My discussion of the Ontological Argument

[Dameedna]

Hey Dameedna,

You sed: “Why could[n’t] the universe simply be, in one form or another. The infinite necessary being?”

It is a possibility. That’s pantheism, as I understand the term. The universe is all there is. It is the ultimate reality. There is nothing greater. So we recognize the universe as the GCB. That’s God for us and we relate to that and organize our lives around that however we will.

But note that this is not atheism, technically.

Ahh okay. Well fair enough.

 

[Dameedna]

This is off the topic of the OA, but the consensus today is that the universe was created. The Big Bang Theory and all that. In Einstein’s time everyone thought the universe was static and always existed, and Albert built a fudge factor (the Cosmological Constant) into his general theory of relativity to keep the universe from expanding. But Hubble gave Einstein a peek into his telescope and showed him the universe was expanding. Still is.

And a created universe out of nothing implies a creator (the Cosmological Argument referred to by Greg above).

The Big bang doesn’t imply a creator however. It simply goes back to a singularity, IE an infinite existance at which time and matter does not exist. It’s current form doesn’t rely on a “creator” but rather the universe in it’s infinite form(which it isn’t in at the moment).

It is purely the fact that the universe has managed to end up with an observer(perhaps many like us) that ultimately fascinates me, but again this has been a great thinking exercise, and I thank you for your patience.

 

[Dameedna]

So, hidden in the first premise is an assumption of existence. Of course I don’t deny that God could be “conceivable” or “logically possible” but we just don’t know if it is.

See I’m not quite reading the OA this way(though I think we have the same idea that there’s something not quite right about this whole thing )

So I’m not sure it’s so much a “premise” within the first statement that a certain God exists, but rather a logical statement for the existance of God, where God is simply a word used to describe the greatest thing that concievably exists.

The greatest concievable" entity, could be ultimately a Cold, brutal infinite universe, meaning we all beleive in at least that(a universe) and by this definition we are all “theists”. Kind of

When I say, I lack a belief in Gods, as an athiest, it is pretty much every “god” that has been described to me, by humanity. This is why an athiest will alway’s say “you, mr christian are also an athiest, I simply believe in one less god”.

I guess they can say “you, mr athiest are also a thiest, because you believe that the greatest concievable thing, which we call God exists”.

So the argument is logically consistant, but meaningless if you have not already attributed meaning to God that is beyond the reality of this universe.

It isn’t a presumption of existance, it’s a presumption of a certain type of meaning that has made this argument difficult for me to break down.

 

[Dameedna]

Is anyone up to the task? Is there anyone who who will defend theism from the godless positivists? Yes!! The Metaphysicians are ready, willing and able.

Hehehe, go ahead, however perhaps another thread is in order. I would be interested to see where you go with this

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Hi Celluloid,

Welcome. But I must warn you of the inherent dangers of participating in a discussion of the OA. It has already driven at least one person, Dameedna from “Uptop”, to strong drink.

Hey, I didn’t actually partake in that martini

On a side note: I alway’s use the term uptop when I can get a way with it. It confused those lovely Americans that I spent 7 years with to no end…but…but…but…North America is on the top, North is UPWARDs see? It’s on top.(There’s a great west-end espisode on this)

That, was a very funny discussion, and I doubt I convinced many that Australia, was actually on “top” of the planet

However, I digress

 

[St_Gregory]

So that is where our focus ought to be. Is the GCB is meaningful idea? If it can be demonstrated, theism is proved, for the other parts of the argument lead inexorably to the conclusion that God exists necessarily.

Trying to make sense of the GCB is not easy. As philosohper Duane Voskuil observes, “It is the whole philosophical problem.” In delving into this we need to rethink a lot of assumptions.

Is anyone up to the task? Is there anyone who who will defend theism from the godless positivists? Yes!! The Metaphysicians are ready, willing and able.

I believe I just started with an arbitrary object x which is the greatest logically possible being. I admit that its impossible to fully get our head around this: but I hold that we can at least accept that it MUST be meaningful idea because I specifically noted that it is the “greatest logically possible…” and so by definition it MUST be meaningful.
From this I worked on what we CAN know about God, even if it is ultimately impossible to know God’s nature.

I just think that its unfair to define God here as meaningless since the argument includes an implicit property of meaningfulness.

And for those who suggested God may be the universe: I feel that since all our experience of it suggests it is entirely contingent that it would be unreasonable to ascribe Godliness to it: plus the universe appears to not be omnipotent or omniscient or good - indeed it appears to have no power of itself which it can control and it in not conscious anyway. Surely it is greater to be conscious and loving and omniscient etc etc than not – which is why I believe God is entirely independent of the universe.

 

[celluloid]

Hi Celluloid,

Welcome. But I must warn you of the inherent dangers of participating in a discussion of the OA. It has already driven at least one person, Dameedna from “Uptop”, to strong drink.

Hi Frank, and thank you.
The only poison I have is one coffee in the morning. Let’s hope I don’t end up on crack.
"FrankSchnabel:

I agree, but not for the reasons you cite.

Here is the first premise that I was proposing: The statement “God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB)” is meaningful.

This was assumed by Anselm to be true, but he did not prove it. Logical positivists argue that this statement is indeed nonsense or not meaningful. They say it is like talking about “round squares.” As Vizzini famously kept saying to Fezzik and Inigo (see The Princess Bride) “Inconceivable!”

My criticism is less ambitious but just as effective, if true. To throw doubt on the initial premise that God is GCB. All you need to prove is ambiguity, to show that it’s possibly impossible, and that makes the entire argument meaningless.

No, in order to be conceivable, the GCB must first make sense.

True, but my quibble is with the word “conceivable”. I think it is conceivable out of ignorance that there is a God (If as you say GCB makes sense first). However since we are unaware at the outset of the existence of God, which the OA tries to prove, the argument fails to provide any proof of the possibility of God except out of sheer ignorance of what is possible and what isn’t.

For example, 5000 years ago, 3 ordinary men with an equal lack of information are arguing about the shape of the earth. One says it’s conceivable the Earth is flat, another says it’s conceivable it is a cube, and yet another says it’s conceivable it is a sphere. Now the third man happens to be not exactly correct. We know from experience and calculation that the Earth is certainly a sphere, not just possibly or conceivably. And it always was so despite their opinions. All three are making a statement based on a total lack of information, not realizing their reckless use of the word conceivable.

What they should have said was: While Earth is naively conceivable as flat - cube - sphere, we really don’t know. All three shapes may be impossible for unknown reasons. For all three, because they speculate out of ignorance, the word conceivable is almost meaningless.

So from the start I doubt the claim that God or GCB is possible even though part of the definition of GCB is that it is conceivable.
In the absence of direct knowledge about a concept, we don’t know what is truly conceivable. For any ignorantly conceived concept (and I use the word ignorant in the sense of a mere lack of knowledge, not sophistication) there is the possibility that it is impossible to be actualized.

Are we talking round squares or not? Note that the positivists are not charging that we are talking about unicorns here, with unicorns being an example of something conceivable but not actualized.

One difference is that part of the definition of GCB (correct me here if necessary) is that it exists, so actualization is slightly more important in the case of GCB.

They are saying the very idea is nonsense. Note also that careful positivists never assert that God doesn’t exist, for that would imply they know what “God” means. They simply maintain that “God” as the GCB is simply meaningless.

How do they attempt to do that and what is your response to it?

 

[celluloid]

When I say, I lack a belief in Gods, as an athiest, it is pretty much every “god” that has been described to me, by humanity. This is why an athiest will alway’s say “you, mr christian are also an athiest, I simply believe in one less god”.

I guess they can say “you, mr athiest are also a thiest, because you believe that the greatest concievable thing, which we call God exists”.

So the argument is logically consistant, but meaningless if you have not already attributed meaning to God that is beyond the reality of this universe.

I think it’s only consistent if you accept the premise(s) as true. Since it is ambiguous, the argument is possibly not logically sound. It makes the whole argument inconclusive.

It isn’t a presumption of existance, it’s a presumption of a certain type of meaning that has made this argument difficult for me to break down.

By that, do you mean that plugging in a more literal definition of God into the GCB label?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Cell,

First off, lets get the full argument on the table.

1. The statement “God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB)” is meaningful.
2. There are two modes of existence, necessary and contingent.
3. Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence.
4. Therefore only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.
5. Therefore God exists necessarily.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

And from the get-go, keep in mind that the real question, as far as Anselm is concerned, is not whether God exists, but whether we know what “God” means. That is why he begins with a definition. So is it true that our definition is meaningful? If the answer is yes, then God must exist.

The framing of the argument this way makes it clear we have only two choices. Either God exists necessarily or the very idea of God is impossible nonsense.

Both Anselmians and logical positivists agree that anyone who posits God’s possible existence is confused.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Ugh, ran out of time. see ya in the mornin!

And have an insanely good and blessed Turkey Day. I’m gonna boil mine in oil.

cordially

Frank

 

[Dameedna]

And from the get-go, keep in mind that the real question, as far as Anselm is concerned, is not whether God exists, but whether we know what “God” means. That is why he begins with a definition. So is it true that our definition is meaningful? If the answer is yes, then God must exist.

Nope don’t get it. The statement being logically true, has nothing to do with meaning. God being the greatest concievable thing, could make God nothing more than a universe so in terms of meaning it’s nothing more than we really accept currently. It’s nothing new and not something that inspires me at least to worship(unless standing in awe under a telescope could be considered worship)

The framing of the argument this way makes it clear we have only two choices. Either God exists necessarily or the very idea of God is impossible nonsense.

That’s not how I’m seeing it. It’s not “impossible” nonsense, it’s just meaningless within the argument itself.

The argument doesn’t provide any meaning.

 

[Dameedna]

We shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking of the Ontological Argument as just playing around with semantics which labels “God” as “something which exists” - it works on logical laws to reach a valid conclusion.

What do you think?

Going back to the original post, and this statment above.

Why would it be a mistake to think that the OA is nothing more than saying “God” as “something which exists”.

That is all that it is saying, so why take it more seriously? Why attribute meaning to it?

 

[Dameedna]

I believe I just started with an arbitrary object x which is the greatest logically possible being. I admit that its impossible to fully get our head around this: but I hold that we can at least accept that it MUST be meaningful idea because I specifically noted that it is the “greatest logically possible…” and so by definition it MUST be meaningful.

Why do we at least accept it must be meaningful, because it’s the greatest thing that can exist? The greatest thing that can exist could be a brutal cold universe? Is this meaningful or just reality?

From this I worked on what we CAN know about God, even if it is ultimately impossible to know God’s nature.

I just think that its unfair to define God here as meaningless since the argument includes an implicit property of meaningfulness.

What property is that?

And for those who suggested God may be the universe: I feel that since all our experience of it suggests it is entirely contingent that it would be unreasonable to ascribe Godliness to it:

Ah but this is a problem. Our experience is just that. Our experience. We have 5 senses with which to work with and all that we observe about the universe is that it is a cold and brutal place(even if it is extrodinary to us). Why would you suggest that the universe is contingent? If something is necessary, then there is NO REASON why it could not be an infinite universe. The assumption that the universe is created is just that, an assumption.

If you start with a blank Canvas, the greatest thing that could concievably exist, could be just this. The universe itself.

plus the universe appears to not be omnipotent or omniscient or good

And now we have these attributes that are attributed to the “necessary” being, and because the universe does not have these attributes it cannot be the God. This, is a circular argument.

If a necessary being exists so be it. But IF that which exists is cold and brutal(which nature pretty much shows us that it is), then attributing goodness to it is something we do because we want to, not because those attributes actually exist.

In other words, just because we want the necessary being to be MORE than the universe doesn’t mean it is. This is what a lot of the critisizms of the OA appear to be getting at.

IE, just because I imagine a painting exists doesn’t mean it actually exists. The painting is an idea, that does not necessarily have to exist, so it is not God. Love, power, knowlege in our human understanding are just “ideas” and are therefore not necessary an not qualities of God(by default)

Just because you imagine “good and evil” doesn’t mean they exist. Just because we feel “love” doesn’t mean love is anything more than an illusion created by chemicals in our brain. What actually exists, is chemicals, sub-atomic particles and the universe is the only thing required to explain it.

Surely it is greater to be conscious and loving and omniscient etc etc than not – which is why I believe God is entirely independent of the universe.

But you cannot say on one hand, that “god is the greatest concievable thing” and THEN claim that God is what you want to believe is great. IE, just because you want to believe “love” exists and you call it great, does not mean it actually exists and is therefore not a property you can give to God.

The OA may be logically sound, but as soon as you attribute anything to the word “god” you are going into the realm of believing something, not deducing it logically.

At least that’s the way it looks to me

 

[Swan]

Why do we at least accept it must be meaningful, because it’s the greatest thing that can exist? The greatest thing that can exist could be a brutal cold universe? Is this meaningful or just reality?

What property is that?

Ah but this is a problem. Our experience is just that. Our experience. We have 5 senses with which to work with and all that we observe about the universe is that it is a cold and brutal place(even if it is extrodinary to us). Why would you suggest that the universe is contingent? If something is necessary, then there is NO REASON why it could not be an infinite universe. The assumption that the universe is created is just that, an assumption.

If you start with a blank Canvas, the greatest thing that could concievably exist, could be just this. The universe itself.

And now we have these attributes that are attributed to the “necessary” being, and because the universe does not have these attributes it cannot be the God. This, is a circular argument.

If a necessary being exists so be it. But IF that which exists is cold and brutal(which nature pretty much shows us that it is), then attributing goodness to it is something we do because we want to, not because those attributes actually exist.

In other words, just because we want the necessary being to be MORE than the universe doesn’t mean it is. This is what a lot of the critisizms of the OA appear to be getting at.

IE, just because I imagine a painting exists doesn’t mean it actually exists. The painting is an idea, that does not necessarily have to exist, so it is not God. Love, power, knowlege in our human understanding are just “ideas”, not asbolute qualities of a God.

Just because you imagine “good and evil” doesn’t mean they exist. Just because we feel “love” doesn’t mean love is anything more than an illusion created by chemicals in our brain. What actually exists, is chemicals, sub-atomic particles and the universe is the only thing required to explain it.

But you cannot say on one hand, that “god is the greatest concievable thing” and THEN claim that God is what you want to believe is great. IE, just because you want to believe “love” exists and you call it great, does not mean it actually exists and is therefore not a property you can give to God.

The OA may be logically sound, but as soon as you attribute anything to the word “god” you are going into the realm of believing something, not deducing it logically.

At least that’s the way it looks to me

That’s how it looks to me, too. And thanks for articulating my thoughts so well that I didn’t have to!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

(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)

(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

(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)

(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.

I haven’t read the whole thread but I have an observation about this:
It seems to prove that of any object we conceive of, that object would be greater if it exists than if it is imaginary. Therefore, the greatest object we can concieve of is a real object, not an imaginary object.

But, just because we can conceive of it as a real object, doesn’t mean it really exists. Maybe the greatest object that we can conceive of doesn’t, in actuality, exist.

 

[Dameedna]

Ugh, ran out of time. see ya in the mornin!

And have an insanely good and blessed Turkey Day. I’m gonna boil mine in oil.

cordially

Frank

As bad as American food was for me when I lived there, you do have this extrodinary ability to make fried food “delicious”.

Shame on you!!!

 

[Dameedna]

Hi Cell,

First off, lets get the full argument on the table.

1. The statement “God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB)” is meaningful.
2. There are two modes of existence, necessary and contingent.
3. Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence.
4. Therefore only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.
5. Therefore God exists necessarily.

And let me get my concerns about this argument on the table as well.

1. What do we mean by concieve? Is it something we can imagine? Or something that we can imagine AND can exist?
2. Necessarily - There’s something sketchy about this.(hahah)
3. Meaning - Why are we attributing meaning to something? What are we actually “doing” when we attribute meaning? Isn’t this entirely subjective to each human?

Okay, I’ll see what you come back with on this one. Hope you all had a nice thanksgiving

 

[Neil_Anthony]

P3 refers to the property of “necessary existence”. Necessary existence means that an object can not logically not exist. That is, the object logically must exist if it has the property of “necessary existence”.

P3 says that the greatest object x would be greater still if it had the property “necessary existence”.

But. can we really conceive of an object with the property necessary existence? Or is such an object as illogical as a 4-sided triangle, or an red invisible car? Does “necessary existence” even make sense?

For those of us who believe in God, it makes sense, we believe in “necessary existence”. But can we prove to an atheist that the notion of an object with the property “necessary existence” is logical?

 

[Dameedna]

For those of us who believe in God, it makes sense, we believe in “necessary existence”. But can we prove to an atheist that the notion of an object with the property “necessary existence” is logical?

If you refer to “god” as the universe than the athiest would “believe” it as well and it makes sense logically.

The problem as I’m seeing it really comes down to what you mean by God, not wether it can be logically proven.