The Greatest Conceivable Being

[gavanhe]

Do you think we mortals can reason things about God from His revelations? On the other hand, is “logic” a relevant form of reason with regard to our Lord?

I believe that it’s inherent in us to use our logic and reasoning powers to the limits of our abilities and sometimes beyond, hence illogicality.
I am not sure whether any other form of reasoning would lead us any closer to an answer to the GCB, but having said that logic and reasoning from revelation can lead us to Our Lord whom by definition (all everything) is the GCB.
Gerry

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey JD,

I asked: But does it mean that he is absolutely unchanging? Is that a logical possibility, even for God?

Answers: I think so; I don’t know.

If He was mutable, what might the impetuses for change be? Would He be “required” to change because of “forces”?

If infinity is always “now”, for God, what would get Him to want to change?

Change is connected to time and (local) motion. What need would God have for time or motion?

God must change in some way in order to be able to act at all. A completely changeless being can’t do nuttin. Granted, anytime God acts He is only outdoing himself (who else is there beside Him?), but he is acting and changing nevertheless in his concrete aspect.

So what I’m wondering is whether it might be possible to be orthodox and believe that God is not absolutely immutable. He is unchanging in his abstract attributes but changing in his actuality. This entails that God is a being in process, moving from one divine moment to the next. IOW, there is a divine time. Of course, it must be wholly different from the way his creatures experience time.

Regarding infinity, Hartshorne argues that while God has infinite potential at any divine moment, even He is not infinitely actual, which is, even for Him, a logical impossibility.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

But back to the first premise: “God is the GCB” is a meaningful statement.

To evaluate this statement we have necessarily delved into the meaning of “greatest” and sought to determine if it leads to contradictions. For if it does, we have to conclude that “God” is a meaningless concept, akin to round-squares or 4-sided triangles.

So is there a consistent way to define the GCB? I have argued there is if we say that the GCB is the Whole of Reality or the All-Inclusive Being. If the definition of God rests here, then I think the problems raised with respect to ultimate or unsurpassable greatness seem to be resolved. If the GCB is the Whole of Reality, then it can be compared only to itself or to its parts. With respect to whole-part comparisons, the whole is always greater than the part. The GCB is therefore the not-conceivably surpassably whole of reality.

Makes sense to me.

This is why I think the logical positivist attack on the GCB fails and Anselm prevails.

The consequences of this are astounding, as I’ve said before. The proper question all along has been “What does God mean?” as opposed to “Does God exist?”. Once we define God in a consistant way, duh! God exists!

The only thing left to argue about are his attributes and just how transcendent a reality he actually is. Is He just the physical universe (minimal materialist position) or is He the personal creator God of the Christians who counts the hairs on our head and holds us as the apple of His Eye? Or sumptin in between.

Granted, once we reach this point human reasoning will prove to be increasingly incapable, and we will have to resort increasingly to faith in revelation.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Here is another way to look at this.

Anselm has demonstrated that there are only two choices when it comes to deity: either God exists necessarily or the idea is impossible nonsense. Our choices are only a priori theism or logical positivism. Period.

Logical positivism rests on the Verifiabililty Principle of Meaning which very likely is self-contradictory. So we can’t believe logical positivisms conclusions concerning the meaning of God.

We have only one option left.

 

[JDaniel]

Hey JD,

I asked: But does it mean that he is absolutely unchanging? Is that a logical possibility, even for God?

God must change in some way in order to be able to act at all. A completely changeless being can’t do nuttin. Granted, anytime God acts He is only outdoing himself (who else is there beside Him?), but he is acting and changing nevertheless in his concrete aspect.

But, why must God’s acting = changing? St. Thomas says,

“All the ancient philosophers attribute infinitude to the first principle, as is said (Phys. iii), and with reason; for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity; forasmuch as they asserted that matter was the first principle; consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things.” - New Advent Summa

Furthermore, I would add that if a thing exists only as and in an eternal now, no change could possibly take place. To my knowledge, neither scripture nor the Catholic philosophers have mentioned a “divine time (or, moment)”, at least not in the sense Hartshome describes.

I agree that it is difficult to comprehend that matter-energy-space-time (a timeline) can exist simultaneously with an absence of time, but, that is how Aquinas and Augustine have explained it.

So what I’m wondering is whether it might be possible to be orthodox and believe that God is not absolutely immutable. He is unchanging in his abstract attributes but changing in his actuality. This entails that God is a being in process, moving from one divine moment to the next. IOW, there is a divine time. Of course, it must be wholly different from the way his creatures experience time.

I think not - not in “reality”, anyway. On the other hand, as a “mental construct”, the manner you describe would seem to be the best way we humans can describe what is taking place.

Regarding infinity, Hartshorne argues that while God has infinite potential at any divine moment, even He is not infinitely actual, which is, even for Him, a logical impossibility.

As Aquinas said, (Hartshome has) “. . . misunderstood the ‘infinity’ of an actually infinite being.” He is pantheifying, if you will, God’s inifinite nature.

At least, in my opinion. I could be wrong.

God bless, JD

 

[celluloid]

Here is another way to look at this.

Anselm has demonstrated that there are only two choices when it comes to deity: either God exists necessarily or the idea is impossible nonsense. Our choices are only a priori theism or logical positivism. Period.

Logical positivism rests on the Verifiabililty Principle of Meaning which very likely is self-contradictory. So we can’t believe logical positivisms conclusions concerning the meaning of God.

We have only one option left.

(Disclaimer: I don’t use a Santa Claus analogy to ridicule the idea of God in any way. I actually think a creator god is a respectable idea, but in this case, the Santa analogy happens to come in handy.)

So it goes like this:

First accept my definition of Santa Claus:

*Santa is a miracle man in a red suit who personally delivers presents to children all over the world
*
Here comes a logical inference, using the definition. Watch out!

Santa cannot personally deliver presents unless he exists

Santa delivers presents (by definition)

And the conclusion:
Therefore Santa Claus exists

Of course, we could argue that we know from experience that Santa is a myth and so we reject the definition from the get-go. Santa does no such thing at all, and so we are accused of logical positivism.

On the other hand, we could bite the bullet by taking a metaphysical or metaphorical stance and realizing that Santa does indeed exist, as presents are delivered in his name, children visit him in department stores, letters are written to him, etc.

All the classic arguments do is sneak in a tentative premise either directly (Plantinga, who BTW, realizes that his “victorious” modal ontological argument fails to convince a reasonable skeptic) or via a logical inference using the definition (Anselm) or via definition (Descartes).

Since I (and every a priori agnostic) should only tentatively accept your definition GCB as true, the argument conclusion is inconclusive since it depends on the absolute truth of the definition and/or premise(s). And all this is assuming that Ateista is incorrect and the GCB is not contradictory or meaningless, and that is an open question as well.

 

[Ghosty]

But, the man who brought us the GCB concept was sainted (St. Anselm). And St. Thomas Aquinas includes it as his fourth proof of God’s existence. . .

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas argued against the Ontological Argument (Greatest Conceivable Being) in the Summa, and IMO adequately disproved it. It wasn’t until long after Aquinas that the GCB argument was picked up again, so devastating was his argument against it. This is what Aquinas said in I-I q2a1:

Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

That pretty much destroys the argument, for me at least.

Peace and God bless!

 

[greylorn]

Hey Greylorn,

you sed:

To be sure I disagree with the last sentence. Which objections to the meaningfulness of the GCB have I not conclusively and utterly demolished?

Mine.

The GCB is not a logical concept if applied to an absolute entity because the word “Greatest” is comparative, not absolute. To declare that God is the GCB is simply to declare that this is the best God we’ve been able to come up with so far.

No concept of a GCB should contain internal logical contradictions. The currently popular God concept has several, which renders it not all that great.

Then there is my point above, which you ignored. Understandably.
Put another way, thanks to insights from a parallel post on the subject, “Can God Think?”,

We yak amongst one another on this site, demonstrating our knowledge, insightfulness, and need to be right, but mainly parroting religious ideas devised centuries ago by guys who thought that the earth was flat. In the meantime, scientists and engineers are out there in the real world building contraptions to extend real understanding of the way things work.

These guys are delving into the only legitimate Bible our planet has ever known— the physical universe itself, the only Bible certain to have been written by none other than God Himself.

And I’ll bet that not one of those students spends an hour in church or a minute on this site. Why? Because the kind of ideas kicked around here are unverifiable. That makes them irrelevant.

One way to make them relevant is to bring the fundamental abstraction, the GCB concept of the Creator into the realm of potentially verifiable reality. Scrap the GCB concept entirely and start looking for the FCB- the Functionally Conceivable Being.

Incidentally, Frank, I appreciate your arrogance!

 

[JDaniel]

Hello, Ghosty:

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas argued against the Ontological Argument (Greatest Conceivable Being) in the Summa, and IMO adequately disproved it. It wasn’t until long after Aquinas that the GCB argument was picked up again, so devastating was his argument against it. This is what Aquinas said in I-I q2a1:

"Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist."

That pretty much destroys the argument, for me at least.

Peace and God bless!

Usually, Aquinas argues from positions of exceptionally precise propositions. For example, his Second Proof for God’s Existence is that God is the first (and necessary) efficient cause. He argues that all currently perceived efficient causes could not, nor can they ever, be the efficient causes of themselves as they would then be prior to themselves. For, he argues, efficient causes follow in order, each intermediate cause producing an effect, that effect (perhaps) becoming another intermediate cause, and so on.

However, in the case of Anselm’s argument, he merely suggests that there might be people who really do not understand what is meant by the word God, and/or, may be atheistic, These surmises do not necessarily disprove Anslem’s argument, they simply suggest that some people might not be inclined to accept some of the pre-suppositions, or, that they may be harder to sway.

That is a rather lighthearted refutation, don’t you think? That’s why I am concerned to discover whether or not the Truth of Anselm’s proposition is necessarily existing “within the logic itself”.

God bless,
JD

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Cell,

In yer example you defined a being in terms of what he does. In order for Santa to do what he does, he must exist. Since he does what he does (by definition), he exists. Of course, this is silly.

I am not even sure that is the way the first version of the OA works. But in any event I agree that the first version fails. As I’ve said all along, the second version operates under a different principle.

The principle in the first is that existence is better than non-existence. The principle in the second is that necessary existence is better than contingent existence.

1. The definition “God is the GCB” makes sense (is meaningful).
2. There are two modes of existing for any being: necessary and contingent.
3. Of the two modes, only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.
4. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Greylorn,

You concluded in yer last post:

Incidentally, Frank, I appreciate your arrogance!

This was in response to my:

To be sure I disagree with the last sentence. Which objections to the meaningfulness of the GCB have I not conclusively and utterly demolished?

My bad. I should have included a or a to convey the spirit with which I made such a statement.

I really don’t take myself that seriously, and once you get to know me, you will understand that I yam, after all, a BOVLB (Bear of Very Little Brain).

 

[Fran65]

We yak amongst one another on this site, demonstrating our knowledge, insightfulness, and need to be right, but mainly parroting religious ideas devised centuries ago by guys who thought that the earth was flat. In the meantime, scientists and engineers are out there in the real world building contraptions to extend real understanding of the way things work. …

And I’ll bet that not one of those students spends an hour in church or a minute on this site. Why? Because the kind of ideas kicked around here are unverifiable. That makes them irrelevant

Well, these statements are both illogical and inaccurate (in addition to several other things). Having pointed that out I don’t need to say anymore.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Greylorn sed:

The GCB is not a logical concept if applied to an absolute entity because the word “Greatest” is comparative, not absolute. To declare that God is the GCB is simply to declare that this is the best God we’ve been able to come up with so far.

No concept of a GCB should contain internal logical contradictions. The currently popular God concept has several, which renders it not all that great.

I agree we must purge GCB of all internal contradictions. That is what I’ve been trying to do in this thread, sucessfully I think (IMHO).

For the time being, put out of your mind “the currently popular God concept” and just focus on the GCB. Is there such a thing as ultimate (not absolute) greatness? I have suggested that if we conceive of the GCB as the Whole of Reality or the All-inclusive Being, then ultimate and unsurpassable greatness would have to be one of its attributes. The Whole of Reality exists without rivals outside of it (there is even no environment which contains it). It can only be compared to itself and its parts, and it will always be greater than any of its parts.

 

[Dameedna]

Dear Edna:

When one understands what “infinite” actually means, one discovers that the usual confusions permit us to incorrectly jump back and forth between actual infinity and potential infinity. An actual infinity cannot exist in the physical realm, due to the fact that you can always add at least one more whatever. Thus, in quantum mathematics, a possible infinity is a potential one. At any point, albeit with great difficulty currently, the particles in the universe can be counted. This number is a finite number.

So, WHAT OTHER FORM OF UNIVERSE COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED?

I’m sorry but I do no agree with your understanding of quantum physics, because it show’s that matter can be created spontaneously out of nothing. The number game, is hence meaningless.

In terms, of what other form of the universe? Use your imagination? Many sci-fi writers have. lol !!

If you can accept the concept of infinity, then you can accept the concept of infinite universes, can you not? If not, why so?

This is just one of them, and we , as part of this universe, cannot regress back to before it started, because “time” within our reality, didn’t exist outside of it.

You try and put “god” as a simple answer to a complex problem. How about we say, we don’t actually know, instead of invoking Gods, who died 2000 years ago on a cross. The universe is billions of years old and attempts to fit the God people believe in, into a universe we are just beginning to understand is detrimental to truth.

Whenever a question is raised, it alway’s ends up with “That’s just a mystery, that’s God”. Thank goodness some people are actually trying to figure it out, and not using God as an excuse because the unknown is painful.

We simply do not know. Many hypothesis, have been brought forward over the years. So be it. Doesn’t mean any of it is true.It’s just an idea.

Cheers
Dame

 

[Dameedna]

Zat you? Or is there lurking within you, as with DameEdna, an inner Metaphysician?

You are very cheeky frank.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Edna,

Yes, I yam a cheeky chap.

So how is your Inner Metaphysician doing?

Statements like “Doesn’t mean any of it is true.It’s just an idea” show that you are still fighting it. Don’t! Give in to your Inner Metaphysician! (I am virtually sending you another T-shirt with that message emblazoned on it.)

God bless you

Da Schnobbel

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Ghosty and JD,
I myself have not read the ST, but I gather from general reading that St. Tom was critical of the OA. But if he did refute it, the refutation was directed only at the version advanced in Prosl. II, not Prosl. III. Charles Hartshorne observes that St. Tom totally missed the principle of III that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence and that necessary existence is deducible from “that than which none greater can be conceived.”

 

[Dameedna]

Hi JDaniel,

You sed:

This is true. Something which is actual is fully determined and finite. Therefore, an “actual infinity” don’t make no sense.

Doesn’t it?

If we can accept infinity, aren’t we saying it’s actual?

Not defined, but that it exists ?

 

[Dameedna]

His attributes, therefore, are: omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence, omni-presence, infinititude, immutability, self-existence, sovereignty, holiness, faithfulness, self-sufficiency, all-just, all-merciful, eternal, all-good, all-gracious, all-wise, and trinity. None of these are in conflict with another. To my knowledge these are the attributes revealed to us through the scriptures. These are all that are necessary of a GCB.

Are they? Seems like an aweful lot of wishful thinking in there.

Sort of like “god is the greatest” and to “me” this is the greatest.

Seems very humanlike, and ultimately focused on certain kinds of humans.

 

[Dameedna]

The only thing left to argue about are his attributes and just how transcendent a reality he actually is. Is He just the physical universe (minimal materialist position) or is He the personal creator God of the Christians who counts the hairs on our head and holds us as the apple of His Eye? Or sumptin in between.

Granted, once we reach this point human reasoning will prove to be increasingly incapable, and we will have to resort increasingly to faith in revelation.

At this point, we hit a wall. What is the “reason” you rely on revelation?

Some-one comes to us, in a revelation and claims to have come in contact with God. We no longer have to live with the unknown…praise be to allah.

hmmm…

The universe, could be the GCB. It is meaningless. The real question, is why would you chose one revelation(christianity/judaism) over another?

And why…would you believe that God, had any desire to be revealed? Why would he? Because WE want him to do that?

Frank, your logic is good, but what are you trying to achieve?.The OA, is only good, for those that already believe what you do. It’s meaningless to the rest of us. It seems to be an intellectual argument to drive people to admit they are thiests.

But there’s no purpose.

I still can’t quite decipher, why you think it’s important in an argument with those that don’t have faith.