My discussion of the Ontological Argument

[Benedict_Broere]

And APB?
APB and GCB can’t be presented as for instance DNA was presented as a generally convincing form of insight.
The ACOA needs belief to come to proof.
Science doesn’t, worse, science convinces only really when maintaining itself under attempts of refutation.

 

[Dameedna]

And APB?
APB and GCB can’t be presented as for instance DNA was presented as a generally convincing form of insight.
The ACOA needs belief to come to proof.
Science doesn’t, worse, science convinces only really when maintaining itself under attempts of refutation.

What does this mean?

 

[celluloid]

I haven’t read the other options. But this option is incompatible with S5 modal logic. You would have to use Saul Kripke’s accessibility relation to construct a modal logic which would allow this.

I’m not really familiar with modal logic in general, though I’ve had a good look at Plantinga’s OA.

I won’t dispute S5, in fact I’ll try to use it.

Plantinga uses the premise: “Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible in at least one world that there be a being that has maximal greatness.” It has the same problem. Possibility out of ignorance, not what is known to be logically possible. I would simply say it is possible that MG is not exemplified and it is possible God is not logically compatible with creation of the universe perhaps in the sense that a volkswagen can give live birth to a horse. It may be a matter of fact that Gods don’t make universes, perhaps they would prefer to destroy them painlessly.

And I think S5 actually works in reverse if you consider the premise:

Maximal Greatness is possibly not exemplified in any one possible world

That MGB could be known to not exist in any one possible world makes MGB necessarily non-existent via S5 that God must exist necessarily or, necessarily, not at all. IOW it is what I have been saying all along, it isn’t about possibility. Possibility is a word expressed in varying degrees of ignorance, (and in ontological arguments complete a priori ignorance.) Either God exists or it doesn’t and that determines the validity of OAs premise that a God is possible. Knowledge can destroy the possibility premise or confirm it – but without real world knowledge of an actual state of affairs, it is in doubt.

 

[celluloid]

So in light of all this, your no. 3:

don’t make no sense.

Atheists have a concept of God. Most atheists’ definitions just don’t include a built-in mini ontological argument.

I could even say that as an atheist, I am certain that a God exists. And I have a better grasp in of my concept of God than you have of yours. And I can prove it and you will believe me (if you accept my definition.) Does that make no sense too?

But I’ll explain this for now:

The concept of God is not self-contradictory (depending on definition) yet it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist

It is possible for something to be logically possible to exist and yet apparently not exist in the real world. For example, if you’re living in the middle ages, an automobile could exist either in the future or on some other planet. So you could say that invented things may have existed for eons , but they are merely temporally or spacially distant.

In fact almost anything else you could think of, as long as it’s not logically self-contradictory, may exist at some time or at some place.

God is different in part because of the definition as an infinite being must exist now and in the past. There is no temporal distance possible and God can’t be invented or evolve if we define God as creator. That’s why I say if God does not exist, then it is impossible for God to exist.

Not only that, any definition of a creator God that self-references or asserts its own existence will run into an extra problem if God does not exist (that’s why I put in brackets “depending on definition”) Your definition of God is controversial, as perhaps all definitions are. Of course I’m not making any argument that God can’t exist, only that we don’t really know.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Mornin Cell,

You sed:

The concept of God is not self-contradictory (depending on definition) yet it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist

It is possible for something to be logically possible to exist and yet apparently not exist in the real world. For example, if you’re living in the middle ages, an automobile could exist either in the future or on some other planet. So you could say that invented things may have existed for eons , but they are merely temporally or spacially distant.

Let’s assume that “God is the GCB” is not self-contradictory. Given that, the argument compels us to conclude that God exists necessarily. If God exists necessarily, it is impossible to entertain this thought at the same time: “it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist.”

That would be the same as saying God exists necessarily and and not necessarily (contingently) at the same time. Or, that God exists is in all ways unavoidably true, yet it is possible that he doesn’t exist.

Such a thought would be a contradiction. Don’t you agree?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Dame,

You asked: “But does GCB make sense?”

Here is one difficulty pointed out by Leibniz, a defender of the OA. Thinking in terms of numbers and quantity, it is impossible to conceive of the ‘greatest conceivable quantity’. This is because, given any number, we can always think of greater number. Just add 1. So Leibniz concluded that “greatest” must be taken to mean a purely qualitative, not a quantitative, maximum. Only those properties can be attributed to God which (unlike quantity) admit a maximal case.

But Hartshorne points out: “What is insufficiently noted here is that quantity may, after all, have a value which is not attainable without it.” Anselm’s Discovery, p. 27] I won’t get into his reasoning here.

So there appears to be a dilemma that “greatest conceivable quantity” is impossible (can always add 1 more) and "greatest conceivable quality devoid of quality appears likewise to be impossible. Hartshorne resolves the dilemma by first noting an ambiguity in the definition. “None greater can be conceived” may mean, “no greater individual” or it may mean, “no greater thing or entity.” If the latter, then not only can no other individual be conceived superior; the same individual cannot be conceived superior to itself. The resolution, then, is to admit that God is indeed surpassable, but only by Himself.

Hartshorne then concludes at p. 29: If God is surpassable, even though by Himself, then He can include quantity in His quality, without the quantity being that presumably impossible thing, an unsurpassable quantity. The divine quantity will be surpassable, but only by God himself. Now we have none of the contradictions we have been worrying about. god need not be the apparent impossibility, a quality wholly independent of quantity, nor that other impossibility, an unsurpassable quantity."

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Another difficulty is the so-called “Findlay Paradox.” J.N. Findlay in the last century conceded that Anselm was indeed right in holding that God (p. 37):

must be supposed (if supposed at all) to exist necessarily; for a being worthy of worship could not have the defect that its very existence was contingent or had a conceivable alternative. However, said Findlay, so far from proving the divine existence, by pointing to this requirement, Anselm had really disproved it. For modern logical analysis shows that no existence can be necessary. Concrete or actual existence cannot follow from a mere predicate or abstract definition. Hence diviine perfection is impossible.

The one horn of the dilemma is that a merely contingent being is not worthy of worship (we would then be exalting at best a a big and wonderful accident!). So we necessarily want for our object of worship the “bestest” or greatest or “all-worshipful”. But the other horn of the dilemma is that a mere abstraction like “greatest” cannot necessitate any specific concrete actuality.

The resolution, according to Hartshorne, is found in a clarification of the meaning of these terms: Essence, Existence, and Actuality. The Essence is what something is (God is the GCB). For that something to exist means** that **it is actualized in one way or another (not necessarily in a specific manner). Actuality refers to how something is concretized.

So when we define God as the GCB and infer therefrom that God necessarily exists, we are not inferring a necessary actuality. Rather, we are just saying that God is necessarily actualized one way, somehow, or other. And he is the only being who exists in this fashion.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

APB and GCB are objects of belief,
therefore OA needs belief to convince.
DNA (Desoxiry Nucleine Acid) doesn’t.
It needs to survive attempts for refutation.
And it has.
While OA became irrelevent, with respect to establishing knowledge.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

IMHO these difficulties are overcome, but at a cost to traditional Christian theism. For one, it really stretches the Christian theistic mind to say God’s being has a concrete aspect. And if you explore the implications further, you end up having to admit that God is a being in time in some fashion. Hartshorne, reflecting his close association with A.N. Whitehead, is a process guy. For him, God is necesarily a Being in Process.

 

[celluloid]

Mornin Cell,

You sed:

Let’s assume that “God is the GCB” is not self-contradictory. Given that, the argument compels us to conclude that God exists necessarily. If God exists necessarily, it is impossible to entertain this thought at the same time: “it is impossible for God to exist merely because God happens not to exist.”

That would be the same as saying God exists necessarily and and not necessarily (contingently) at the same time. Or, that God exists is in all ways unavoidably true, yet it is possible that he doesn’t exist.

Such a thought would be a contradiction. Don’t you agree?

I can assume that " God is the GCB" is not self-contradictory but only if I assume that God exists first. Since I don’t know if Gods exists, the GCB is controversial.

Do agree with this: the definition GCB would/could be used in a hypothetical godless world?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Cell,

I can assume that " God is the GCB" is not self-contradictory but only if I assume that God exists first. Since I don’t know if Gods exists, the GCB is controversial.

Do agree with this: the definition GCB would/could be used in a hypothetical godless world?

Nope. In any conceivable world, there is a GCB. God is the GCB by definition. So how could there be a godless world?

 

[Dameedna]

IMHO these difficulties are overcome, but at a cost to traditional Christian theism. For one, it really stretches the Christian theistic mind to say God’s being has a concrete aspect. And if you explore the implications further, you end up having to admit that God is a being in time in some fashion. Hartshorne, reflecting his close association with A.N. Whitehead, is a process guy. For him, God is necesarily a Being in Process.

This is all a little confusing, but I have read some very interesting books that highly challenge the traditional christian God(by christians) but do not actually challenge the existance of God, merely the understanding. They also do not think that this is a “challenge” to the bible, but rather a challenge to it’s interpretation by those that claim it as their own.

I also think there was a physicist that wrote a series of books(Paul Davies). Although I think he annoyed quite a few in the scientific area because of his attempt to “popularize” science(specifically physics), but he was heading to that same conclusion that “God” was a being in process. Or at least the universe was a self-actuallizing mechanism that would eventually re-create itself. It was all a bit above me, but this actually sounds quite similar.

 

[celluloid]

Hey Cell,

So how could there be a godless world?

If we were all godless atheists? (yeah, I know, quite inconceivable)

Anyway, it’s been good chatting with you Frank. Between you, other posters here and Googling, I’ve learned a some things, and I mean that in the best way.

Cheers!

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Cell,

Thanks for the conversation and God bless you!

Sincerely,

Frank

 

[FrankSchnabel]

This is all a little confusing, but I have read some very interesting books that highly challenge the traditional christian God(by christians) but do not actually challenge the existance of God, merely the understanding. They also do not think that this is a “challenge” to the bible, but rather a challenge to it’s interpretation by those that claim it as their own.

There are some Evangelicals who espouse something called “open theism.” Greg Boyd is one. He is a process guy and is denounced as heretical on that score. Udderwise he’s a pretty conventional Protestant Christian.

I also think there was a physicist that wrote a series of books(Paul Davies). Although I think he annoyed quite a few in the scientific area because of his attempt to “popularize” science(specifically physics), but he was heading to that same conclusion that “God” was a being in process. Or at least the universe was a self-actuallizing mechanism that would eventually re-create itself. It was all a bit above me, but this actually sounds quite similar.

I’ve read some of Davies’ books and enjoyed them. He is cited by Bill Dembski as a scientist who leans toward intelligent design theory. I think he was referring to Davies’ book The Fifth Miracle, I think, where he cites the “tightly specified complexity” in biology as needing more than just blind natural forces for an explanation.

But we are getting off topic.

But what, my dear, do you find confusing?

 

[Dameedna]

But we are getting off topic.

But what, my dear, do you find confusing?

Okay, I’ll reply to a couple of your posts that brought out the good ole martini glass

 

[Dameedna]

But Hartshorne points out: “What is insufficiently noted here is that quantity may, after all, have a value which is not attainable without it.” Anselm’s Discovery, p. 27] I won’t get into his reasoning here.

So there appears to be a dilemma that “greatest conceivable quantity” is impossible (can always add 1 more) and "greatest conceivable quality devoid of quality appears likewise to be impossible. Hartshorne resolves the dilemma by first noting an ambiguity in the definition. “None greater can be conceived” may mean, “no greater individual” or it may mean, “no greater thing or entity.” If the latter, then not only can no other individual be conceived superior; the same individual cannot be conceived superior to itself. The resolution, then, is to admit that God is indeed surpassable, but only by Himself.

Hartshorne then concludes at p. 29: If God is surpassable, even though by Himself, then He can include quantity in His quality, without the quantity being that presumably impossible thing, an unsurpassable quantity. The divine quantity will be surpassable, but only by God himself. Now we have none of the contradictions we have been worrying about. god need not be the apparent impossibility, a quality wholly independent of quantity, nor that other impossibility, an unsurpassable quantity."

This is kind of confusing when trying to relate it to …well…reality and …um…common sense I guess.

God is surpassable by himself? Does that mean God is actually growing perhaps not in a sense of the infinite, but within our reality?

Or does it mean that the God that exists is one thing, and the God we can concieve is another? And We can add a +1 to God, as our understanding of god grows?

Or am I way off track?

 

[Dameedna]

The one horn of the dilemma is that a merely contingent being is not worthy of worship (we would then be exalting at best a a big and wonderful accident!). So we necessarily want for our object of worship the “bestest” or greatest or “all-worshipful”.

You’ve said this a few times, the object of our worship and what we want to worship. Why do you want to worship, and how does this relate to the greatest concievable being?

Doesn’t this bring back the argument that the “greatest painting we can concieve of” which may be worthy of some kind of worship may not actually exist other than an idea, or the “largest island” does not actually exist other than a concept?

I’m confused over this whole worship element and how you bring it into the OA

 

[FrankSchnabel]

This is kind of confusing when trying to relate it to …well…reality and …um…common sense I guess.

God is surpassable by himself? Does that mean God is actually growing perhaps not in a sense of the infinite, but within our reality?

Or does it mean that the God that exists is one thing, and the God we can concieve is another? And We can add a +1 to God, as our understanding of god grows?

Or am I way off track?

To Hartshorne and other process guys, God is a being in process, just like you and me. A series of events. He is also the all-inclusive reality, outside of whom absolutely nothing exists. So it is inconceivable for God to have a rival. There is no being, no environment, no nuttin outside of Him that he competes with. So the only way He can be surpassed is by himself. As the all-inclusive being in process, he does so as He moves from one divine moment to the next.

So, yeah, in a sense God is growing. Hartshorne holds that God is finite in his actuality but infinite in his potentiality. (another departure from traditional Christian theism).

Hopefully our conception of God and his reality line up. Our philosophical investigations should help us get our thinking straight about the idea of God and some of his attributes.

I’m probably not being too responsive to your questions.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

You’ve said this a few times, the object of our worship and what we want to worship. Why do you want to worship, and how does this relate to the greatest concievable being?

Doesn’t this bring back the argument that the “greatest painting we can concieve of” which may be worthy of some kind of worship may not actually exist other than an idea, or the “largest island” does not actually exist other than a concept?

I’m confused over this whole worship element and how you bring it into the OA

Tis a good question.

Any definition of God should be consistent with the religious notion of God and expressive of faith. God is the One Who is Worshipped. That is what religious people do, worship. Implicit in any religious act of worship is the desire to love and do homage to the most worthy object. For Anselm, God is the universal object of worship, That Than Which None Greater Can Be Conceived (what I have been calling the Greatest Conceivable Being or GCB). To worship any lesser being isn’t rational or fitting.