The "Greatest" proof (pun intended) for the existence of God - Anselm

[Betterave]

You talk about “every aspect” and in “every conceivable thing”. So this being is also the “greatest” in evil? You don’t seem to realize that some attributes are simply contradictory. Something that is maximally tall cannot also be maximally short.

WHO doesn’t realize this??? This kind of principle is exactly what the ontological argument is based on. Do you actually think that there is a problem about God being maximally tall and maximally short that just never occurred to those who defend the ontological argument?

Now, I am pretty sure that you will now backpedal, and will amend your position. (All the others with whom I had this conversation did that, so you will be in good company.) You new position will probably be that this “maximally excellent being” is only maximal in the positive attributes, and will be lacking in the negative ones. You should realize that here is the arbitrary and subjective factor, by labeling some attributes as “positive” and others as “negative”.

Suggestion: For once you should try to learn something so that you won’t misinterpret this argument again the next time you encounter it.

 

[R_Daneel]

WHO doesn’t realize this??? This kind of principle is exactly what the ontological argument is based on. Do you actually think that there is a problem about God being maximally tall and maximally short that just never occurred to those who defend the ontological argument?

Obviously not. Maybe you need a refresher. Here is the post I replied to:

Anyway, greatness in this context is not arbitrary- I think we can all agree that a maximally great being is great in every conceivable thing. In other words, a maximally great being cannot be outdone. All it’s attributes are maximally great and nothing can surpass it. For example, a maximally great being is maximally great in moral perfectness, ‘normal’ perfectness (not making mistakes), etc. Every aspect of this being is maximally great- you name it and it’s maximally great.

Which part of “every” don’t you understand?

 

[hatsoff]

In short, people reject the ontological proof not because of logical objections or error in structure, but because they desire the conclusion to be false.

I have no desire for the conclusion to be false. On the contrary, I would be more than pleased to discover that a loving, caring God* exists! However, I simply do not find these “logical” arguments for the existence of God remotely convincing.

Perhaps you missed my posted objections to the argument. I would be interested to hear your response.

*- A loving, caring God would include the universalist Christian God, but exclude the Catholic or evangelical Christian God, which condemns large numbers of people to eternal torture.

 

[Betterave]

Obviously not. Maybe you need a refresher. Here is the post I replied to:

Which part of “every” don’t you understand?

Two points:

1. Supposing that the post you referred to had made the error in question (it didn’t, if you read it carefully), you ought to correct the misrepresentation of the ontological argument (supposing you understood it), not accentuate and perpetuate it!
2. What part of “conceivable” don’t you understand? The point of the word “conceivable” is to tell you we are not talking about attributes like tall and short (which are not necessarily good) or about ‘attributes’ like evil (which are obviously just the contrary of good).

 

[wanstronian]

Wans, I think I addressed some of your concerns in the above post. Keep in mind that the ontological proof was formulated in the context of Catholicism. Therefore, if you are outside the “language game” (to use a term by Wittgenstein) of Catholicism, you may not be in a position to criticize it. In other words, if you are ignorant of how Catholics conceive of God, then the proof may not make sense to you.

No - the proof doesn’t make logical sense, period. For the reasons that have been pointed out on countless occasions ever since the original was formulated, and pointed out again here in this thread.

Also, can you really consider yourself an “atheist” with respect to what I believe if you don’t have knowledge of what I believe, and therefore can’t logically reject it? Something to think about.

Not really - atheism isn’t targetted. It’s an absence of belief in any god. I’m not an atheist with respect to your specific belief other than by virtue of the fact that your specific belief falls within the massive set of God concepts which have no supporting evidence or robust logical proofs, which is why I don’t believe in them any more than I believe in, you guessed it, unicorns and fairies.

I made a post a long time ago about the rock paradox. I don’t feel like retyping it so here is the link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6696705#post6696705

I can find nothing in this post about rocks, and I don’t have time to go ploughing through the whole thread to find it. The post you link to talks about the mind changing paradox, but it doesn’t get anywhere near resolving the paradox - just plays with some semantics then makes an assertion.

The fact is that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible, which ultimately makes point 6 of your argument false, even ignoring the other problems with it.

Your comment about people rejecting the ontological argument because they desire the conclusion to be false is heavily ironic, given the clear beliefs of those who promote such arguments. Do you think, for example, that Anselm was an atheist who crafted the ontological argument and was suddenly convinced that God exists? No - he was an already deeply religious man who constructed the argument to justify his own belief and encourage others to believe. The same way the argument is used today.

This is not an argument that reaches a conclusion based on a set of logical steps. It’s an argument that is crafted so as to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. And this is why it fails when subjected to scrutiny.

 

[RobNY]

I am going to send several controversial shots across the bow. And since we’re indulging the psychology of belief and unbelief, I’m going to indulge a bit too. I fear that you’ve caught me at my most obnoxious!

It’s all too typical for intellectuals to be worried about being seen as respectable, and the modern and contemporary eras are no different. For some reason-- probably because some philosophers try to seem careful and intellectually respectable, and they think that by rejecting out of hand one class of arguments for God’s existence that this makes them seem balanced and objective-- nearly everyone in the modern era has taken Kant’s awful argument against existence as a predicate* as a good argument. I mean, it’s convenient to our psychology. If you’re an atheist or anti-rationalist it lets you reject it out of hand tout court, in much the same way that the old guard scholastic Aristotelians use methodological considerations to try to exclude a priori, a priori proofs of God. And if you’re a contemporary theist trying to play the ‘look respectable and fair’ game in front of agnostics and atheists, it’s oh-so-easy to purchase your supposed objectivity by proving your objectivity: dismissing one possible candidate for evidence in your belief out of hand. (See! Look! I’m so fair!)

Sorry, I’m ranting. But let me keep going. We are, after all, indulging in degenerate talk of the psychologies of belief. We even have wanstronian, just above!, discussing some genetic reason why the ontological proof fails. Silly me, I forgot that one evaluates an argument on the motives of its proponents, and not on its premises. You know, a valid and sound argument demonstrates its conclusion, unless of course a theist creates the argument to prove his belief. If that’s the case, then it doesn’t matter whether or not the premises are valid and sound… we can dispense with such perfunctory examination and declare it fishy and suspicious, and additionally in bad taste [don’t forget, to the modern, proofs of God are always in bad taste]. Because after all, if you try to reach a conclusion via demonstrative argument it just spoils the whole thing; true philosophy requires a method of inadvertence whereby we chance upon conclusions as if we were playing darts blindfolded.

*Thus if anyone examines Kant’s famous (attempted) refutation of one version of the ontological argument, one sees a very interesting strategy. It is often simplified by saying that Kant denies that existence is a predicate. This is wrong. Kant denies that existence is a predicate in the same sense in which other predicates are predicates. He divides ‘sorts’ of predicates into two types: real and logical. Note of course that one cannot exclude existence as a predicate simply. It after all can be said of an object. One needs to press this distinction to exclude it as a valid type of predicate to be a great-making property. But note that the burden of proof on the distinction… is Kant’s!

Funny enough, it seems to be a distinction custom made to force a conclusion rather convenient to Kant’s skepticism. Thankfully, the psychology of his argument is irrelevant, but I’d be happy to indulge in it further for wanstronian’s sake. After all, the argument for this distinction, “… is not an argument that reaches a conclusion based on a set of logical steps. It’s an argument that is crafted so as to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. And this is why it fails when subjected to scrutiny.”

In the first case, there is no credible argument offered to make substantiate this distinction between real and logical predicates. There is only the disputed case of existence which Kant offers as (supposed) evidence in favor of his distinction. And it turns out that existence is a special predicate. Well, we already knew that. But that doesn’t bring us one whit closer to excluding it as a merely ‘logical’ predicate-- whatever that means! Kant’s biggest argument is the one which R Daneel uses above. Isn’t it absurd to say that there is a difference between these two objects, both apples, that we wouldn’t normally list existence as an ordinary predicate? The idea is that existence “makes no difference.” (Again, a poorly defined objection… what exactly does one mean by this?) This argument only has so much traction.

Besides, I can easily find circumstances where one would most definitively say that existence “makes a difference!” Existence, in fact, makes all the difference in these cases.

Would you rather be paid in existent gold coins, or non-existent gold coins, as per Kant’s famous example? Well, since it makes no difference, friends, I will take the existent gold coins, and you may take the non-existent ones. It certainly won’t “make a difference” in your bank accounts!

Would you like to be locked in a cage with an “existent” tiger or a non-existent tiger? Well, since it makes no difference I’ll take the non-existent tiger and you can take the existent tiger.

Or if you’d prefer, can you tell me, what’s the “difference” between a man who has a phobia of existent tigers and a man who has a phobia of non-existent tigers? Namely-- sanity!

I can make little sense of Kant’s objection. If it takes accepting this little piece of modern dogma to be a respectable philosopher, then I admit that I am not a respectable philosopher.

I’d better stop before I make any more offensive or obnoxious comments.

God bless,
Rob

 

[WmJackP]

Since the ontological proof has been recently “resurrected” via Norman Malcolm (Harvard) and Plantinga (ND), I thought it was be interesting to discuss it.

                                   ....]

Anyway I’d be interested in hearing some commentary from believers and non-believers.

                                    ....]

I spent my h.s. and undergrad days being taught by the Jesuits to whom I am forever grateful for having motivated me toward argument, debate and acacdemic pursuits. I am familiar with Anselm’s argument and certainly I have heard it praised for its simplicity and, in some views, unassaiable logic. But, I have serious problems with accepting it as the quality of proof that some feel it represents.

First of all, Anselms argument always seemed like a huge “word salad” to me. Defining god as (1) that which nothing greater can exist and (2) “existence has non-existence beat by a mile” is a borderline tautology. Parlor tricks are entertaining but not for serious logisticians

Secondly, however, if I am unfair and even if the predicates lead to the conclusion that there is a “god”, all that is proven is that there is something that is better than anything else and exists. Even without Anselm’s elaborate set of predicates, logical systems by which we operate allow us to say that there has to be (out of necessity) something before everything else. It may even be eternal (by the way, that was one of Thomas’ much more direct – and easier to follow–arguments). But that doesn’t prove the kind of god Christians believe in. The Christian God has a personality and possesses goals and objectives. The Christian God was offended by something Adam did, and, orchastrated a means by which we could all get back on track. The god Anselm hopes to prove is only the “the best and brightest” antecedent to all else. That doesn’t say very much. Afterall, I could just as easily argue that mathematics is " eternal rational stuffl" (call it god if you like) and this "rationality is why we are all here. Anselms god doesn’t require, by his definition, a personage. Hence, as so “proven”, God could be rationality, mathematics, logic or just plain “the first and the best that exists” . Such a god need not have sets of goals or any design to create you and I.

But, my apologist friends may say: How can there be such complicated life forms as we are without a personal “designer”? In answer to this, I suggest that life itself, and, of course “human personality” may certainly be be emergent qualities,arising as a function of the rationality which permeates the cosmos. I am familiar with the follow up, that if one sees a watch in the forest, then is that not evidence of a “designer”? But you could say the same for an ant colony. There is so much design in the structures and compartmentalized arrangement of chambers, surely there is a chief ant archetect. So Anselm–even super sized viz a viz Malcolm doesn’t convince me of anything new.

Besides, there are some interesting things coming out of quantum theory which I find amazing. For example, 20th and 21st century quantum theory actually creates a scientific basis for a conclusion that cause may not be a neceary antecedent for effect. I realize that defies common sense but there are data now suggesting that to be the case. Quantum theory is a space worth watching.

 

[JohnDamian]

Besides, there are some interesting things coming out of quantum theory which I find amazing. For example, 20th and 21st century quantum theory actually **creates a scientific basis for a conclusion that cause may not be a neceary antecedent for effect. **I realize that defies common sense but there are data now suggesting that to be the case. Quantum theory is a space worth watching.

That is certainly interesting, would you happen to know of any examples?

 

[WmJackP]

That is certainly interesting, would you happen to know of any examples?

Sorry, John. I’m not adroit enough to discuss the subject. I’m as curious as you are about the subject. Stephen Hawking (from your neck of the woods in “jolly ole” would be the guy to read). The movement of electrons, their positioning and behavior defy conventional notions (Newtonian) laws of physics. The other sub-atomic particles (quarks, lepons and a zoo filled with other such “critters” are intriguing to read about from a guy like Hawking who simplifies the subject sufficiently that people like me can follow it (on my good days, of course).

 

[RobNY]

Sorry, John. I’m not adroit enough to discuss the subject. I’m as curious as you are about the subject. Stephen Hawking (from your neck of the woods in “jolly ole” would be the guy to read). The movement of electrons, their positioning and behavior defy conventional notions (Newtonian) laws of physics. The other sub-atomic particles (quarks, lepons and a zoo filled with other such “critters” are intriguing to read about from a guy like Hawking who simplifies the subject sufficiently that people like me can follow it (on my good days, of course).

Are you referring above to the theory that reality is, on the quantum level, indeterminate?

-Rob

 

[WmJackP]

Are you referring above to the theory that reality is, on the quantum level, indeterminate?

-Rob

Certainly,that is part of it.

I rather believe that intellectual catholic theology is borne out of Thomistic views. After a few centuries of rocking on with Thomas and what seemed like common sense we came to believe all sorts of fanciful doctrines. Then scrowl ahead a few more centuries into the Newtonian age, and, we more or less had to reconcile Gallelio, Bruno and other heritics with catholic conventional wisdom (overlooking perhaps a few inconvenient non sequeturs like the real presence). So hence by the beginning of the 20th century, we had an uneasy truce with science. But now, with the advent of 21st century science and the exponential advancement that the mico chip technology brings, most of what we call religion is going to get turned on its head.

Do you perhaps know something about quantum which is someway suppotive of catholism?

 

[JohnDamian]

Certainly,that is part of it.

I rather believe that intellectual catholic theology is borne out of Thomistic views. After a few centuries of rocking on with Thomas and what seemed like common sense we came to believe all sorts of fanciful doctrines. Then scrowl ahead a few more centuries into the Newtonian age, and, we more or less had to reconcile Gallelio, Bruno and other heritics with catholic conventional wisdom (overlooking perhaps a few inconvenient non sequeturs like the real presence). So hence by the beginning of the 20th century, we had an uneasy truce with science. But now, with the advent of 21st century science and the exponential advancement that the mico chip technology brings, most of what we call religion is going to get turned on its head.

Do you perhaps know something about quantum which is someway suppotive of catholism?

I suppose it would be very exhaustive to try and explain all correlations… Is there perhaps anything in quantum mechanics or, indeed physics in general that you feel is particularily contrary to Catholic philosophers. Bearing in mind that Aquinas is certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of Catholic thought in general, or for the period he was in. Even though he does enjoy a healthy reputation within Catholic thought, he is certainly not held to be infallible, in fact there have been at least one infallible declaration against his views (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus - affirming Scotist teaching over Thomistic).

However, it is certainly true that the exponential increase in the effects of physical sciences are undeniable, the key question to me would be, that since Catholics created the modern scientific method, and a Catholic Priest invented the Big Bang theory, and Catholic teaching accepts the *possibility *of a form of evolution – the question is does science contradict Catholocism, but does catholocism contradict science?

And I don’t really see where it would do that, unless one were going to bring up say, transubstantiation; which is a philosophical/theological doctrine and not one of Science, although it can confuse or annoy people who overestimate the need for physical Sciences.

 

[R_Daneel]

1. What part of “conceivable” don’t you understand? The point of the word “conceivable” is to tell you we are not talking about attributes like tall and short (which are not necessarily good) or about ‘attributes’ like evil (which are obviously just the contrary of good).

Conceivable by whom? Based upon what kind of reference system? The very word “greater” is a relational operator. Every (and in this case really “every”) relational operator presupposes a comparision, and the compared values must be commensurable in reference to them.

The concept of “greatest conceivable anything” is simply an undefined and incoherent set of words. If you try to substitute something specific into the “anything”, you might be in the position of making a meaningful statement, though it is by no means certain. For example, the “greatest conceivable dinner” can be evaluated on several counts: “taste”, “smell”, “visual appeal”, and maybe even “price”. The trouble is that one attempts to maximize several functions at the same time. And that attempt is futile. It may very well be that the “tastiest” dinner is not the most “pleasing to the eye and the nose”. Also a vegetarian will definitely dismiss a meat based dinner. It is simply impossible to compare even something so obvious and mundane as a “dinner”.

And in this case, there are at least some attributes which are actually measurable. You are not in this enviable position when you attempt to substitute “being” into the proposition above. After all the word “being” is just as vague as “anything”. What are the criteria to measure that “being”? At that very point you employ your own set of criteria, in other words, you are subjective and arbitrary. Assuming that there is a set of criteria we can all agree upon, there is no assurance that all the criteria can manifest themselves in the same “being”.

That is the problem I was referring to. You could actually try to understand what I am saying, before using your one-liner, condescending dismissals. Of course you are welcome to continue in your obnoxious style. Up to you. (or up yours ).

 

[WmJackP]

I suppose it would be very exhaustive to try and explain all correlations… Is there perhaps anything in quantum mechanics or, indeed physics in general that you feel is particularily contrary to Catholic philosophers. Bearing in mind that Aquinas is certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of Catholic thought in general, or for the period he was in. Even though he does enjoy a healthy reputation within Catholic thought, he is certainly not held to be infallible, in fact there have been at least one infallible declaration against his views (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus - affirming Scotist teaching over Thomistic).

However, it is certainly true that the exponential increase in the effects of physical sciences are undeniable, the key question to me would be, that since Catholics created the modern scientific method, and a Catholic Priest invented the Big Bang theory, and Catholic teaching accepts the *possibility *of a form of evolution – the question is does science contradict Catholocism, but does catholocism contradict science?

And I don’t really see where it would do that, unless one were going to bring up say, transubstantiation; which is a philosophical/theological doctrine and not one of Science, although it can confuse or annoy people who overestimate the need for physical Sciences.

John: You are an interesting person. I appreciate that you defend your faith without a “chip on your shoulder” and seem bright enough to make your points w/o appeal to mystism, and, w/o being ugly or personal.

I’ll be happy to debate any topic you like, but, I think your point on catholic influences on the sciences is misplaced. Everyone (and I mean everyone) in Western Europe at the time of Bacon (scientific method) and downhill from him were all catholics. You can think Constantine and the subsequent beneficiaries of Roman culture for that. As far as who “invented” (not the word I would have used) the big bang. It was a theory without a lot of evidence until Edmund Hubbel came along and figured out that the universe was expanding. So I am not so sure that I am as ready as you to praise papal wisdom for where we are scientifically.

Having said all of that, I am not BS-ing you when I say that I respect your willingness to engage me in discussion and to do so respectfully and with what seems to me to be sincerity. I did have alot of exposure to the Jebbies growing up, and, I admired many of them greatly and many catholic priests I had the good fortune to know were men who walked their talk. But I have a different view of reality, I’m afraid.

 

[JohnDamian]

I’ll be happy to debate any topic you like, but, I think your point on catholic influences on the sciences is misplaced. Everyone (and I mean everyone) in Western Europe at the time of Bacon (scientific method) and downhill from him were all catholics. You can think Constantine and the subsequent beneficiaries of Roman culture for that. As far as who “invented” (not the word I would have used) the big bang. It was a theory without a lot of evidence until Edmund Hubbel came along and figured out that the universe was expanding. So I am not so sure that I am as ready as you to praise papal wisdom for where we are scientifically.

It would be wrong to claim that Science nessecarily followed from Catholocism, as that would ignore the Islamic Scholars Alhazen, Al-Biruni and Avicenna, as well as Aristotle and A lot of others (all begining with A, no doubt…).

I wasn’t trying to claim (and I hope I didn’t come across as claiming) that Catholocism leads directly to science. Because it does not. However, there is a general fallacy that Catholics were against science.

Evidently, as early as when Roger Bacon was working, the Pope (ClementIV) actually commissioned him to study and teach Science.

Many people (mistakenly) believe Galileo to have been persecuted for his scientific beliefs. This is sadly untrue, the Church was upset for two reasons, the first being his abuse of an Augustinian method for interpreting the bible, and the second being his claim that Heliocenticism was a physical truth that should be taught to everyone - wheras the Church denied his (fallacious) theology, and wanted him to keep his theories in universities and not everywhere.

No doubt many (if not all) Catholics are imperfect, however I do strongly believe that the teachings of the Church in no way contradict science. Even *if *quantum theory develops further, and alters perceptions of causation it would only serve to undermine the Aristotelian logic used to explain Catholic teachings. Doctrines such as transubstantiation are not made true by Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Bacon or anyone else; they are merely explained or investigated using a particular method.

I suppose, in short - (if) where does Catholocism contradict science? and how would a development of Quantum mechanics undermine Catholic thought?

 

[WmJackP]

I suppose, in short - (if) where does Catholocism contradict science? and how would a development of Quantum mechanics undermine Catholic thought?



I’ll have to reflect on it, John. Perhaps, it doesn’t conflict at all. I can easily see that the dogma on which catholicism rests may, in fact, be so embued with mysticism that it cannot be disproved. I cannot prove for instance that there are no microbes on Europa (one of the moons of Jupiter).

Even allowing for the power of the statement that there is no conflict—how can I possibly believe (I mean seriously believe) the things the RC’s hold as doctinal truths? Men rising from the dead? A substance (bread) with certain chemical properties being, in some quintessential way, an altogether different substance (the flesh of a specific human)? Gods who suffer and die for something my ancestorial prototype did? A book written by God–OK, you say inspired by God? So he had to write a book? And how odd is it that the book doesn’t exist even in original form. Not preserved, as important as it must be to get this message out?

It does not make sense for me to believe any of that, John. I would be an intellectual fraud if I did, and, why should I even try to believe it? So I can follow a path leading to eternal bliss? Some people would say that I am a good man. I raised two excellent children. I care about my brothers and sisters. I hope I have done as much as anyone else similarly situated to ease the suffering of my fellows.

I can be a decent man without the magic and the ritual. I can work hard for my family and perform civic service without believing that three things are really one thing, or, that virgins can produce god-men. I am not compelled to see images of Christ in grilled cheese sandwiches or the Blessed Virgin in melting ice,.Rather, I devote my energy toward productive, albeit, earthy ends with tangible results.

Are these Catholic beliefs and dogmas inconsistent with science as I know it? Certainly. Can I disprove any of it by means of the scientific method? No----it is too full of mysticism to disprove. It is alot like you telling me there is microbial life forms on Europa. I can’t prove you’re wrong, but, I have to wonder how you could possibly know.

John, please accept this response in the spirit I intend. I do not want, in any way, to be offensive. Thanks

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Conceivable by whom? Based upon what kind of reference system? The very word “greater” is a relational operator. Every (and in this case really “every”) relational operator presupposes a comparision, and the compared values must be commensurable in reference to them.

The concept of “greatest conceivable anything” is simply an undefined and incoherent set of words. If you try to substitute something specific into the “anything”, you might be in the position of making a meaningful statement, though it is by no means certain. For example, the “greatest conceivable dinner” can be evaluated on several counts: “taste”, “smell”, “visual appeal”, and maybe even “price”. The trouble is that one attempts to maximize several functions at the same time. And that attempt is futile. It may very well be that the “tastiest” dinner is not the most “pleasing to the eye and the nose”. Also a vegetarian will definitely dismiss a meat based dinner. It is simply impossible to compare even something so obvious and mundane as a “dinner”.

And in this case, there are at least some attributes which are actually measurable. You are not in this enviable position when you attempt to substitute “being” into the proposition above. After all the word “being” is just as vague as “anything”. What are the criteria to measure that “being”? At that very point you employ your own set of criteria, in other words, you are subjective and arbitrary. Assuming that there is a set of criteria we can all agree upon, there is no assurance that all the criteria can manifest themselves in the same “being”.

That is the problem I was referring to. You could actually try to understand what I am saying, before using your one-liner, condescending dismissals. Of course you are welcome to continue in your obnoxious style. Up to you. (or up yours ).

All language is essentially arbitrary. 20th century philosophy focused heavily on language. I studied structuralism, deconstruction, and lacanian ideas. Hence, why I advocate “thought outside of language” for comprehend this proof. It is almost impossible for me to train you in meta-cognitive skills because I have to use language (in this case text, not speech) to communicate to you. If we had some sort of telepathic connection, I could then implant the idea or “The Greatest Notion” directly into your head. Unfortunately I can’t do that, but fortunately the Holy Ghost can. My written advice would be to instead focus on Descartes formulation…he uses the word “perfection”; which is not a relational operator but it conveys the same concept as “greatest” (a superlative, not the relational operator…“greater”) to someone who is capable of understanding the proof.

You must take a mathematical approach to conceiving of God, not a linguistic one; since math is not arbitrary or subjective, but language is. Everything we see around us is IMPERFECT in the sense that we see absence. I will use the mathematical example of a triangle. No human being can draw a “perfect triangle” nor super computer can; since by definition a triangle consists of an infinite set of connected points creating a 3 sided figure; however, we CAN conceive of a perfect triangle in Plato’s world of ideas or in the mind. The same sort of process must be used when conceiving of God.

As for people saying that Anselm developed this argument to prove a conclusion (God exists) that confirmed his belief. It is true, but he did so with specific compassion directed toward those who do not believe in God. This is why he meditates on Psalm 53 which says, “The fool has said in his heart that there is no God.” The word “fool” in hebrew did not denote what it does today, namely, a moron. I believe it was just someone who did not fear God or spend time thinking about Him. These “Fools” of old could very well have included highly intelligent people.

 

[wanstronian]

It would be wrong to claim that Science nessecarily followed from Catholocism, as that would ignore the Islamic Scholars Alhazen, Al-Biruni and Avicenna, as well as Aristotle and A lot of others (all begining with A, no doubt…).

I wasn’t trying to claim (and I hope I didn’t come across as claiming) that Catholocism leads directly to science. Because it does not. However, there is a general fallacy that Catholics were against science.

Evidently, as early as when Roger Bacon was working, the Pope (ClementIV) actually commissioned him to study and teach Science.

Many people (mistakenly) believe Galileo to have been persecuted for his scientific beliefs. This is sadly untrue, the Church was upset for two reasons, the first being his abuse of an Augustinian method for interpreting the bible, and the second being his claim that Heliocenticism was a physical truth that should be taught to everyone - wheras the Church denied his (fallacious) theology, and wanted him to keep his theories in universities and not everywhere.

No doubt many (if not all) Catholics are imperfect, however I do strongly believe that the teachings of the Church in no way contradict science. Even *if *quantum theory develops further, and alters perceptions of causation it would only serve to undermine the Aristotelian logic used to explain Catholic teachings. Doctrines such as transubstantiation are not made true by Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Bacon or anyone else; they are merely explained or investigated using a particular method.

I suppose, in short - (if) where does Catholocism contradict science? and how would a development of Quantum mechanics undermine Catholic thought?

I don’t believe that Catholicism in general does contradict science - it would be foolhardy to try, because science is supported by evidence, by experiments that are available to anyone to repeat, and gain consistent and (usually) conclusive results. To try and contradict this would be to invite ridicule from all but the most fervent believers!

That said, I don’t know what the current Catholic position is on evolution, but my understanding is that there is conflict, which apologists attempt to overcome by rejecting the evidence - clear, comprehensive and consistent though it is. Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong on this point (although debates on the subject prior to December 21st, 2009 seem to indicate that I’m not), however clearly we can take this narrow aspect of the debate no further because of the ban.

It’s interesting to note however, while although not in direct conflict, Science has never once reached a conclusion that indicates that any specifically religious belief is true. It has never discovered evidence for God (any god), nor evidence that any of the biblical miracles actually happened, nor that the Noachic flood actually occurred, and so on.

In short, science neither conflicts with nor supports religion, but simply ignores it. Meanwhile, as science naturally starts to explain the hitherto unexplained, certain religious beliefs have had to change (back-pedal?) to accommodate this new knowledge. How far religion will ultimately be forced to recede in the face of scientific discovery, is anybody’s guess.

 

[JohnDamian]

That is certainly a lot to discuss!

Even allowing for the power of the statement that there is no conflict—how can I possibly believe (I mean seriously believe) the things the RC’s hold as doctinal truths? Men rising from the dead?

People rising from the dead is a well known thing, although often in science there is a given reason for it. If one accepts (even for a hypothesis) the existence of a God, if such a God had omnipotence, and intent; he has both the means and the motive for ressurecting someone; were he so to please. And, in general, “ressurections” are not completely alien to science, bodies that are “medically” dead, that is to say ones without a heartbeat or lung activity can still “come back” to life. Particularily in times when scanners for electical activity in the brain were not quite so handy, otherwise poor Duns Scotus would not have been buried in a deep coma.

A substance (bread) with certain chemical properties being, in some quintessential way, an altogether different substance (the flesh of a specific human)?

This is to do with Aristotelian theories of substance. The material that it is composed of is called an “accident” which means that the materials are irrelevant to what the substance itself is. The materials do not physically change at all (not even chemically), but they essentially change to become body and blood. Think of it this way, why is it nessecary that a body or blood are made up of the materials of body and blood? Of course, this is a hard one to swallow for a lot of people, even “Catholic” theologians.

A book written by God–OK, you say inspired by God? So he had to write a book? And how odd is it that the book doesn’t exist even in original form. Not preserved, as important as it must be to get this message out?

Well the book itself is not what God wanted us to do Per se. As far as I know the apostles were told to go forth and spread the good word, they were not instructed to write an infallible book. The Church is what Jesus founded with St Peter, and to this day we have preserved the succession of popes to him, it is through this church that the writings of the Gospels, the writings of St Paul, the writings of St James, and so on and so forth have been recognised as being inspired by God. The Church naturally comes before the Bible, and temporally also - as the Church existed before the gospels were written down.

It does not make sense for me to believe any of that, John. I would be an intellectual fraud if I did, and, why should I even try to believe it? So I can follow a path leading to eternal bliss? Some people would say that I am a good man. I raised two excellent children. I care about my brothers and sisters. I hope I have done as much as anyone else similarly situated to ease the suffering of my fellows.

It would be fraudulent for anyone who did not believe in the church to go to church and on a weekly basis proclaim the creed. It would also be selfish for any man to follow the path of God for himself and his salvation alone. Believe it or nay, as a young man I did not believe at all in the Church, and I am somewhat sad to say, I lacked the charity and politeness you show in your discourses with what must appear “religious nuts”.

I can be a decent man without the magic and the ritual. I can work hard for my family and perform civic service without believing that three things are really one thing, or, that virgins can produce god-men.

Whilst it is possible to be a good man without faith, it is not possible to have faith without being a good man. Faith and community with the church is what makes us true followers of Christ, and though we; like St Peter - fall short almost before we are out of the door of Sunday mass, we can only try as we are spurred on by our faith.

John, please accept this response in the spirit I intend. I do not want, in any way, to be offensive. Thanks

Don’t worry so much about offending people, this is a philosophy board; disagreements are natural and you seem perfectly charitable in them.

 

[Betterave]

Conceivable by whom? Based upon what kind of reference system? The very word “greater” is a relational operator. Every (and in this case really “every”) relational operator presupposes a comparision, and the compared values must be commensurable in reference to them.

Conceivable by any intelligent mature person (loaded terms, I know ). Based upon the reference system of conceivability itself, of “the Notion” or der Begriff, as DF has already pointed out (I’m guessing you had no idea what he was talking about and so just dismissed it as puerile nonsense? ).

The concept of “greatest conceivable anything” is simply an undefined and incoherent set of words. If you try to substitute something specific into the “anything”, you might be in the position of making a meaningful statement, though it is by no means certain. For example, the “greatest conceivable dinner” can be evaluated on several counts: “taste”, “smell”, “visual appeal”, and maybe even “price”. The trouble is that one attempts to maximize several functions at the same time. And that attempt is futile. It may very well be that the “tastiest” dinner is not the most “pleasing to the eye and the nose”. Also a vegetarian will definitely dismiss a meat based dinner. It is simply impossible to compare even something so obvious and mundane as a “dinner”.

Good example - the “greatest conceivable dinner” is not conceivable. Therefore the greatest conceivable dinner is not God. (See how it works? )

And in this case, there are at least some attributes which are actually measurable. You are not in this enviable position when you attempt to substitute “being” into the proposition above. After all the word “being” is just as vague as “anything”. What are the criteria to measure that “being”? At that very point you employ your own set of criteria, in other words, you are subjective and arbitrary. Assuming that there is a set of criteria we can all agree upon, there is no assurance that all the criteria can manifest themselves in the same “being”.

There are some attributes that are actually measurable?? No there are not, not in any relevant sense. You can’t measure the greatest conceivable taste. What has taste to do with the concept? It’s like talking about the reddest red - it’s nonsense.

Try to read what DF has written if you are unable to read what I write without dismissing it as ‘obnoxious.’ (YOU calling someone obnoxious? HA!) Then ask some questions about what you don’t understand rather than repeatedly producing caricatures and pretending to understand everything.