M
Mike_O
Guest
- Status
A
adamlsp
Guest
Mike O:
Adam
Thank you for saying it much more concisely than I could.
Adam
S
ShweetPrinshesh
Guest
can you guys clarify the necessity of a maximally great being? Why does it possibly necessarily exist? And try to dumb it down a little. I’m following this stuff I think, but I don’t have the background in philosophy and logic that it seems like you all have. Thanks!
~Steve~
(I know the screen name is weird, it’s my wife’s
)
~Steve~
(I know the screen name is weird, it’s my wife’s
)
A
asteroid
Guest
Oops. Sorry. I missed that.
Having read about it, I don’t agree with it. Possibly X does not mean Definitely X no matter what the X happens to be.
In any case I don’t believe a maximally great being does exist necessarily. It is only defined to exist necessarily. Why is this definition true? Perhaps I should define “beings on Pluto” as “necessarily existing”. Now that this definition is there I can apply the argument with them and supposedly prove their existence.
Yes, that would be daft. But it would take a lot for me to accept, philosophically, that God, omniscient, omnipresent and totally good, is a necessarily existing being.
Perhaps within the limitations of the definition, and with S5 (which I see as fundamentally flawed) accepted, the conclusion holds. But only then. I don’t accept the definition as truth. And I don’t accept S5.
I know it’s not good philosophical argument to say that S5 is silly. But I think S5 is just silly. Possibly X therefore Definitely X. Hmm. In a similar way I think Anthony Flew was silly to say that “God exists” is a meaningless statement because we wouldn’t be able to prove that “God doesn’t exist”. I’m not learned enough to state things in good philosophical language, but sensible enough to look at daft things as daft.
Right time for church. Infinitely more useful than Ontological arguments.
K
Krebsbach
Guest
Hey Steve,can you guys clarify the necessity of a maximally great being? Why does it possibly necessarily exist? And try to dumb it down a little. I’m following this stuff I think, but I don’t have the background in philosophy and logic that it seems like you all have. Thanks!
~Steve~
(I know the screen name is weird, it’s my wife’s
The various forms of the OA are informed by the religious notion of God who is The One Who is Worshipped. The logic of worship requires that we exalt and give ultimate reverence and love to the “bestest” (greatest, maximaly great, etc.) being there is. Let’s say I am a primitive God seeker with that understanding of God and worship. Some of my neighbors worship the local mountain, but I know that there are other mountains that are bigger and more magnificent. So I reason that if mountains are candidates for deity the local one has to be ruled out, for I know of a greater. But let’s say I find the highest mountain I can find in my known universe and the question occurs to me: Who made this mountain?" That being must surely be greater than its creation. If this chain of thought plays out, I will eventually have to posit an ultimately great being.
Note that I have only conceived of Him. I haven’t made an empirical observation of the Deity. If I propose this idea to my primitive friends, they probably will tend to want to worship something more tangible. I have just proposed something that seems possible but have not demnstrated it in a way that normal folks can grasp.
So it is with the OA. We conceive of the bestest, the unsurpassible, or the maximally great being, realizing that He alone is worthy of worship. Eventually we start to ponder the implications of such uniquie greatness, as Anselm did. We can conceive of different attributes and try and imagine what is besstest along those lines. Eventually we just conclude that whatever it is better for God to be he will be.
At this point Anselm enters the picture and makes the startling assertion that there are two ways of existing: necesarrily and contingently. A necessariy being must exist. A contingent being might exist, could exist, could not exist, etc Which of the two ways of existing is superior? Necessary existence. Therefore God, supposing He is the Bestest, must exist. Greatness necessarily entails existence. That is the Ansemian principle.
kordially
karl
A
adamlsp
Guest
I’m guessing that because the post you just listed nowhere uses a correct definition of S5 that you do not understand it. “Not learned enough” seems to perfectly describe your conception of these things. So since you have not knowledge, try humility first before acting like you’ve just cracked the case.
Your conception of this being is inherently lacking. You may have your opinions but may not use them as argumentative proofs. We are looking for logical conclusions and premises, not opinions. In any case, the maximal being is one that requires existence. “If” you do not understand the definition ask for a clarification. This being simply is being. All of the attributes ascribed to being are ascribed to him in their completeness. I’ve already gone over this. Read the past posts. I’m sorry you don’t understand. Ask for a clarification if past posts do not help you.
Adam
M
Mike_O
Guest
Well then, that settles it.
If it doesn’t work for you, I guess we’re all compelled to pack up our things and go home.
Thanks for clearing that up.
(As an aside, your profile indicates that you are a Protestant. Out of curiosity, if you do not acknowledge the necessity of God’s existence, well…what do your Sunday worship services consist of? Paying homage to Plutonian aliens?)
A
asteroid
Guest
Mike O:
If these arguments were truly watertight how many atheists would there be in the philosophy of religion camp?
People here seem to claim the arguments are watertight, I just can’t see that they are, that’s all.
Thank you for pointing out my profile. That drastically needs updating. When I signed up for an account I was Protestant. I am now Catholic. And have forgotten to update the profile. Thank you too for your immense sarcasm and vitriol about possible Sunday worship services. Very edifying I’m sure. Many thanks.
No that doesn’t settle it at all. This is philosophy. Nothing ever really gets settled. But I just say that I don’t think God is necessarily existent. I believe greatly that he exists.
If these arguments were truly watertight how many atheists would there be in the philosophy of religion camp?
People here seem to claim the arguments are watertight, I just can’t see that they are, that’s all.
Thank you for pointing out my profile. That drastically needs updating. When I signed up for an account I was Protestant. I am now Catholic. And have forgotten to update the profile. Thank you too for your immense sarcasm and vitriol about possible Sunday worship services. Very edifying I’m sure. Many thanks.
A
asteroid
Guest
My apologies again. I was just working from the definition given in the original post in this thread. Maybe I will read up and find out in what way that definition was wrong.
Apologies too for mentioning opinions or beliefs. Bad philosophy. You’re quite right. Won’t happen again hopefully.
That definition was as follows:
“S5 is an axiom from S5 modal logic which states that is something is possibly necessarily true then it is necessarily true.”
All I really said was that I can’t see how, the statement if possibly X then definitely X, can be good logic, no matter what X is. In this case X is “this is necessarily true”.
Could someone explain that to me? Why can the “possibly” be lost in this case? Why can it be lost here, when it cannot be lost in other cases. (as it obviously can’t with my slightly straw man and non-existant Plutonians as I freely admit).
Next question. A maximal being is defined as necessarily existing (and omnipotent, omnipresent etc). Fair enough. It’s a definition. But could you explain to me why a maximal being should be a necessary concept in the first place. Why should there be a maximal being? Don’t get me wrong. I have faith that there is one. I just don’t see why there *has *to be one. This leaves honest room for doubt.
Or to put that question another way, It has been said, “What defines necessary existence is the fact that this being is the absolute greatest and that implies existence.” WHY does it imply existence? Why can’t we just be imagining (very imperfectly) an absolutely greatest being who doesn’t exist?
My knowledge of philosophy I freely admit to be lacking. Yes I did some study at college. I even won a scholarship award for results in a philosophy of religion exam (which may have been due to the poor quality of other entrants rather than any great quality of my own showing). But I’ve forgotten pretty much everything.
I’ve seen arguments proving God’s existence - flawless according to their own logic and definitions. I’ve also seen arguments disproving God’s existence - equally flawless according to their logic and definitions. And I’ve seen it eloquently “proven” that we have free will. And that we don’t have free will. And seen proponents of both sides of these arguments religiously clinging to their sides without accepting any possibility of real error or of flaws, fatal or otherwise, in their arguments. These people are so wise that they have become fools. May there never be people like that here.
In all the long forgotten studies I didn’t find anything that was an open-and-shut case. It was all very, very clever stuff. Clever stuff from theists and from atheists, and a fair share of agnostics. It was all quite fun too.
Yes, I lack knowledge. Hence the questions above. Answers will be appreciated - though I might not understand them, so keep it simple. Explain everything at each little step. Many thanks in advance.
Maybe there should be an philosophy forum as a subsection of apologetics. If scripture can be a subsection, so can philosophy.
M
Mike_O
Guest
Chesteron said something to the effect of “If God did not exist, neither would atheists.”
The ontological argument is not even the best of the metaphysical proofs, and already we can see the problems in this very thread that people have run into in trying to take it apart. My point was that, too often, people will tread Pascal’s “Pick and choose” line and commend everything to blind faith one way or the other. Faith is good, but it need not be blind.
There was no vitriol, and I see sufficient sarcasm emanating from your corner as well.
I think you need to understand that a bit of a sarcastic reply does not by definition equate with some caustic intent on the part of the respondent. You said it would take “a lot” for you to philosophically accept the necessary existence of God. This being a Catholic message board, might you be able to see a role for sarcasm in replying to such a statement, particularly when it comes from a former Protestant/current Catholic?
Anyway, I apologize if you took offense. But that was not the intent.
A
asteroid
Guest
Apology accepted. And I apologise too for mistaking your intent. And for any sarcasm on my part. And for being so screwy at the moment generally. Maybe I need to take time away from these boards. Hopefully it’s just the diet & tablets started a week ago that is causing problems and the screwiness will die down when my system gets more used to it all. But perhaps time off would be good. Give it up for Lent.
Agreed - the ontological is not the best, certainly not from an apologetics point of view.
I’ve got to confess - the only Chesterton I’ve actually read was some of the Father Brown stories!
Agreed - the ontological is not the best, certainly not from an apologetics point of view.
I’ve got to confess - the only Chesterton I’ve actually read was some of the Father Brown stories!
S
ShweetPrinshesh
Guest
These are my questions too. Can you come up with an example of S5 in action? Like, when something is possibly necessary and then means that it is necessary? Any other places this was used?
I’ve been conversing with these atheist dudes on myspace and I don’t think these ontological arguments have come up. I just want to make sure I basically understand them first before bringing up the subject, so I’ll do my best to play devil’s advocate.
~Steve~
M
Mordocai
Guest
“Why should there be a maximal being? Don’t get me wrong. I have faith that there is one. I just don’t see why there *has *to be one. This leaves honest room for doubt.”
My quick answer would be that because God IS. “Yahweh” I AM or I AM WHO AM.
Meaning, His nature is to exist. i.e. ultimate existence
throws 2 cents in
My quick answer would be that because God IS. “Yahweh” I AM or I AM WHO AM.
Meaning, His nature is to exist. i.e. ultimate existence
throws 2 cents in
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
:twocents:throws 2 cents in
A
adamlsp
Guest
The arguments have a flaw but you have as yet to argue this flaw. Instead you have chosen to argue your misconceptions of the argument. The flaw is the definition of possibility. Go from there if you want to argue against them.
Adam
A
adamlsp
Guest
I’m sorry I’ve been so unhelpful to you in this forum. But here is one clarification: by S5 possibly necessarily true = necessarily true. Not possibly true = definitely true. You refer to the latter constantly, which is incorrect. The necessarily is key. This being has to exist by its definition only if one understands the implications of this defintion. We are basicly proving the definition, which in turn proves the concept, which in turns shows the being to be actual in some form or another. I’ll try to be clearer in future posts.
Apologies,
Adam
A
adamlsp
Guest
If possibly necessarily P, then there is a possible world W at which P is necessarily true. Then, it is true at W that P is a broadly logical necessary truth, something in which negation would, in a broadly logical sense, be self-contradictory. If something is self-contradictory at some possible world, then it is self-contradictory at all worlds.
Suppose that possibly necessarily P is true at world W0. Then there is some world W1 in which necessarily P is true at W1. In that case, P is true at every world, including strongly every world accessible from W0. So necessarily, P is true at W0.
Adam
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Mordocai said:“Yahweh” I AM or I AM WHO AM.
And Popeye said: I YAM WHAT I YAM, AND THAT’S WHAT I YAM. (Just kidding! I don’t believe in Popeye either.)
S
ShweetPrinshesh
Guest
I guess what I’m asking is for you to explain why a maximally great being is possibly necessary in any world.
~Steve~
K
Krebsbach
Guest
Hi Adam,
I guess I’m still struggling to understand how Plantinga’s proof improves on the original, which, properly understood, is also a modal argument.
What is wrong with the Anselm’s modal argument and how does Plantinga’s remedy that defect?
kordially,
karl
I guess I’m still struggling to understand how Plantinga’s proof improves on the original, which, properly understood, is also a modal argument.
What is wrong with the Anselm’s modal argument and how does Plantinga’s remedy that defect?
kordially,
karl
- Status