My discussion of the Ontological Argument

[Dameedna]

I’m still stuck on the “necessary” being part.

Why is something necessary? This whole debate has alway’s spun my head in circles, but I presume that some day if I keep reading about it, I’ll “get” it.

 

[Dameedna]

Even the concept of the Trinity is infinitely different from the reality that is God. IMO, the revelation of the Trinity is an accomodation. For the Trinity to be unveiled in human language in all its infinite glory would be impossible. So here too there is an infinite gap between our concept and the reality it yearns towards. I believe this is recognized in the West, with the Trinity being recognized as a mystery not only in the sense of it being necessary to be revealed (contra Anselm) but also in the sense of its reality infinitely surpassing human understanding and comprehension. In other words, I believe in the West it is recognized that there is more to the Trinity that we do NOT know than that we do know and that in fact there is infinitely more to it that we do NOT know than that we do know.

That the trinity exists at all, is an assumption. Claiming something as real, then claiming it doesn’t make sense because it is beyond our comprehension sounds a little like hedging your bets.

Trusting that something has been revealed does not actually make that revelation true.

Beliefs can arise from an aspiration or inspiration in one’s heart, one’s inner being. And IMO, that is the way to convince atheists and agnostics.

Nope, won’t work. A desire to believe something does not mean there is anything “out there” pulling us toward it.

A desire, is nothing more than simply that. A desire. A desire to believe, does not make God real, so that argument, if I’m understanding it correctly won’t ever work with an athiest.

Why don’t people spend a bit more time trying to understand athiests, instead of trying to change them? Why do you need some desperately for them to believe what you believe? It isn’t because you want them to go to heaven because that is already a possibility. So why?

I come to these forums, with the hope that I will actually learn something and often I do, but I get perpetually frustrated at the lack of understanding of athiests. I should make a post about it…lol!!

 

[jfhh]

That the trinity exists at all, is an assumption.

Read post #14. I never said the Trinity exists or that God exists. I believe God neither exists nor nonexists. God is beyond the categories of existence and nonexistence.

In informal speech I may say otherwise, but speaking philosophically, that is what I would say. Again read post #14.

Nope, won’t work. A desire to believe something does not mean there is anything “out there” pulling us toward it.

You are using your intellect when you should be using your heart as well. You should trust your heart as much as you trust your intellect. But if you start with the assumption that only your intellect is to be trusted and set yourself up in a way that that assumption cannot be falsified – neither by your intellect nor by your heart – then of course there’s no way for me to convince you to trust and use your heart.

You see your way of life, of being is not science. It is not falsifiable. Why trust only your intellect? Your heart is as much a part of you as your intellect is. Your heart is as much a product of evolution as your intellect is.

And how would that operating assumption be falsifiable? Since you won’t accept it being falsified by your heart (ex hypothesis), for it to be falsified it would have to be falsified by your intellect. But if the source of your truth is your intellect alone then any falsification of the sole reliance on that source would undermine the strength of that source as a sole source of truth (and note all your experimental data would be mediated through your intellect). So you would have in philosophical verbiage a vicious circle of epistemic defeat.

A desire, is nothing more than simply that. A desire. A desire to believe, does not make God real, so that argument, if I’m understanding it correctly won’t ever work with an athiest.

There you go again.

You are using your intellect to evaluate what I am saying instead of using your heart. Let what I am saying speak to your heart not your intellect.

When someone listens to o say Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, they feel in their heart, beauty. And they know in their heart that beauty is present. They need not reason intellectually that beauty exists or scrutinize how beauty can be ontologically grounded in mathematical patterns in sound waves interpreted by the brain. They need only feel, not think. There’s more than one way to know, to be. When someone is in love, it is felt in the heart, known in the heart, not reasoned in the mind and known in the mind – not first anyway; the heart there comes first and the mind follows in unison. But you want to have your mind be the king and have your heart tag along or who knows what.

Why don’t people spend a bit more time trying to understand athiests, instead of trying to change them?

I believe that’s a good idea. But at the same token, I don’t see why you found what I posted offensive or why you should be afraid of change or people trying to change you. People try to change me all the time. Sometimes women ask me out, not often, but it happens Sometimes I say no. It doesn’t harm me in anyway those times I say no. I don’t see what the big deal is.

But I agree with your, if you will, spirit that we should listen to each other. And what I am proposing is that we listen not just with our intellects but also with our hearts. The same we do with symphonies. Let our hearts freely roam and let our intellects catch up with them. Let our hearts feel God and let our intellects leave the question of whether it is real aside (if you are atheist) and just go with it. In time you can with your intellect reflect and try to make sense with it. The human intellect is not guaranteed to understand everything about man’s self. Maybe your heart has things to offer to you beyond your intellect’s grasp. We don’t know. We should be, live with our whole selves and let all our parts run wild. Don’t restrain your heart with your intellect nor restrain your intellect with your heart. As we journey, they will become more in tune and in harmony. One need not have all the answers or the answer right away before we feel, think, and do.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Greg:

(Premise 1) take idea x: x is the absolute greatest object logically possible (and logic is the strict principles of validity)

IOW, the greatest conceivable being.

(P2) all categories (such as mammal, triangle and language) must always be connected with any necessary properties (such as suckling the young, having three sides and an expression of meaning)

OK

(P3) if we attempt to deduce the necessary properties of x we struggle since absolute greatest greatness is beyond our experience and potential of understanding. However where a binary option is suggested we can confidently determine which option is greater and thus which would be connected with x: thus x is good, since goodness is greater than evil, x is knowing, since knowledge is greater than ignorance, x has power since power is greater than weakness, and x has actual and real existence, since actual and real existence is greater than non-existence or mealy mental, or anti-real, existence (especially because x is good) – and this must also be necessary since necessity is greater than contingency

Here (in the last sentence) is where you inject the principle from Prosl. III, namely that necessary existence is greater that contingent existence. It is the superior mode of existing.

(P4) where any logical absolute law is valid, such as (P2), such a law must be valid in the real world as well as in the world of ideas. (Thus a mammal must suckle their young, triangles have three sides and language expresses meaning is the real world as well as in the world of ideas)

Here is where you seem to lapse back into the first form of the argument (it is better to exist both in the mind and in thre real world than in the mind alone). This premise is not necessary and leads into all the problems SumEns is talking about.

(Conclusion) x must be connected with actual and real existence in the real world; as well as goodness, knowledge and power (x = ”God”.) Furthermore once God is deduced as a necessary Being then logically every other object (or event) is relatively contingent (except logic and maths which exist necessarily as absolute valid laws) for the simple reason that it is greater the have conditioning power over other objects than not.

In summation, you are confusing the two Anselmian approaches. Stick with the Prosl III principle alone and it works. And it is simple:

1. The statement “God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB)” makes sense.
2. There are two modes of existence: necessary and contingent.
3. Only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.
4. Therefore God must exist.

Note that the only way to attack the argument when it is framed this way is argue that the definition of God as the GCB is nonsensical.

 

[Dameedna]

You are using your intellect when you should be using your heart as well. You should trust your heart as much as you trust your intellect.

Ah but therein lies a problem for me. My heart is an organ that pumps blood. What people usually mean, when they say Heart, is their emotions.

And no, I do not “trust” emotions to tell me the truth about a matter. The reason a scientific method was created in the first place, was because of humans overwhelming capacity to deceive themselves.

Quite frankly, we lie to ourselves, and we believe what we want to because it’s easier and makes us feel good.

But if you start with the assumption that only your intellect is to be trusted and set yourself up in a way that that assumption cannot be falsified – neither by your intellect nor by your heart – then of course there’s no way for me to convince you to trust and use your heart.

See above. Emotions, may have their place but they are not logical, nor rational they are simply something that helps to drive our existance biologically and as such, should alway’s remain in their proper place.

Truth is more important than belief. That is not an emotive response, it is a result of watching both myself, and other people lie to ourselves about that which we want, and hope to be true, and seeing it ruin or hurt lives.

So as a priority I will rely on intellect and observation first, not my “emotions” and am constantly on the lookout for when I may be decieving myself.

Of course it would be “nice” to believe what “felt” right or Good, but in the long run it never really reflects reality…

 

[Dameedna]

I believe that’s a good idea. But at the same token, I don’t see why you found what I posted offensive or why you should be afraid of change or people trying to change you. People try to change me all the time. Sometimes women ask me out, not often, but it happens Sometimes I say no. It doesn’t harm me in anyway those times I say no. I don’t see what the big deal is.

Sorry I missed this part before.

I wasn’t offended by you specically but get tired and sometimes worried over the dreadful things I see written about athiests.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but just quickly, there is a difference betwee being afraid of change and not liking it when some-one cannot accept me for who I am and attempts to change me.

Whenever you try to “change” some-one, you attribute a power to yourself which you simply don’t have. It’s not our place as individuals to try and change another. It IS however, our choice to try and love each other as we are, and it is through that mechanism that we actually invite change.

Now, if I could only actually do that ALL the time myself, I’d probably be a lot better off. hehe

 

[Dameedna]

1. The statement “God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB)” makes sense.
2. There are two modes of existence: necessary and contingent.
3. Only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.
4. Therefore God must exist.

Note that the only way to attack the argument when it is framed this way is argue that the definition of God as the GCB is nonsensical.

Something about this whole argument comes across as intrinsicly meaningless.

Does anyone else not get that impression? It’s as though what we can imagine to be great, exists because we imagine it and something that exists is greater than something that doesn’t, so the greatest thing we can imagination actually exists.

Just doesn’t sound quite right to me. It’s entirely dependant on human thought not reality.

 

[Swan]

Something about this whole argument comes across as intrinsicly meaningless.

Does anyone else not get that impression? It’s as though what we can imagine to be great, exists because we imagine it and something that exists is greater than something that doesn’t, so the greatest thing we can imagination actually exists.

Just doesn’t sound quite right to me. It’s entirely dependant on human thought not reality.

I’m right there with you!

 

[jfhh]

Something about this whole argument comes across as intrinsicly meaningless.

Does anyone else not get that impression? It’s as though what we can imagine to be great, exists because we imagine it and something that exists is greater than something that doesn’t, so the greatest thing we can imagination actually exists.

Just doesn’t sound quite right to me. It’s entirely dependant on human thought not reality.

I think the argument is excellent (the one you quoted, that is, not necessarily the OP).

You aren’t intellectually refuting the argument here. Instead you seem to be relying on your heart You say it seems meaningless but are unable to show how it is meaningless or how it is ineffectual. Respond with facts or argumentation true to your reply to me!

To answer the query of your HEART expressed above though, it sounds strange to you cuz you are assuming God is going to be like anything else. He is not. He is beyond any category conceivable by man. He is beyond our categories of real and unreal. Beyond our categories of greatness and ungreatness. We know not what God is – period. We only know what God is not and God is not anything we can conceive of in our mind.

 

[Eucharisted]

A great thing about the Ontological Argument is that you figure out that a god exists.

A philosopher would than try to see which of the many gods in the world is the god, or how many of the gods are truly gods. Many philosophers have done just this; not with preconceived notions but with an open hear to the truth, going from religon to religon and sect to sect, seeing how the belivers behaved, what they prayed, their beliefs and their practices. Then, based on results, they join that religion which they have found to be the one true religon.

Now, in regards to evil and good, evil is the abscence of good - hence, good is always superior to evil. And because evil is the abscence of good, God can do no evil, and what’s more, out of nothingness - that is, evil - God brought forth a good ordered world, which in turn would prefigure His work of redemption and that of the cosummation of the world.

 

[Dameedna]

I think the argument is excellent (the one you quoted, that is, not necessarily the OP).

You aren’t intellectually refuting the argument here. Instead you seem to be relying on your heart

Lol, I’m not too emotional about this, but I can’t see how it actually holds any meaning so it’s probably a lack of understanding on my part.

You say it seems meaningless but are unable to show how it is meaningless or how it is ineffectual. Respond with facts or argumentation true to your reply to me!

Well, I guess some-one has to show me how it actually show’s anything because to me it just doesn’t.

I have a problem I guess with the word Concieve.It seems to be saying, the greatest thing we can concieve of, exists.

Is that what it is saying?

 

[jfhh]

Lol, I’m not too emotional about this, but I can’t see how it actually holds any meaning so it’s probably a lack of understanding on my part.

Well, I guess some-one has to show me how it actually show’s anything because to me it just doesn’t.

I have a problem I guess with the word Concieve.It seems to be saying, the greatest thing we can concieve of, exists.

Is that what it is saying?

He presented an argument point by point. For you to say it is false intellectually, YOU have to show which premise of his is false or which inference is false. You haven’t done that.

 

[Dameedna]

He presented an argument point by point. For you to say it is false intellectually, YOU have to show which premise of his is false or which inference is false. You haven’t done that.

I’m not saying it’s false, I said it’s comes across as meaningless to ME, and that it may be a simple lack of understanding on my part.

Why the hostility?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I’m still stuck on the “necessary” being part.

Why is something necessary? This whole debate has alway’s spun my head in circles, but I presume that some day if I keep reading about it, I’ll “get” it.

Hi Dameedna,

With respect to existence, “necessary” means uncreated, always been, and never-ending. It’s gotta be. It cannot not be. In contrast, contingent existence is created, came to be at some point, might not have been, and will end.

Note too that there are two kinds of necessity, conditional and unconditional. The necessity we ascribe to Deity is unconditional.

 

[Dameedna]

Hi Dameedna,

With respect to existence, “necessary” means uncreated, always been, and never-ending. It’s gotta be. It cannot not be. In contrast, contingent existence is created, came to be at some point, might not have been, and will end.

Note too that there are two kinds of necessity, conditional and unconditional. The necessity we ascribe to Deity is unconditional.

Okay thank you.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Something about this whole argument comes across as intrinsicly meaningless.

Does anyone else not get that impression? It’s as though what we can imagine to be great, exists because we imagine it and something that exists is greater than something that doesn’t, so the greatest thing we can imagination actually exists.

Just doesn’t sound quite right to me. It’s entirely dependant on human thought not reality.

Anselm’s first articulation of the argument does indeed argue that existence is greater than non-existence. Forget that. As Pete famously said to Everett in O Brother Where Art Thou, “Dat don’t make no sense.”

But Anselm later hits on the true principle, namely that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I think the argument is excellent (the one you quoted, that is, not necessarily the OP).

You aren’t intellectually refuting the argument here. Instead you seem to be relying on your heart You say it seems meaningless but are unable to show how it is meaningless or how it is ineffectual. Respond with facts or argumentation true to your reply to me!

To answer the query of your HEART expressed above though, it sounds strange to you cuz you are assuming God is going to be like anything else. He is not. He is beyond any category conceivable by man. He is beyond our categories of real and unreal. Beyond our categories of greatness and ungreatness. We know not what God is – period. We only know what God is not and God is not anything we can conceive of in our mind.

Hi jf,

Thanks for the endorsement!

I heard Peter Kreeft joke about a philosopher who would rather talk about God rather than actually meet Him. Such is one of the dangers in living too much in our intellects.

Another danger is putting too much faith in reason. And another is putting too much faith in our ability to wield it properly. (And one of the dangers of reading Anselm through Hartshorne is that the latter doesn’t lead you to Christian theism.)

But reason is of God and, being gifted with intellects as we are, I spose He intends that we use it.

I would think that the phrase “that than which none greater can be conceived” ought to resonate with you. But I don’t think Anselm would go so far as to say: “We only know what God is not and God is not anything we can conceive of in our mind.”

I can say that God is the greatest conceivable being, and, even though I struggle to imagine the attributes of unsurpassable greatness, we can settle on some categories that must be applicable God if it makes sense talk about God at all. see St. Greg’s 1st post. So I don’t despair of apprehending God intellectually in some limited way. We can know more about Him via fallible human reason than just that he exists.

And, consider this, thinking deeply about God moved Anselm to some pretty ecstatic statements as “Oh God, thou exist so truly that thou canst not exist!”

 

[Dameedna]

Hi Dameedna,

With respect to existence, “necessary” means uncreated, always been, and never-ending. It’s gotta be. It cannot not be. In contrast, contingent existence is created, came to be at some point, might not have been, and will end.

Okay thought about this for a moment.

It seems that there is a definition of necessary, and it’s almost as though the definition itself, negates the ability to argue against it.

IE, because Necessry “has” to be, it therefore is.

An idea, can’t actually prove itself though can it?

Still struggling with this whole necessary thing. Sorry if my questions are annoying, believe it or not, I have read about this but it’s never made sense.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

One of the reasons why I like the OA is that it is a good apologetic tool for theists in their conversations with unbelievers.

A: God does not exist!

B: Uh, what do you mean by “God.”

A: you know, the Judeo-Christian deity.

B: Well, according to Catholic teaching God is the supreme being. Supreme means the greatest, the bestest and can’t be surpassed by anyone, no when, no how. Is that the defintion of God we’re going to work with?

A: I spose.

B: OK, but let’s use Anselm’s definition of God as “that than which none greater can be conceived” or Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) for short.

A: Fine

B: Now logically there are two modes of existence, necessary or contingent.

A: So I’ve heard.

B: Is it greater to be necessarily existing or contingently existing?

A: Necessarily existing

B: So if “God is the greatest conceivable being” is a meaningful statement, and, given the binary choice of necessary or contingnet existence, only necessary existence is compatible with greatness, doesn’t God have to exist?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Now I am not claiming that this is complete and irrefutable demonstration of God’s existence. There is still plenty to argue about. But the argument now should only be confined to whether or not the definition is meaningful.

IOW, I think the framing of the argument demonstrates conclusively (IMHO) that there are only two choices: either God exists or the very idea of God is meaningless.

I think Anselm/Hartshorne have cleared considerable ground in the whole God debate. These positions are no longer tenable:

1. Empirical theism and empirical atheism. God does or does not exist because of some empirical fact. (e.g. Richard Dawkins)
2. Agnosticism. We can’t know whether or not God exists.

These positions must be confused, for if we get our thinking about God straight, God either exists or the very idea is impossible (ie. akin to positing the existence of round squares).