The Greatest Conceivable Being

[Dameedna]

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.

I don’t see how those statements could be illogical, or irrelevant.

He is claiming that the only thing we can study is the universe, and the only way we can do it, with any honesty is through the scientific method.

People “claiming” it can be studied through revelations, makes it meaningles to those that know proof, is only in the pudding.

His statments weren’t illogical at all as far as I can see.

 

[JDaniel]

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.”

Hello, Frank:

In answer to your implied question, Aquinas’ third and fourth proofs use necessary existence and greatest possible being as the premises of their logic, so, in some manner, St. Thomas does not have a “severe” problem with the OA - even in its original utterance.

Aquinas was lightly critical of it in that he thought that the OA would not be accepted by an “atheist”, or, could not be accepted by someone unfamiliar with a Christian (or, Catholic) concept of God in the first place.

In fairness, he does not “refute” the OA, just points out its potential difficulties where people are concerned.

God bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Hello, Dame:

I hate to keep asking this of you, but, one more time: document or retract. Otherwise, you are simply being argumentative.

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

So, are we to substitute science fiction for and instead of defining anything that mankind can agree to that derives from reality (philosophy) and scripture (theology)? The world that accepts physics and biology PLUS something beyond just physics and biology has been around for a couple thousand years. At but 4% - 5% of the world population, “atheism” would seem to have been not very well received. (Of course, the rest of the world might just consist of morons )

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

I have accepted a proper and correct “concept of infinity”. You haven’t. (Once again, PLEASE, document or retract your assertions.) It seems you really don’t understand what it means, OR, you’re just simply being argumentative and, thus, uncharitable.

Snip . . .

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.

But, you’re wrong. God is NO “simple answer”. God is an answer that is as complex as science, if not more so. Like “science”, even within its own ranks there is plenty of disagreement.

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.

Again: where and when have I said, or used, these hypotheses? Document or retract. Another example of argumentativeness?

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.

Seems that you do not have a sufficient background in history, either, or else you are just being argumentative again. Once more, document or retract.

This is a philosophy forum. You cannot just make any assertion you wish and expect not to be challanged. Your entire monologue was nothing but assertions: you slam the bible, slam religion, slam God, and slam believers. Yet, you are allowed to get away with it on a Catholic Forum. It seems to me that Christian intent and charitability is a one-way street where you’re concerned. It is our charitability towards you.

Nevertheless, I will pray for you; that’s as charitable as anyone can possibly be with someone who is as downright mean-spirited as you are.

God bless you,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Well, if you’d care to read a little history, theology, or philosophy, you might have learned that these seventeen or eighteen attributes (determinates) are the same traditional attributes that Christianity has derived and accepted from the books of scripture.

Scripture is nothing more than 500 writers writing about history, revelation, inspired literature, and occurances with Christ, covering a 1,000 year time frame, codified into one large volume we call the “Bible”. But, eh, throw it out - it’s meanless.

God bless,
JD

 

[greylorn]

Hey Greylorn,

You concluded in yer last post:

This was in response to my:

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).

Frank,
You no bad. You’re a kindred spirit.

I understood your comment perfectly. You reminded me of an old engineer friend, whose fallacious opinions I’ve pointed out over many glasses of wine.

While I am coming to appreciate the quality of minds who are engaged in these wonderful conversations, some folks tend to get a little stuffy now and then. Luckily that’s never happened to me.

So please don’t filter your self out of your communications. The world would be a more interesting place if more people engaged in conversations like Brett Favre plays football. And don’t think that this lets you off the hook re: our end of this conversation.

My eyes are so bad that I can’t make out the expressions on the silly little circle-faces, so forget those. Words work.

 

[Mijoy2]

Wouldn’t the GDB be the one who could answer all the questions and objections posed in this thread?

Whoops I meant GCB.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

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

Many things that Christians believe can not be discovered via human reason alone. e.g. the Trinity or the Incarnation… Now with respect to such dogmas, I can give you reasons for believing in such, but ultimately my belief rests on faith. Reasonable faith, though.

Traditionally, Christians hold that we can discover that God exists and some of his attributes by reason alone. But that’s it.

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

There are lots of different religions, each with its own distinctive truth claims. As between Judaism and Christianity, it boils down to whether Jesus is the Messiah. See guys like C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell and Peter Kreeft.

As between Christianity and Islam, we know too much of Muhammed’s history to take him seriously as a real prophet of God.

As between Catholicism and Protestant denominations, after much study I have concluded that the Catholic Church is where the fullness of truth subsides. Also, the whole sola fide and sola scriptura things never resonated with me.

As between Catholicism and Mormonism, I am not into polytheism. Read too much Anselm, I guess.

As between Christanity and eastern religions, …

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

I only know what Sister Mary What’s Her Name told me in 3rd grade: “God the Father loved the Son so much, and God the Son love the Father so much, that their love is so real that it exists as the third person of the Holy Ghost. And the Trinity just wanted to share this love so God created us.”

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.

I am enthused about metaphysical inquiry because it lays a good foundation for theology. Once you get into it, you are left with the conclusion that this much must be true:

1. God exists. Theism is the only rational option.
2. There is a transcendent reality. Reality is more than the physcial universe. At a minimum, metaphysics makes a very good case for panentheism.
3. There are necessary truths.

Then, all the other proofs and arguments come into play. They further bolster the case for a transcendent creator God.

A very good source is the Christian Handbook by Kreeft and Tacelli.

To sum up, the OA helps us get our thinking straight about God. Of course God exists. All the other arguments help us understand and grasp that He is personal God.

I’ve run out of time and have to get ready for an evening appointment.

BTW, it’s “anudder luffly day in Nordakoda.” -22 degrees. The dog’s walks are very short on days like this. Where the heck is my Global Warming!!!

God bless you and your kin.

cordially

da Schnobbel

 

[celluloid]

Hi Cell,

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.

I think the problem is a confusion of contexts of what is conceivable.

Another analogy (sorry)

Suppose we are watching a television show that has a superhero saving the heroine by holding up her train car in mid air, and the superhero says to the camera, “The following is a true statement: I don’t really have the powers of a superhero, I’m just an actor playing the part of a superhero.” In the context of the show, this notion is contradictory since we have seen him perform many superhuman feats, and everyone else in the show is interacting with him in other ways consistent with his identity as a superhero. In the context of reality, as we know it, he is bang on.

Imagine the same show (which bills itself as a superhero show) in which the superhero **never **shows any superhuman powers at all. We would say that it is a contradiction to say that a show can exist that identifies itself as a superhero show, while the protagonist and all other characters never display any superhuman feats. Yet this is possible to occur, both fictionally and in real life. A TV series could have a superhero going through a normal life by choice or threat (within the context of fiction). Or a series could be canceled before the superhero’s powers are revealed (within the context of real life.)

I think this is where Anselm goes wrong in assuming that we are in contradiction when we grant that God can be the GCB and yet not exist. In the context of "conceivability’ in an imaginary world, it is a contradiction to hold that God does not exist or that God does not exist necessarily, but in the context of brute fact reality it is (possibly) a true statement that God doesn’t exist.

Not only that, a convinced atheist could also imagine God as existing, within the context of a purposeful fiction and that would not be a contradiction within that imaginary world of a supposedly existing God. But in that case, he would be temporarily suspending his disbelief the same way we all do so for novels, tv shows, movies and video games.

So when you state:
The definition “God is the GCB” makes sense (is meaningful),

I would say yes, fine, in the context of fiction, which should be the default context of a priori determinations. I can see possible plot holes but I’ll overlook them. Let’s play and invent as long as we remember this is the realm of virtual fiction.

In fact most of our thoughts and perceptions have a fictional aspect and more likely fictional if thought in ignorance of facts.

In the context of my experience and the extent of my knowledge about reality, possibly yes, possibly no. I don’t know if God or GCB is really possible, even before you get to the necessarily existing part.

There is, as I far as I can tell from what I’ve read, equivocation of context in what is conceivable.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Mornin Cell,

I think this is where Anselm goes wrong in assuming that we are in contradiction when we grant that God can be the GCB and yet not exist. In the context of "conceivability’ in an imaginary world, it is a contradiction to hold that God does not exist or that God does not exist necessarily, but in the context of brute fact reality it is (possibly) a true statement that God doesn’t exist.

In your superhero examples, the truth or falsity of the hero’s statement will vary according to the factual context. Depending on the facts, the statement will be true or false. This is an example of what philosopher Duane Voskuil calls a “merely empirical” statement.

There are also “merely rational” statements whose truth or falsity depend on consistency with definitions.

In either case, no statement is necessarily true, no matter the context. The facts or the definitions could always be different.

Now the mighty battle at the heart of philosophy is whether there is a third category of statement which must be true no matter what. There is no conceivable fact that would prove it true or false. No alternate definition is possible. No imaginable empirical or definitional context will change its truth.

Logical positivists maintain that there are no necessary truths. They are only merely empirical or merely rational truths, they say. But they are illogical in believing so, are they not?

That is why there must be some (at least one) proposition that must be true no matter the context. Folks that hold thus belong to a special club called Metaphysicians.

Anselm thinks that the statement “God exists” is a metaphysical statement. Viewed in that light, it would be silly to try and imagine empirical or definitional contexts which would render it true or false.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Back to Dame’s question:

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.

To get people to admit the truth of theism, any kind of theism, is no small thing. It means that the guy or gal who stands on the rooftop and shouts “There is no God!” is confused.

The OA functions well in establishing the truth of theism in general. Further metaphysical inquiry establishes the existence of a transcendent God. Further philosophical inquiry builds on this and can lead to belief in a personal creator God who designed the universe.

Thus reason alone can put a person in a position to be receptive to having faith. And speaking as someone who has made the leap of faith into Catholic Christianity, I can testify that such a leap is reasonable.

 

[celluloid]

Mornin Cell,

In your superhero examples, the truth or falsity of the hero’s statement will vary according to the factual context. Depending on the facts, the statement will be true or false. This is an example of what philosopher Duane Voskuil calls a “merely empirical” statement.

No, the facts remain the same for the viewer. The statement by the actor is both true and false at the same time, same circumstances, but whether it is true or false depends on the context chosen at will. It is metaphysically false that the superhero is an actor, without superpowers. How can he be if he’s a superhero? But simultaneously, it is empirically true that he is an actor.

There are also “merely rational” statements whose truth or falsity depend on consistency with definitions.

In either case, no statement is necessarily true, no matter the context. The facts or the definitions could always be different.

Now the mighty battle at the heart of philosophy is whether there is a third category of statement which must be true no matter what. There is no conceivable fact that would prove it true or false. No alternate definition is possible. No imaginable empirical or definitional context will change its truth.

Logical positivists maintain that there are no necessary truths. They are only merely empirical or merely rational truths, they say. But they are illogical in believing so, are they not?

That is why there must be some (at least one) proposition that must be true no matter the context. Folks that hold thus belong to a special club called Metaphysicians.

Anselm thinks that the statement “God exists” is a metaphysical statement. Viewed in that light, it would be silly to try and imagine empirical or definitional contexts which would render it true or false.

I think that God exists is true in the theatre of the mind. I agree that there might be metaphysical truths which are necessary for proper, logical thinking about matters, but that doesn’t mean that you can extend supposed objects with metaphysical relationships into to the empirical realm. If a script writer strives for realism, he relies on certain metaphysics of meaning, but that doesn’t get his characters out of the metaphysical box.

While I agree that God exists metaphysically, that kind of existence doesn’t extend into the real empirical world necessarily. I say, yes, God exists, but possibly exists as a myth. I actually prefer it that way since it frames the question as “What is God?”, rather than “Does God exist?”. I can make logical predictions on that basis. Even though God as a being may not be real, God is a real phenomenon, manifested by peoples behavior, spoken word, books and other media. God exists on paper, at least. So even though I judge God to be a myth, I realize that the specific idea of God has real world consequences.

You could argue that necessary existence is a consequence of the meaning of God, and I could say that my new idea of a superhero “Heatman” (who can make his skin temperature 10000 degrees at will) probably would be depicted as catching bad guys by melting things. It is the metaphysical consequence of the meaning I give to the character.

Or the character Existman, who has the ability to use radio waves or any wired electrical device to travel between realities at will. By definition such a character could be able to pop out of people’s televisions into any other, greater or lesser realities to get the information he needs to fight crime – just not through your TV into our shared true, empirical reality. They all exist metaphysically, as does God.

There is one difference though. The definition of GCB is a means of approximating the characteristics of God via logical steps. Like a computer program, it is a simple algorithm to create a super being and perhaps that’s part of the seduction of the OA.

 

[frankblahnik]

One day God sat down in his recliner :compcoff: to watch one of his favorite TV mini series Celluloid. Celluloid was this cool superhero who had the ability to create all sorts of superheros in his head(God loved Celluloid). In this particular episode Celluloid looks right into the camera and says “I’m not going to broadcast my show anymore, because I don’t think anyone is watching”. God laughed and was sad :sad_bye: at the same time. THE END

I’m a dork.

:banghead: :hammering:

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Cell,

I think that God exists is true in the theatre of the mind. I agree that there might be metaphysical truths which are necessary for proper, logical thinking about matters, but that doesn’t mean that you can extend supposed objects with metaphysical relationships into to the empirical realm. If a script writer strives for realism, he relies on certain metaphysics of meaning, but that doesn’t get his characters out of the metaphysical box.

By ‘metaphysical’ you mean ‘conceptual’, I assume. [Note: metaphysical refers to that class of propositions that are necessarily true and is distinguished from merely rational and merely empirical propositions.]

So you are saying that it is impossible for someone to conceive of an idea which is not only logically consistant and coherent, but also manifest inthe empirical realm. And so you state:

While I agree that God exists metaphysically, that kind of existence doesn’t extend into the real empirical world necessarily. I say, yes, God exists, but possibly exists as a myth.

And so I dub thee a Logical Positivist. Yikes!!

 

[FrankSchnabel]

In the theater that is CA Forums, Frank (a mild-mannered, middle-aged, balding and unassuming NoDak, sittin in his jammies drinking his morning coffee, while outside it is 20 below–where’s my Global Warming Algore!!!)) has encountered one of the henchman of his arch-enemy Logical Positivism. Who will save us from these godless Logical Positivists!! [Frank quickly runs back into the bedroom and dons his super hero costume which he actually wore many years ago at a Halloween party: a red union suit (over which he wears blue jockey shorts), a Lone Ranger mask, a blue cape, and Bell bicycle helmet.]

Why, why its…CAPTAIN METAPHYSICS!!!

 

[FrankSchnabel]

[Emblazoned on his chest are the words “I can say something True about Everthing because I’ve studied Metaphysics!!!”]

So, Mr. Celluloid, you are dealing with with no mere hooman bean from Nordakoda. So there. Are ya quaking in yer boots yet?

What ya gotta unnerstand is that there are three positions to take when it comes to truth and necessity. The first states that All Truth is Necessary, which is obviously false. The second states that No Truth is Necessary, which is Logical Positivism. The third states Some Truth is Necessary.

Can LP be believed? No, cuz its core principle is self-referentially inconsistant. (Is it necessarily true that no truth is relative?)

Therefore, the only remaining option for rational individuals is the third position, which is espoused by metaphsycians (yay!).

Once you accept this, then you no longer will reject out of hand That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived. We can still get into mighty arguments as we clarify the meaning of this concept, however.

cordially,

Captain Metaphysics (there’s no point now in hiding my secret identity)

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Correction to preceding post, where Captain Metaphyscis mispoke:

Can LP be believed? No, cuz its core principle is self-referentially inconsistant. (Is it necessarily true that no truth is relative?)

It should read:

Can LP be believed? No, cuz its core principle is self-referentially inconsistant. (Is it necessarily true that no truth is necessary

 

[Spirithound]

So, here comes the definition of a number: “the smallest positive number, which cannot be described by fewer than hundred letters”. Which is this number?

eleven billion three hundred seventy three million three hundred seventy three thousand three hundred seventy three

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Dame,

You are very welcome.

I enjoy conversing with you on these very deep subjects.

But aren’t you more impressed with my arguments now that you know I am really not little Frankie Schnobbel but Captain Metaphysics, Super Hero?

 

[celluloid]

Hi Cell,
And so I dub thee a Logical Positivist. Yikes!!

I think you have to be careful with labeling others, they have the potential to oversimplify.

I’m an atheist for practical purposes, because various intuitions, common sense, and practical worldview compel me to think God is purely fictional, but truly agnostic because:

1 As a flawed human being, I know I could be mistaken.

2 It may be impossible for anyone to prove God doesn’t exist in some form, even if God does not exist.

 

[celluloid]

In the theater that is CA Forums, Frank (a mild-mannered, middle-aged, balding and unassuming NoDak, sittin in his jammies drinking his morning coffee, while outside it is 20 below–where’s my Global Warming Algore!!!)) has encountered one of the henchman of his arch-enemy Logical Positivism. Who will save us from these godless Logical Positivists!! [Frank quickly runs back into the bedroom and dons his super hero costume which he actually wore many years ago at a Halloween party: a red union suit (over which he wears blue jockey shorts), a Lone Ranger mask, a blue cape, and Bell bicycle helmet.]

Why, why its…CAPTAIN METAPHYSICS!!!

I have 1 question, Captain.

Do you post the above because you find my superhero analogies offensive, silly, tiresome or some combination of the three?