My discussion of the Ontological Argument

[Dameedna]

Then in other words, God, could be anything.

We could call the universe God if the universe is the greatest conceivable thing.

It’s the nature of this “greatest concievable thing” that is in question.

 

[Dameedna]

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).

I’ts just a logical argument.

I’ts meaningless in and of itself.(that’s where I’m tending to go with it)

 

[FrankSchnabel]

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.

Don’t worry about struggling with Anselm. I’ve done it all my adult life. Even great minds like Bertrand Russell wrestled with it. According to Richard Dawkins, one day he woke up and exclaimed “By God the ontological argument is sound!” (apparently that was a short-lived conclusion)

But you’ve put your finger on the right question: can we build a necessary bridge between our thoughts and reality? (I think Russell asked the question pretty much that way.)

Those who say yes are believers in metaphysics, namely those who believe we can formulate statements that are necessarily (unavoidably) true. Those who say no are what Hartshorne calls “logical positivists” who hold that there are no necessarily true propositions (any comments on the logical consistency of that notion?).

 

[Dameedna]

Don’t worry about struggling with Anselm. I’ve done it all my adult life. Even great minds like Bertrand Russell wrestled with it. According to Richard Dawkins, one day he woke up and exclaimed “By God the ontological argument is sound!” (apparently that was a short-lived conclusion)

I think he ended up saying, something that doesn’t exist and is necessary, is greater than something that does.

Logically speaking, he might be right, but I’m not going there.

But you’ve put your finger on the right question: can we build a necessary bridge between our thoughts and reality? (I think Russell asked the question pretty much that way.)

As failable humans, I’m not sure we can. And I don’t mean failable as in, we’ve fallen from grace in some grand act. I mean, regardless of what you believe, we’re pretty good at being pretty silly most of the time.

Those who say yes are believers in metaphysics, namely those who believe we can formulate statements that are necessarily (unavoidably) true. Those who say no are what Hartshorne calls “logical positivists” who hold that there are no necessarily true propositions (any comments on the logical consistency of that notion?).

HAHA…I would love to pretend to be very clever and answer this one, but I’ll be honest. I once said to a friend of mine, quite emphatically, that “There are no absolutes”.

Duh!! He was catholic.

If there are no necessarily true propositions, then the proposition…“There are no necessarily true propositions” must be false, meaning there are true necessary propositions.

I need a martini

Couldn’t there be ONE necessarily true proposition, and that is that there is no necessary true propositions except this one?

A statement can’t prove itself, but the concept could still be true couldn’t it?

And then there is, if there can be “true” necessary(still not sure about the necessary thing) propositions, then what can we figure out and how can we be sure our reasoning is correct and not lacking in some way.?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I think the only reasonable position is the metaphysical one. Here is why. We are presented with three logical choices: 1. All statements are necessarily true. 2. Some statements are necessarily true. 3. No statements are necessarily true. No. 1 is obviosly false. No. 3 is self-contradictory. This leaves No. 2, as you’ve already concluded.

This is pretty exciting, if you think about it.

Some propositions are necessarily true. Might “God exists” be one of them?

 

[Dameedna]

I think the only reasonable position is the metaphysical one. Here is why. We are presented with three logical choices: 1. All statements are necessarily true. 2. Some statements are necessarily true. 3. No statements are necessarily true. No. 1 is obviosly false. No. 3 is self-contradictory. This leaves No. 2, as you’ve already concluded.

This is pretty exciting, if you think about it.

Some propositions are necessarily true. Might “God exists” be one of them?

Not unless God’s “nature” can be defined in some way. God could simply be a necessary universe that has alway’s existed, and our ability to imagine something greater, is just that. Our ability to imagine.

I’ve been through the “oooo…could there be something out there” stage TO a degree, and yes it was rather “bizarre” and spooky.

NOW … I"m at the "This research is incredibly painful and I’m sick of being patrionized, insulted and misunderstood. I’m sick of telling people I’m not a devil worshiper or that I embrace satan and what is bad. I’m sick of being told I reject god(how can you “logically” reject something that you don’t think exists).

I’m sick of being told I’m less of a human because I don’t agree with someone, I’m sick of being told I don’t understand because I question, I’m sick of being told I am an undisciplined athiest who wants to spend her whole life pleasing herself. I don’t hate god and I’m not evil, IF those things even exist"

Quite frankly, I’m sick of the religious people who judge me while claiming they want to save my soul.

That’s my current stage

Thank you for offering me a breath of fresh air {{hugs}}

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Here is another way to approach the OA using “All, Some or None”

1. All things necessarily exist.
2. Some (at least one) things necessarily exist.
3. No things necessarily exist.

No. 1 is obviously false. No. 3 asks us to entertain the state of absolute nothingness as a possibly “real” state of affairs. (Think about it!)

No. 2 is the only rational choice left standing. At least one thing must necessarily exist. Could it be…GOD?!!

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Following the example of Bill Clinton, who apologized on behalf of all white folks for the sin of slaverly, and John Paul the Great who (with a lot more credibility and warrant) apologized for a lot of things Christians have done (the sacking of Constantinople, persecution of Jews, etc.), I will undertake to apologize to you for the actions of all patronizing and insufferable Christians. I am afraid I have to include myself among the latter, for my wayward siblings remind me from time to time that I can be patronizing and insufferable.

You sed: “Not unless God’s “nature” can be defined in some way. God could simply be a necessary universe that has alway’s existed, and our ability to imagine something greater, is just that. Our ability to imagine.”

Again you get to the heart of the OA (rightly framed). Can we meaningfully define God as the GCB? If not, why not? I can get into objections that have been raised, but I am running out of play time.

But all discussions about God aside, can you at least agree that you are metaphysician (someone who believes that there are some meaningful propositions that are necessarily true)?

have a great weekend!

cordially,

Frank

 

[FrankSchnabel]

P.S. It is a little early for a martini (where do you live anyway?) But come around 5 o’clock I will join you. It’s been a tough week.

 

[Eucharisted]

Here is another way to approach the OA using “All, Some or None”

1. All things necessarily exist.
2. Some (at least one) things necessarily exist.
3. No things necessarily exist.

No. 1 is obviously false. No. 3 asks us to entertain the state of absolute nothingness as a possibly “real” state of affairs. (Think about it!)

No. 2 is the only rational choice left standing. At least one thing must necessarily exist. Could it be…GOD?!!

The problem with no 2, though, is that God is not a thing. He is God. He cannot be categorized like we would categorize a creature or a creation.

No 3 is definitely correct, because God did not need to create anything.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Eucharisted,

substitute “being” for “thing.”

 

[Dameedna]

P.S. It is a little early for a martini (where do you live anyway?) But come around 5 o’clock I will join you. It’s been a tough week.

haha, in the country I will call “Uptop” it is very late.

 

[jfhh]

Now I am not claiming that this is complete and irrefutable demonstration of God’s existence. There is still plenty to argue about.

I don’t think one can really argue that GCB is an incoherent idea logically. I think the only thing left to argue is whether all great-making predicates are compatible with each other. So, for ex., if someone argues being physically beautiful is a great-making predicate, then one could argue that while necessarily existing (as may be true of numbers) is great-making also, that one may exclude the other. I think the response to this is to either say that it is not being physically beautiful per se that is a great-making property but that it is being beatiful of which being physically beautiful is one mode, that is the fundamental great-making property. One could argue that the GCB could be spiritually beautiful and in that mode of beauty maximize beauty and that being physically beautiful wouldn’t make the GCB any more beautiful.

But my approach as you might expect would simply to say that the GCB may very well be physically beautiful in a sense of “physical” beyond our mortal understanding of physical. IOW, the GCB cannot be placed in a man-conceived taxonomy of spiritual versus physical being. That would IMO, be like saying the GCB could be classified as either plant or animal. Or, pace modern scientists or maybe some over eager Thomists, that man can be classified as either plant or animal.

I don’t think there’s any way to show nor any reason to believe that necessary existence excludes other great-making predicates or properties. So what is left is just the conjecture that it may. If that conjecture is true, then God may not exist. But what this means then is that atheism rests on a conjecture which unlike the Goldbach conjecture has no evidence at all to support it. Agnosticism would also rest on the uncertainity regarding this conjecture – that and no more.

So if anything else, I think this shows that theism is rational insofar as the conjecture is intuitively appealing.

Insofar as the conjecture accords with the yearning of man’s heart, theism is also consonant with the music of the heart. “Rational” just means consonant with one’s mind, intellect, reason. But we are as humans more than just intellect, but also heart. Consonance with one’s heart should be just as important and significant in terms of what one chooses or comes to believe and do.

 

[Dameedna]

Following the example of Bill Clinton, who apologized on behalf of all white folks for the sin of slaverly, and John Paul the Great who (with a lot more credibility and warrant) apologized for a lot of things Christians have done (the sacking of Constantinople, persecution of Jews, etc.), I will undertake to apologize to you for the actions of all patronizing and insufferable Christians. I am afraid I have to include myself among the latter, for my wayward siblings remind me from time to time that I can be patronizing and insufferable.

I understand people can be very excited about their religion, and in my experience there are some who’s lives have been so changed by it , one could call it a ‘miracle’.

It is the negative assumptions and labels we put on each other that are the most harmful. Regardless of why we do, or do not believe we are all humans, living a difficult and complicated life and we could probably go a little easier on each other

Be gentle with your siblings

You sed: “Not unless God’s “nature” can be defined in some way. God could simply be a necessary universe that has alway’s existed, and our ability to imagine something greater, is just that. Our ability to imagine.”

Again you get to the heart of the OA (rightly framed). Can we meaningfully define God as the GCB? If not, why not? I can get into objections that have been raised, but I am running out of play time.

I don’t think we can “meaninfully” define God as GCB. It’s very much like a definition that has proven itself, logically consistant but that is all. As to why not the question for me, is why? Why is this actually meaningful. I can’t find any meaning in it. It’s just clever.

But all discussions about God aside, can you at least agree that you are metaphysician (someone who believes that there are some meaningful propositions that are necessarily true)?

I will tentatively say yes, though I feel like I’m also going to be “tricked” in some way. hehe, not being mean I’m just very doubtful of my minds own ability to think clearly and not be fooled, so I must be vigilant(and poke fun at myself along the way)

Thanks for all your assistance in helping me understand the logic of this argument.

Cheers

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Mornin jf,

I don’t think one can really argue that GCB is an incoherent idea logically. I think the only thing left to argue is whether all great-making predicates are compatible with each other.

I have to admit that making sense of Greatness or Unsurpassability is not easy. The sentence “God is the GCB” is simply. But, as you say, when we start exploring specific attributes or great-making predicates we experience difficulties. But then this shouldn’t surprise us because the divine attributes that we know about from revelation do seem to present compatibility problems.

But my approach as you might expect would simply to say that the GCB may very well be physically beautiful in a sense of “physical” beyond our mortal understanding of physical. IOW, the GCB cannot be placed in a man-conceived taxonomy of spiritual versus physical being.

My approach is similar. If we agree that God is in a category all by himself–He is wholly other with none beside him–then there are some rules are unique to him.

don’t think there’s any way to show nor any reason to believe that necessary existence excludes other great-making predicates or properties. So what is left is just the conjecture that it may. If that conjecture is true, then God may not exist. But what this means then is that atheism rests on a conjecture which unlike the Goldbach conjecture has no evidence at all to support it. Agnosticism would also rest on the uncertainity regarding this conjecture – that and no more.

So if anything else, I think this shows that theism is rational insofar as the conjecture is intuitively appealing.

If GCB is a meaningful idea and necessary existence is an attribute of God, then that much has been established. Whether or not other traditional great-making properties traditionally ascribed to God continue to make sense in light of this won’t disturb theism for we have established it as the only viable option. What is up in the air, however, is the traditional notion of God as all powerful, all good, etc.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hartshorne and his followers are heavily influenced by Whitehead. They are process guys and their God is a being in process. This all leads to some unorthodox conclusions.

Nonetheless I think Hartshorne has some pretty good insights, and one is the observation that God is a whole. Being a fragment or constituent part of another whole is not compatible with greatness, so wholeness must be attribute of God. And in addition, this wholeness must be inclusive of all value whatsoever. And an all-inclusive God certainly cannot be surpassed. No being, no value whatsoever, exists outside of him.
I find Col 1:15-20 to be suggestive of this.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I don’t think we can “meaninfully” define God as GCB. It’s very much like a definition that has proven itself, logically consistant but that is all. As to why not the question for me, is why? Why is this actually meaningful. I can’t find any meaning in it. It’s just clever.

This is essentially what SumEns said in post #16. The statement “God is the GCB” is ultimately a tautology. I would agree if the definition were “God is He Who Must Exist.” But I don’t think that is what we are doing here. We are connecting a subject, God, with a predicate, unsurpassable greatness. Greatness necessarily implies necessary existence, but it is a distinct and larger concept.

Why does Anselm define God in terms of greatness? Because the logic of worship compels him to. The act of worship, exaltation above any other, requires the object of such adoration to be the “bestest”. If we were worshipping someone we thought was God, and then encountered someone greater, we would have to worship the greater.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Regarding your being a metaphysician…

It just means that you reject the Verifiability Principle of Meaning (VP), namely that all meaningful propositions are contingent. IOW. The VP states that only propositions dependent on either factual or definitional circumstances make sense. If the VP is true, then all meaningful propositions could have been false, and, if false, they could have been true.

But you are a metaphysician (at least tentatively and provisionally), and you will have none of that. You hold that some meaningful propositions are not dependent on factual or definitional circumstances. Some meaningful propositions are are always and unavoidably true.

And so I induct thee [appropriate fanfare] into the Order of Metaphysician with rank of Novice, and you are now entitled to all the perquisites and entitlements of that office. Basically all you get at this point is our unqualified admiration and a very cool T shirt that says: “I can say something True about Everything…Because I’ve studied Metaphysics!”)

 

[jfhh]

If GCB is a meaningful idea and necessary existence is an attribute of God, then that much has been established. Whether or not other traditional great-making properties traditionally ascribed to God continue to make sense in light of this won’t disturb theism for we have established it as the only viable option. What is up in the air, however, is the traditional notion of God as all powerful, all good, etc.

My point was that it’s conceivable for necessary existence to be great making and being all good to be great making but the two to be incompatible with each other. So one being may be contingently existing, but all good and another necessarily existing and very good, but not all-good. So then you have a complication of whether the first being would be greater than the second or vice versa. If necessarily existing “trumps” all other potentially incompatible great making properties, then you would be right, the GCB demonstrably and necessarily exists. If OTOH, there is doubt as to wheether for ex. that first being would be greater than the second, then the GCB may not in fact necessarily exist but only happen to exist. I’m understandin the “C” in GCB to piggyback on whether in fact certain great making properties are compatible with certain other great making properties.

The only way I can see that necessarily existing would be incompatible with other great making properties is if someone were to argue that necessarily existing entails lack of free will and that presence of free will is more great making than necessarily existing, etc.

As I said, in the end I think your argument establishes that atheism is at best mere unsupported conjecture.

 

[Dameedna]

This is essentially what SumEns said in post #16. The statement “God is the GCB” is ultimately a tautology. I would agree if the definition were “God is He Who Must Exist.” But I don’t think that is what we are doing here. We are connecting a subject, God, with a predicate, unsurpassable greatness. Greatness necessarily implies necessary existence, but it is a distinct and larger concept.

I’m not sure I understand this. When you say, we are connecting a subject god, with a predicate of unsurpassable greatness, that still doesn’t provide any meaning.

IE, the greatest concievable thing or greatest possible thing in actuality? What’s the difference?. Could the GCB simply be the universe rendering the entire statment a moot point. Again, it seems like it’s a statment, that although logically correct doesn’t provide us with anything.

I guess to try and see it from the way I see it, replace the word “god” in this argument, with the flying spaghetti monster or Celestial teacup, or abracadabra, and see if it is something that provides meaning.

I wonder if the the meaning people are getting from it, is personal meaning they attribute to the word God within a religous belief and not the argument itself? Does that make sense?

Why does Anselm define God in terms of greatness? Because the logic of worship compels him to. The act of worship, exaltation above any other, requires the object of such adoration to be the “bestest”. If we were worshipping someone we thought was God, and then encountered someone greater, we would have to worship the greater.

The Logic of Worship?