms” or uncuttable, indivisible beings. Modern particle physics still holds to such a notion. From these basic, irreducible units we get all space-time-matter-energy.

So thinking at this fundamental level of reality, we can conceive of a single atom and multiple atoms. If we move from an individual atom to, say, an arrangement of thee atoms in the shape of a triangle, what do we have? Is it more than just three solitary atoms? IOW, does this arrangement present more reality than the atoms alone that make the arrangement? If so, what is this “more”? And how can there be more, if atoms are all that exist?

OK. It is somewhat clearer now, but still not clear. What you talk about is “distance” and “before” or “after” (either spatially or temporally), patterns (trinagles), arrangements, and things like that. None of these are physical “objects” - but then again they are not objects at all. They do not “come” from anywhere. If there are two “atoms”, there is a distance between them. No special explanation is possible, nor it is necessary. It just “is”.

If you view six carbon atoms, they may be arranged in a flat, hexagonal shape, or at the vertices of an octahedron. These arrangements can explained with the concept of chemical bonds.

It was my impression that alleged the X-existence is not like these. It is supposed to be an “active” existence (unlike these patterns, which are inactive) which interacts with the physical world through some hitherto unspecified effectors.

 

[OTavern]

The idea of defining God as a thing particular to a hypothetical universe, as if the universe possesses a deity, would seem to fly in the face of the definition of divinity. What’s with this ‘exists in’ stuff when we’re talking about something which is supposedly greater than and different from the entirety of creation?

What about this:

God is Existence Itself
Existence, by definition, exists
Therefore, God, by definition, exists.

Two possible counter arguments:

1. Prove that God is not Existence Itself
2. Prove that existence does not exist.

 

[ateista]

What about this:

God is Existence Itself
Existence, by definition, exists
Therefore, God, by definition, exists.

Two possible counter arguments:

1. Prove that God is not Existence Itself
2. Prove that existence does not exist.

“Proof” by arbitrary “redefinition”.

Reminds me of an old British cartoon from the Punch magazine: It depicted millions of letters on a huge conveyor belt. A postal employee looks at the pile and sighs: “And all these people think that they know something that is worth to be put down on paper!”.

 

[OTavern]

“Proof” by arbitrary “redefinition”.

Reminds me of an old British cartoon from the Punch magazine: It depicted millions of letters on a huge conveyor belt. A postal employee looks at the pile and sighs: “And all these people think that they know something that is worth to be put down on paper!”.

Not arbitrary, but central.

The error of many proofs is to try to prove that God is an existing being – a being that might or might not be. The insight of the ontological argument is to bypass that error and show that God’s Being is not incidental but essential to Him. In other words, that God does not merely exist, but that He is Existence Itself.

The keystone overlooked by the builders - or by the postal employee, or even by you.

 

[Cadellin]

The side note was just that, a side note, which was directed at the second supposed attribute of God, namely “first cause”. And since the causation is only defined for individual objects and cannot be defined for collections of objects, it is meaningless to speak of the “cause” for the Universe.

If this is the case then we can consider a cause of time, as it is not a collection of objects. Can the universe exist without time? If the existence of time is necessary for the existence of the universe, then a cause of time implies a cause of the universe.

 

[OTavern]

Treating God as Existence Itself may be a way to open our understanding into something essential about existence and knowledge, generally. What is existence, exactly?

Existence is not a “thing,” that is true, but existence does define the essence of all “things.” The fact that certain things do exist bestows a certain indefinable, but verifiable “status” on them: because they ARE we can speak meaningfully about them.

We have knowledge of things to the extent that they “are.” What is it about having this ineffable standing - existence - that makes these things important in ways that non-existing things are not? To lose sight of this is to lose sight of the connection between truth and the way it is.

Existence is, first of all, the core and definition of truth. To say something is true is to say that is the way it IS. To say an idea is true is to claim that it would hold “as is” if it, or where it, exists - it is verifiable. Existence defines the truth of our understanding.

Perhaps by overlooking this we are missing a most important key to understanding – not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak. This may also work the other way: not seeing “trees” because the concept “forest” blinds us to seeing trees as they are. You might think forest and trees are redundant, but perhaps conflating the two terms, even if they are redundant, only serves to mask the lack of coherent understanding we have of both terms; even though in the end they might be identical. Perhaps the same with the terms God and existence.

Agreeing not to be parsimonious might be akin to two wise men coming to a surprising realization that they just might be looking at the same beast from two disparate perspectives, so instead of merely arguing their own viewpoint, they decide to allow the two opposite views to enlighten each other.

Applying what is “thought” to be true about God to “Existence” can reveal something about the nature of Existence; and conversely applying what we understand about existence to “God” might clarify the understanding we have of “God.” So this is not being redundant, but attempting to view the same “beast” from two different perspectives.

In the view of all serious thinkers about God, God has never been considered another “thing;” not another being in existence, but Being (I AM WHO AM) itself. To speak anything meaningful about God, we should stop speaking about God as if God merely “exists” in the same way other “things” exist, but view God as we view Existence or Be-ing itself. This would serve to highlight and clarify misconceptions about God in common parlance and philosophical discussion.

'Does God exist?" is therefore a meaningless question. A more appropriate question would be, ‘Is God Existence?’

Phrased in other – more philosophically debatable – ways the question might be: ‘Does Existence have Intelligence, Will and Concern?’ ‘Can the traits - omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnipotence - traditionally applied to God be meaningfully applied to Existence?’ ‘What evidence do we have that Existence has intention or conscious concern?’

 

[ateista]

If this is the case then we can consider a cause of time, as it is not a collection of objects. Can the universe exist without time? If the existence of time is necessary for the existence of the universe, then a cause of time implies a cause of the universe.

Time is not an independent attribute, it is not separable from the space-time-matter-energy. It is not that “time” is necessary for the universe to exist, it is that the universe has the attribute of “time”.

One could say (equally incorrectly) that “distance” is “necessary” for the universe to exist, therefore we need a “cause” for “distance”.

 

[ateista]

The error of many proofs is to try to prove that God is an existing being – a being that might or might not be. The insight of the ontological argument is to bypass that error and show that God’s Being is not incidental but essential to Him. In other words, that God does not merely exist, but that He is Existence Itself.

This “insight” is the arbitrary definition. Existence is not an “object”. Existence is not an “attribute”. One cannot speak of “existence” without specifying “what” is supposed to “exist”.

The ontological argument can be stated in its simplest form (stripping away all the “contingent” and “necessary” labels and other mumbo-jumbo - which are supposed to make it sound oh so sophisticated):

1. Let’s define God as something that must exist.
2. Therefore God exists.

Not very convincing, is it?

'Does God exist?" is therefore a meaningless question.

At last something I can agree with.