Ah, an Anselm devotee. Can ‘necessary existence’ be included in something by definition? Can ‘existence’ be included as a ‘essence’? This is the unsolvable question.You are not understanding what a necessary being would entail, then. You are not entertaining the coherence of the idea “necessary” being. You have something else in mind and claiming that idea is coherent but may not exist. Necessary means necessary, not likely or improbable, or some other term that you are trying to incorporate into the idea of necessary. Existing “by necessity” cannot be coherently entertained with “still might not exist.”
This is a problem with how you are conceiving the idea of existing of necessity, i.e., there can be no possibility that it not exist. That is what necessary means, by definition. A necessary being cannot merely be “possible,” it is necessary, by definition.
The statement ‘it is possible that a being as great as possible exists’ means that it is possible that something is possible’, so, it is equivalent to just saying ‘a maximally great being is possible if it’s possible.’ .Belorg:
Excellent observation! And you were the first responder to notice it! There’s hope for you yet.
As to the second part of your statement, how do you see the statement as circular? (I actually have another argument against #1, but it has nothing to do with circularity.)
God bless,
jd
Their ontology has nothing to do with their truth.Their existence is contingent upon those sentient beings, and also on the axioms chosen. Mathematical entities are concepts, which do not exist ontologically.
If all concepts are merely “products of the mind,” how is the truth of those concepts determined? Is it arbitrarily assigned by the mind? Based upon what, exactly? Correspondence to reality, perhaps? No? If not, then what is the point of playing the mind game?As a matter of fact, it is incorrect to “single out” the mathematical concepts from among the infinitely many concepts. All the concepts are the product of the mind, all are abstractions of reality. What they are “abstracted from” does exist (well, maybe!), even if there is no one to perceive them, but the concepts do not.
I intended to put “proof” in scare quotes because, you are correct, inductive methods do not result in proofs, strictly speaking.Sheer nonsense. Inductive methods (which are never “proofs”) are based upon “basic principles” which come from observation (like the principle of conservation or matter / energy / momentum / etc.). “Real” science uses induction. The basic principles are subject to change if and when it necomes necessary - that is when the predictions of the system are out of synch with the observed reality.
Arbitrarily chosen? Not exactly.Are you joking here? Deductive methods are based upon axioms. Axioms are arbitrarily chosen, and they are “true” by definition. The statements derived from the axioms are “defined” true within that axiomatic system. The actually chosen axioms of mathematics are very useful when applying to reality, but they could be chosen differently.
I arbitrarily specified it. It’s one of those axioms one assumes by definition. In this case the container is part of the axiomatic system that the null set depends upon in order to have any meaning at all.You really need to learn the basics. With special emphasis of set theory, and mathematics.
You are obviously not a mathematician. You are in dire need to learn set theory. The concept of a “null-set” is not an “empty” container. There is no “container”.
We are not to be concerned about “actual reality” but you can end up with an absolute statement about a necessary being not being possible in “actual reality” based upon arbitrarily assigned axioms?Totally out of topic. **We are not concerned about the actual reality, and “how” it came to be. **We are only concerned about abstract, possible worlds. If you do not like the “null-world” proof, because you cannot understand the math behind it, I gave two “actual” worlds, each with a different quark in it, and since the intersection of these worlds is “null”, there is no entity which would “appear” in all possible worlds - there is no “necessary” being. Q.E.D.
Belorg:The statement ‘it is possible that a being as great as possible exists’ means that it is possible that something is possible’, so, it is equivalent to just saying ‘a maximally great being is possible if it’s possible.’ .
I have no idea what you are talking about here and how it relates in any way to what I have said.Belorg:
I can’t agree. As humans, we have each done a rigorous a priori dialectic that affirms what is real, and that it is not, at least to the vast majority, a mere mental construct. A “possibility” is a mere mental construct… So, it is not the same. If it were, then all thinking would be a tedious, worthless effort by a possible subject that is only possible. So, you are agreeing that we don’t have real existence?
Why didn’t you just say that, “All of this is just an illusion?”
God bless,
jd
sounds like st. anselms argument re-worded, not the biggest fan of that argument wasn’t very convincing for me, and I believe kidna easy to disprove. Just think of the greatest Island that could possibly exist does that island have to exist?From Reasonable Faith.org
"Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls “maximal greatness.” So Plantinga argues:
How do you feel about this argument. While it doesn’t feel right, I don’t see any contradictions, or falsehoods in the argument. Thoughts?
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists."
Of course it does. A proposition which does not exist, cannot have a truth value associated with it.Their ontology has nothing to do with their truth.
Truth and falsity are also concepts. They do not exist apart from a mind. A proposition can refer to a state of affairs in (physical) reality, and we assign a truth value to it, if it correctly represents reality. Or the proposition refers to an abstract system, and then we assign a truth value to it, if it is a logical corollary of the axioms.If all concepts are merely “products of the mind,” how is the truth of those concepts determined? Is it arbitrarily assigned by the mind? Based upon what, exactly? Correspondence to reality, perhaps? No? If not, then what is the point of playing the mind game?
Ok, that is agreeable.I intended to put “proof” in scare quotes because, you are correct, inductive methods do not result in proofs, strictly speaking.
Not all axiomatic systems are equally useful. The axioms and postulates of Euclides proved to be very useful, and yet, they were generalized by Riemann and Gauss-Bolyai-Lobatchevsky and all of a sudden, two brand new “worlds” were born. The usually accepted axiomatic set of mathematics “grew out” of the desire to describe reality as accurately as possible. As such they are not “arbitrary”, since reality is not arbitrary. But one can create other axiomatic systems, for other purposes. Like… read on… chess!Arbitrarily chosen? Not exactly.
You can try it, and no one will pay attention, just like if you started to “redefine” the rules governing the movements of the pieces in chess. You might come up with some interesing axiom-set, and you might get a following. But those axioms are still arbirtary.I arbitrarily specified it. It’s one of those axioms one assumes by definition. In this case the container is part of the axiomatic system that the null set depends upon in order to have any meaning at all.
I am not going to waste months on teaching you set theory. Go and take a few courses at your nearby college.What defines the null set, then, if not a container? If nothing defines the null set, it doesn’t exist apart from any other set.
Welcome to the real world. Mathematics is a “mind game”, pretty useful, too, since it reflects the physical reality (of course it is superfluous to add “physical”, since there is no other reality). Philosophy is also a “mind game”, much inferior. But it can be amusing.Sounds like you are playing a mental game.
I understand that. I’m saying that we there is no logical contradiction in there being a necessary being, so we can think of a nesessary being coherently without knowing whether or not such a being exists, just as we can coherently entertain a complex mathematical statement, without knowing whether or not such a statement is true. It may be false, but we can still coherrently entartain the possibility of it being true before we actually prove that it is, in fact, false. The idea of a necessary being can be coherrent without knowing why or if that being is actually necessary.You are not understanding what a necessary being would entail, then. You are not entertaining the coherence of the idea “necessary” being. You have something else in mind and claiming that idea is coherent but may not exist. Necessary means necessary, not likely or improbable, or some other term that you are trying to incorporate into the idea of necessary. Existing “by necessity” cannot be coherently entertained with “still might not exist.”
This is a problem with how you are conceiving the idea of existing of necessity, i.e., there can be no possibility that it not exist. That is what necessary means, by definition. A necessary being cannot merely be “possible,” it is necessary, by definition.
perhaps I should have worded it this way:The problem here is with premise one. How could there be a world where it is not possible to have a being of maximal greatness? All world’s must have necessary entities. Omnipotence is to have all power. How can there be a world where there is not a maximal amount of power to be had? At best we can argue that there are different maximums of power in other possible worlds, but omnipotence would still mean to have all power. Of course, we would have to wonder if all-power is dependent on the possible world or independent of it. So I would say it cannot be possible for a maximally excellent being to NOT be a possibility in any possible world.
The only way a possible world could not have a maximally excellent being is if there were not potential excellencies in that world. A world without any excellencies, however, would not exist because there would not be anything for that world to exist. It is equivalent to saying “nonexistence exists” which is not saying anything more that “nonexistence.”
It all depends on where it takes you.Philosophy is also a “mind game”, much inferior. But it can be amusing.
I think what you mean is that there is no “apparent” logical contradiction in the idea of necessary being, but since a contradiction might exist, but unknown to us, then the idea cannot prove the actual existence of a necessary being.I understand that. I’m saying that we there is no logical contradiction in there being a necessary being, so we can think of a nesessary being coherently without knowing whether or not such a being exists, just as we can coherently entertain a complex mathematical statement, without knowing whether or not such a statement is true. It may be false, but we can still coherrently entartain the possibility of it being true before we actually prove that it is, in fact, false. The idea of a necessary being can be coherrent without knowing why or if that being is actually necessary.
It isn’t reality, no, but it is reality that you exist, even if you are percieving yourself as a giant emu.Are you sure? If I take hallucinogens, and perceive that I am a giant emu, is that reality?
Our existence does not depend on the truth of the physical universe. Even if the physical universe we observe does not exist, we know that we do. To know that we are human beings and not emus we have to assume that the physical universe exists, but we do not have to assume that the physical universe exists in order to know that we have a mind. The correct proof would be something more along these lines: I exist, and the physical universe I see exists, therefore, I am a human being.Now, in the “Cogito”, who perceives and (perceivedly) does the thinking? The subject, who existence we are trying to prove. Thus the ‘cogito’ is circular, as shown: If I exist, and therefore my perceptions that I think exists, then I exist.
basically, yes. that description works for what we are discussing here.I think what you mean is that there is no “apparent” logical contradiction in the idea of necessary being, but since a contradiction might exist, but unknown to us, then the idea cannot prove the actual existence of a necessary being.
Correct?
yes, but only if you aren’t using “idea” as synonymous with “proof”. If “idea” could be replaced with “proof” in the above statement, then that isn’t quite what I mean.I think what you mean is that there is no “apparent” logical contradiction in the idea of necessary being, but since a contradiction might exist, but unknown to us, then the idea cannot prove the actual existence of a necessary being.
Correct?
It wouldn’t make sense to say the proof couldn’t prove the actual existence.yes, but only if you aren’t using “idea” as synonymous with “proof”. If “idea” could be replaced with “proof” in the above statement, then that isn’t quite what I mean.
I’m basically saying that the idea of a necessary being can be coherrently entertained without knowing why the being is necessary or if such a being exists.
Zro x:It isn’t reality, no, but it is reality that you exist, even if you are percieving yourself as a giant emu.
Not so.We are merely convinced that we exist.Our existence does not depend on the truth of the physical universe. Even if the physical universe we observe does not exist, we know that we do.
But, both ideas can be entertained simultaneously. One is not a presupposition of the other.To know that we are human beings and not emus we have to assume that the physical universe exists,
We don’t even know that for fact certain.but we do not have to assume that the physical universe exists in order to know that we have a mind.
The better proof would be: “I am, therefore I think.” Yet, even this is nothing more than a desirous, and hopeful mental construct.The correct proof would be something more along these lines: I exist, and the physical universe I see exists, therefore, I am a human being.
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying here. I’m saying that our mind exists, whether you are an emu or a human being, not necessarily our bodies.Zro x:
I don’t think so. What’s the difference between perceiving that you exist and are, therefore, real, or perceiving yourself as a giant emu? None, really. We just happen to be more comfortable with the “reality” perception - as it has been ingrained in us since we were about 3 years old.
We are merely convinced that our bodies exist, yes. but we know that our minds exist because we percieve, feel, and think.Not so.We are merely convinced that we exist.
You have to convince yourself that the external universe is real in order to know that your body is real, though not to know that your mind is real.But, both ideas can be entertained simultaneously. One is not a presupposition of the other.
Yes, we do. Nothing at all is more certain. The fact that we have a mind is what we must base all of our knowledge on.We don’t even know that for fact certain.
The best proof is, I think, therefore, my mind exists. I think that would eliminate a lot of the confusion.The better proof would be: “I am, therefore I think.” Yet, even this is nothing more than a desirous, and hopeful mental construct.