The Ontological Arguments

[adamlsp]

precious_roy:

Hmmm. Well, if those books were not so convincing I don’t know that I can do much better. Like I said I’m not much of a philosopher.

Oh, have you read any Heidegger? He’s also an excellent read.

Nothingness is not anything. What I was really trying to get at, maybe not so clearly, is that I don’t think you can make any sort of comparisons to nothingness. Like saying something is better than nothing. That sort of thing would imply an ordinal numbering like

…
100. something
…
12321. nothing

Which would be saying something about nothing, not something that I believe you can do. What is being stated (basically) is that a maximal being has the best possible properties and is thus better than anything, but not necessarily nothing.

Was that more clear or less clear?

It was a little more clear. Hitetlen has said nothingness to be a point outside of space. What is your take on this idea? And it’s not that I din’t like those books I think it may just be I have a different understanding of then than what you seem to have. Can you explain to me how exactly you were using these books and what point you derived from them?

Adam

 

[precious_roy]

adamlsp:

A point is nothingness in your definition then? Just so I’m clear. An infinite number of points make a line, correct? What is it that you mean by space? Have you heard of the hierarchy of the sciences? Math>Physics>Chem>Bio>Psych. It’s very interesting to see how the latter derives from the former or is an application of the former. This is how our world was fromed, correct? Oh and time doesn’t exist without space, is this correct? Wha about the others demensions? I was under the impression there is a theory of ten in some circles. Strings?

Adam

If that interests you, you might like cyclical universe theory. An excellent paper is avaliable at:

wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf

Brane cosmology really is quite neat.

 

[adamlsp]

Also Hitetlen, from what I understand a point is to be used to described a location within the bounds of space and is nonexistent outside of space.

Adam

 

[precious_roy]

adamlsp:

It was a little more clear. Hitetlen has said nothingness to be a point outside of space. What is your take on this idea? And it’s not that I din’t like those books I think it may just be I have a different understanding of then than what you seem to have. Can you explain to me how exactly you were using these books and what point you derived from them?

Adam

Ummm, I see what he is getting at but I am not so sure I agree. For one, a point outside of space (assuming he means space-time?) may not be nothingness because that may fall into some non-space-time space (time without space, a brane which is ill defined). Also, referencing a point doesn’t much make sense because a point is some sort of set (x,y,z,…) of coordinates relative to some point (0,0,0,…) indicating a space of some sort (as you just said in the above post). I think he was more on to something with the null set idea.

At any rate my brain is slowing down a bit here on account of I’m tired. I’ll try explaining what I got out of my existentialism class later (maybe tomorrow but its Ash Wednesday so I may be a bit busy). Oh, and certainly everyone takes away something different from their philosophy readings and life. I mean, most of us here are Catholic and yet we can still carry on a wonderful debate expressing our differing ideas.

Hope your Ash Wednesday services are all magnificient.

 

[adamlsp]

precious_roy:

Ummm, I see what he is getting at but I am not so sure I agree. For one, a point outside of space (assuming he means space-time?) may not be nothingness because that may fall into some non-space-time space (time without space, a brane which is ill defined). Also, referencing a point doesn’t much make sense because a point is some sort of set (x,y,z,…) of coordinates relative to some point (0,0,0,…) indicating a space of some sort (as you just said in the above post). I think he was more on to something with the null set idea.

At any rate my brain is slowing down a bit here on account of I’m tired. I’ll try explaining what I got out of my existentialism class later (maybe tomorrow but its Ash Wednesday so I may be a bit busy). Oh, and certainly everyone takes away something different from their philosophy readings and life. I mean, most of us here are Catholic and yet we can still carry on a wonderful debate expressing our differing ideas.

Hope your Ash Wednesday services are all magnificient.

Thanks, you too. Have fun Martis Grasing tonight.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

precious_roy:

If that interests you, you might like cyclical universe theory. An excellent paper is avaliable at:

wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf

Brane cosmology really is quite neat.

Thanks,

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

but i can and did…

what’s wrong with the argument? there are all kinds of necessary beings: abstract objects like numbers and propositions and types and sets and…which means that there is no world that does not contain them.

Abstract entities are not “beings”. They exist as mental concepts.
john doran:

what’s more, as i said, at the very least there will be propositions about each world that will be true and false at those worlds. which means that no world is “empty”.

And you were wrong: propositions are not “beings” they are only mental constructs, they do not exist as objects.
john doran:

there is far more to possible world semantics than my one line oversimplification of it, so it’s premature to dismiss an argument relying on them based on less than all the facts.

I gave you ample opportunities to amplify, and you did not try to expand on the concept. So I am taking you by your word.
john doran:

well, that’s certainly the position that some take, but it is highly contentious. if you believe that propositions are concrete entities (brain states?), then there are a number of problems that require explanation:

• how different utterances, using different words in different languages, can all express the same meaning - what is it that is expressed by sentences?;

Easy as a breeze. In order to illistrate it, I will give you a perfectly valid sentence - in Hungarian - and see what does it mean to you: “Sok hulyeseget beszelnek ossze ezek az istenesek”. Does it mean anything to you? Why not? Because there is no independent meaning to anything. The meaning of a sentence depends on the accepting mind: if the mind does not have the necessary information to decipher the meaning, then the sentence is meaningless - for that mind.

- said in another way: if propositions are your thoughts, then how can the brain-state that is your thought, say, that “it is raining” mean the same thing as the pen-marks on a page that forms the sentence “it is raining”?

Also very easy: it is the result of mutual agreement: the word “rain” is something we have been exposed to since childhood. I recall a nice little cartoon (from the British Punch magazine) which depicts a gentleman eating a thin soup is a restaurant and the waiter behind him looking out the window. The caption runs: “It looks like rain”. A beautiful example of a pun: where a sentence intentionally has two rather divergent meanings.

- there are a finite number of concrete objects, but an infinite number of truths (there are truths that no one is thinking now or ever will think).

Indeed - among the finite number of concrete objects there are infinitely many possible interrelations, expressed by concepts.

- if propositions are thoughts, then there are no propositions when there is no thinking. but even if there are no thinking things, isn’t “there are no thinking things” true?

First part of the sentence: true. Second part: who thinks/says that proposition?

- there are no necessary truths, since there is nothing true in every possible world.

Bingo! Yes! This is the crux of the matter. In a world without thinking beings (which is possible) there are no true statements.
john doran:

not really - it was full of angels and god and abstract objects - an infinite number of them.

Ah, unsupported mythology raises its ugly head again.

 

[richbansha]

People really still talk about this? Hume utterly refuted the Ontological Argument centuries ago. Aquinas rejected it in favor of the Cosmological centuries before that. Some of you guys need to rent more movies.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

Obviously you are not a mathematician. The concept of empty set is quite a simple one, so is the concept of zero.

Clearly, it is YOU that fails the math test we’ve struck up here.

Not only is this a metaphysical, not a mathematical, discussion, but a set containing the number 0 is NOT the null set. The null set contains…wait for it…NOTHING. There are no elements in the null set. That includes the number zero, which is still a number. Your argument does not apply to the discussion at hand, and your original point remains invalid. Consider addressing the point being made next time rather than wandering off into erroneous critiques of mathematical ability, particularly when you make a rather glaring error in so doing.

The idea of a null-world does not present a problem for the mathematically inclined.

You are incorrect.

The phrase “null word” is an intrinsic impossibility, much like “square circle” or “dry moisture.” The sort of thinking that leads to such propositions also leads to hare-brained questions along the lines of “Can God make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?” This obscures the point and contributes nothing, also rendering the constant complaint you voice about the propositions of others rather ironic.

If the “world” is defined according to your previous sentence (time and space and physical existence), then God is manifestly NOT part of it. But why bring it up again? This thread is not about God, it is about one specific argument, which is supposed to substantiate God’s existence, and which fails (to borrow to your wording) in a spectacular manner.

It has already been mentioned that the ontological argument is certainly not the strongest for acknowledging God’s existence.

And yet, reading back over this thread, it’s impossibly amusing to consider how you could have convinced yourself that you have so deftly dismissed the other arguments. You have led yourself into a state of confusion whereby you make a false assertion, convince yourself it is unanswerable, and keep on running with it (Re: e.g., “null world”).

Further, to say a thread about the ontological argument is “not about God” is manifestly ridiculous. The temporal universe, by definition, is subject to time, space, and change. God, by definition, cannot be. Your theory about the need for all existence to be substantiated by a human mind is also unfounded. Once more, another simplistic argument along the lines of “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound?”

Yes, because existence is not dependent on finite beings’ perception of that existence, your own included.

Perhaps this is why the certainty with which atheists put forth their “faith” is so hysterical. As I’ve heard it said, 1500 years ago, everyone was certain that the Earth was the center of the universe. And there you are, certain that, in proposing null worlds and flinging out Hungarian phrases in an attempt to establish yourself as some intellectual authority, the Being upon whom your own existence and everyone else’s is contingent “doesn’t exist.”

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

Clearly, it is YOU that fails the math test we’ve struck up here.

Not only is this a metaphysical, not a mathematical, discussion, but a set containing the number 0 is NOT the null set. The null set contains…wait for it…NOTHING. There are no elements in the null set. That includes the number zero, which is still a number. Your argument does not apply to the discussion at hand, and your original point remains invalid. Consider addressing the point being made next time rather than wandering off into erroneous critiques of mathematical ability, particularly when you make a rather glaring error in so doing.

Funny, you don’t even understand the reason why I brought up the number “zero”. The empty set indeed does not contain anything, just like the null world does not. The concept of zero was a particularly difficult concept to “swallow” for a very long time. People said that it makes no sense to talk about “zero” apples. The arabic idea of positional notation actually shows how difficult this concept was to grasp. In the arabic numeral system the zero is depicted with a period (.), so strong was the preconception that zero is something that “does not exist”. The fact that you are unable to conceive the notion of the empty set or null world, simply puts you into the same category. Never mind, your children will understand it.
Mike O:

The phrase “null word” is an intrinsic impossibility, much like “square circle” or “dry moisture.”

Just read the paragraph above.
Mike O:

It has already been mentioned that the ontological argument is certainly not the strongest for acknowledging God’s existence.

No kidding. It does not work, because it is flawed. Interesting that even Plantinga does not consider it “victorious”.
Mike O:

Perhaps this is why the certainty with which atheists put forth their “faith” is so hysterical. As I’ve heard it said, 1500 years ago, everyone was certain that the Earth was the center of the universe. And there you are, certain that, in proposing null worlds and flinging out Hungarian phrases in an attempt to establish yourself as some intellectual authority, the Being upon whom your own existence and everyone else’s is contingent “doesn’t exist.”

You said it, not I. I only said that the existence of God is not supported by enough evidence to take it seriously.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

The fact that you are unable to conceive the notion of the empty set or null world, simply puts you into the same category. Never mind, your children will understand it.

Some people make arrogance appear to be an art form.

You said it, not I. I only said that the existence of God is not supported by enough evidence to take it seriously.

Of course.

And you, Mr. Hitetlen, with the supreme intellectual superiority that you can wave over the heads of the others around here, might rightly boast of knowing the truth. Clearly, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and the whole pantheon of saints, Church doctors, famous theologians, giants of ethical and moral philosophy, and believers have merely misled themselves throughout the long centuries. They were joking around; you’ve outed the grand conspiracy.

Why I could not from the outset see that your notion of what should be taken “seriously” outweighs 2,000 years of prayer and study escapes me.

Maybe it’s time to head back to the shrine you surely must have erected to the brain you, like many atheists, worship as deity.

 

[adamlsp]

richbansha:

People really still talk about this? Hume utterly refuted the Ontological Argument centuries ago. Aquinas rejected it in favor of the Cosmological centuries before that. Some of you guys need to rent more movies.

Care to share his refutation? The arguments have changed a bit since Hume but I’m sure you could apply them here.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Mike O brings up good points. The Ontological Argument is not the best but very interesting to say the least. Hitetlen, I do not grasp this null world it seems like a logical contradiction to have a world that exists but the world is nothing so it does not exist. Care to help us all share in your understanding of this?

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

Some people make arrogance appear to be an art form.

You an only blame yourself… if someone talks to me a civilized manner, I will reciprocate it. You chose a different path, so you get back your own medicine. Deal with it.
Mike O:

And you, Mr. Hitetlen, with the supreme intellectual superiority that you can wave over the heads of the others around here, might rightly boast of knowing the truth. Clearly, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and the whole pantheon of saints, Church doctors, famous theologians, giants of ethical and moral philosophy, and believers have merely misled themselves throughout the long centuries. They were joking around; you’ve outed the grand conspiracy.

Why I could not from the outset see that your notion of what should be taken “seriously” outweighs 2,000 years of prayer and study escapes me.

Ah, yes, the ever popular “argumentum ad populum” or “argumentum ad numeram”. It reminds me of an old poster, which depicts a beautifully laid table, with crystal glasses, silverware and porcelain plates. On one of the plates there is a pile of stinking excrement. The caption says: “One billion flies can’t all be wrong! Why don’t you taste it, too?”

 

[Vietnatalians]

I think Hume said something about existence not being an attribute of objects. Like, if concept A had attributes X, Y, and Z, but not existence it would still be a total concept. Then if all of a sudden object A was discovered to exist, it would still be object A even though it has the added attribute of existence. So saying it is greater to have existence (or necessary existence) is better than to not exist doesn’t work. That’s probably a bad explanation. I just looked it up online. Google Ontological arguments and Hume.

 

[Vietnatalians]

adamlsp:

Care to share his refutation? The arguments have changed a bit since Hume but I’m sure you could apply them here.

Adam

I think Hume said something about existence not being an attribute of objects. Like, if concept A had attributes X, Y, and Z, but not existence it would still be a total concept. Then if all of a sudden object A was discovered to exist, it would still be object A even though it has the added attribute of existence. So saying it is greater to have existence (or necessary existence) is better than to not exist doesn’t work. That’s probably a bad explanation. I just looked it up online. Google Ontological arguments and Hume.
~Steve~

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Mike O brings up good points. The Ontological Argument is not the best but very interesting to say the least. Hitetlen, I do not grasp this null world it seems like a logical contradiction to have a world that exists but the world is nothing so it does not exist. Care to help us all share in your understanding of this?

Gladly. The concept of the “possible world” is very hazy - at best. That is why I kept on pressing and asking what does the phrase of “possible world” mean? I asked about all sorts of quite impossible worlds, notably among them the “worlds” of M. C. Escher. (Check out his woodcuts titled “Relativity”, “Ascending descending” and “Waterfall” on Google: Images) They depict a world which is totally impossible. Up and down don’t exist there, actually what is below is also above itself!

The “Waterfall” actually depicts a perpetual motion machine. The falling water drives a waterwheel, then starts flowing down - down - down - and at the end arrives above its starting point, falls down again, forever. And that is a done in a picture, actually showing this world - a possible world.

Yet john doran asserted that those worlds are “possible”, he only excluded those worlds which contain a logical contradiction. Remember, he also deemed a world which has fairies, dragons and magicians - possible. Clearly we are talking about hypothetical worlds here.

Well, the hypothetical world which does not have any elements is possible - fashioned after a mathematical abstraction. There are “possible worlds” with a few number of actual objects in them, or even just one object.

It is just as logical to imagine an completely empty world as it is logical to accept the notion of an empty set, which is a very useful mathematical concept. Since it is totally empty, there is nothing in it, therefore there can be no “maximally great” being in it either - therefore the idea of a “necessarily existing being” has been refuted.

What I gave was a mathematical proof, and a simple one at that.

If you have more questions, I will be happy to answer them

 

[adamlsp]

We already spoke about existence property-wise in the thread. The argument holds in a sense but does not disable the ontological argument.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Gladly. The concept of the “possible world” is very hazy - at best. That is why I kept on pressing and asking what does the phrase of “possible world” mean? I asked about all sorts of quite impossible worlds, notably among them the “worlds” of M. C. Escher. (Check out his woodcuts titled “Relativity”, “Ascending descending” and “Waterfall” on Google: Images) They depict a world which is totally impossible. Up and down don’t exist there, actually what is below is also above itself!

The “Waterfall” actually depicts a perpetual motion machine. The falling water drives a waterwheel, then starts flowing down - down - down - and at the end arrives above its starting point, falls down again, forever. And that is a done in a picture, actually showing this world - a possible world.

Yet john doran asserted that those worlds are “possible”, he only excluded those worlds which contain a logical contradiction. Remember, he also deemed a world which has fairies, dragons and magicians - possible. Clearly we are talking about hypothetical worlds here.

Well, the hypothetical world which does not have any elements is possible - fashioned after a mathematical abstraction. There are “possible worlds” with a few number of actual objects in them, or even just one object.

It is just as logical to imagine an completely empty world as it is logical to accept the notion of an empty set, which is a very useful mathematical concept. Since it is totally empty, there is nothing in it, therefore there can be no “maximally great” being in it either - therefore the idea of a “necessarily existing being” has been refuted.

What I gave was a mathematical proof, and a simple one at that.

If you have more questions, I will be happy to answer them

Zero is defined as the empty set. Zero is a concept much like infinity correct? Zero and infinity are intimately tied together. Is infinity a set? The empty set is a set with no members and because of this is unique. There are a lot of things that have no members and this is because they are not sets. How can there be a unique set with no members, we can’t just hypothesize this into existence. I’m not decisively objecting I just wanted to raise these questions. There are those who doubt set theory despite is significant contribution to mathematics.
Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Also saying anything about the empty set is vacuous right? “All things are true of the empty set,” as the saying goes. So to say nothingness, the content of the empty set, implies something will always be true right? All tigers that are in loaves of bread are capable of speech. This is vacuous. So to say anything of the empty set is also. Though it is true, it is useless. Also I thought using null was outdated because it means something completely different in measure theory. So we could say the contents of the empty world show that a necessarilly existent being exists. Is this right so far?

Adam