But if God is defined as the “greatest possible being”, you may not substitute 'universe" for “God” unless you first establish that the universe is a being. It is one thing to say that “God” can be defined any way you want it to be, but defining “being” the same way goes way too far.
“”""""“God is defined in Tisthammer’s proof as the “greatest possible being”.”""""""
What an immensely loaded statement. I would love to see his proof for that. SAILOR really hit the head on this one already IMO.
This comes back to all sorts of odd paradoxes associated with universals. Two come to mind:
a.) You build a platform to step into that infuses all things into your one entity… you step out and nothing has changed. (this is a very old and obvious argumnet about God simply being a projection of ourselves). YOU may be the greatest possible being!
b.) Does the greatest possible being have eternal life? Does it posess omniscience? Does it possess omnibenevolence or omnipresense… or any number of a bazzillion omni-states? Or is “the greatest possible being” nothing more than a human being who simply has learned a few tricks that they use to treat peers like deterministic robots? (which to me is meaningless as a God – I would be more than happy to explain why)
If God actually posesses an omni-state, then the problem grows even larger. For one, omni-states have a very funny way of all being connected … for example, one needs to be omniscient to know that they are eternal. Omni-states will collapse into themselves through objective stasis… and make those possessing it … nothing but vegetables (also meaningless to me).
If I need to catalogue all the instances of objective stasis or explain more about it to you, I will be happy to do so.
-Justhink
I left a little out on the (a) point that should clarify it a bit more…
This ‘machine’ symbolizes our quest for perfection … when we finally enter it, we realize that we are already perfect as the universe or God or whatever intended us to be. If we actually want something different (like a brain that calculates mathematics as well as computers), we have to corrupt the process by applying superficial blocks to the mechanism. These blocks are arbitrarily chosen by what we believe to be heightened perfection. Our instance of tampering with the process of universal convergence is actually proving a negative to gain a positive (again, a recurring theme here). This is how anyone generates wealth, attention etc in life… controlling regenerative resources, because they can. There are some similarities here to the Eden myth. The flaming sword in the garden keeping us from realizing our goals is symbolic of our judgement. It is to say, that by judging - we seperate ourselves from the ‘kingdom’ of our own freewill, by moving to another line (so to speak) because we know that Charles Manson (or whoever) can’t be in the line that actually goes to heaven, and we just saw him walk in… so we move to another line, over and over… never actually going anywhere.
-Justhink
I agree with you completely, Czar. Well, on that point at least.
Justhink
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
ethicallynot
[quote]
It’s right to deny that possibility alone doesn’t prove existence.[/qutoe]
Not after claiming that all nonexistent worlds are impossible, it’s not.
Libertarian
But you have not established that the greatest possible being is indeed possible.
“”""""""""Justhink , Sorry, I have no idea what you’re
talking about.""""""""""""""
Your logitician must have gone to college to come up with a
proof that idiotic )
The entire crux of God rests on meaning, not on existence.
Is it possible for an existence God to be meaningful? Is
it possible for a meaningful God to be existant?
Ask yourself, "What does a God need to posess _at a
minimum_ for it to even be meaningful to me as a God?"
I’ll do the decompiling after that, to show you the
difficulties involved.
-Justhink
For example … Does God need to be able to distinguish one thing from another thing, in order to be meaningful to you?
Do you require a God who can tell the difference between yourself and themself? A god who can process binary logic at all?!! What is the point of proving the existence of God, if you can prove the meaninglessness of that God if it does actually exist? If you can prove meaning for an existent God, then searching for tangible ‘proof’ actually has a purpose.
I exist. If it takes you 10 years to find me, does that make it meaningful to you? Probably not )
-Justhink
It’s a tautology. p <–> p.
I think I see what you’re asking now. But that is a matter for theology and not ontology. It’s sort of like the difference between physics and engineering.
I don’t see where the proof explains why perfection must converge in a “being”, unless you are using the word “being” to mean any kind of entity, not necessarily what would usually be associated with the word. So it doesn’t prove god as a being.
But even ignoring that, your proof has a huge problem. Part of the premise is that an real, existing god is more perfect than an imaginary god. But where does that part of the premise come from? The very fact that you have defined a symbol as the greatest perfection proves that the concept of god is itself the greatest perfection, and therefore the concept of god exists, not a real god. Your concept of god is by definition flawless, because you do not allow any flaws to be attributed to god. There is no way a real god could exceed the perfection of your concept of him. Indeed, your concept of god includes all possible gods and all possible perfection, so it is likely not only equal to but more perfect than any real god. Therefore you have only proven the existence of your concept of god.
In addition, although the inexplicable premises make the proof meaningless, it is noteworthy that logic is a bounded system, and god is an unbounded system, so the value of trying to insert the latter into the former is highly questionable.
Fascinating. Even as you decry the definition of God offered here, you yourself offer one of unboundedness. And if you honestly think that Tisthammer has defined a symbol as the greatest perfection, then there’s little point in the two of us discussing anything at all. If, on the other hand, you care to make a serious argument, I’ll debate with you.
Libertarian, I agree with you that there’s no need to establish the possibility of the Greatest Possible being. It’s indeed self-evident. But aren’t you concerned with the synthetic a priori meaning of the Greatest Possible Being? I have to sadly agree with JayJay’s original suspicion that the whole ontological argument is pointless. That is, of if we use Tisthammer’s definition for God. I’m not sure what Tisthammer has proven in the end, except that what reaches its maximal potential for being must by necessity exist. And this is just a way of paraphrasing “Greatest Possible Being”. Who will disagree with this? It’s as about as enlightening as saying “2 is 2” or “The moon is in the sky”. I think it’s an error to apply the definition “Greatest Possible Being” to God. It seems to equivocate the concept of “God” with “Existence” per say, rendering it meaningless. What we have in the end if we use Tistammer’s definition is a petitio principii…
No, it’s not. The two sides are not equal. “p<->p” is irrelevant.
I amused myself over a weekend camping trip constructing modal tableaux for the argument.
Tisthammer’s argument is demonstrably valid provided the accessibility relation on possible worlds is symmetric. That’s it. All he requires besides his two axioms is a symmetric acessibility relation.
Good catch, Libertarian. Tisthammer’s implication is not material implication. His is strict implication. “A strictly implies B” means that “it is necessary that A materially implies B”. I’m abusing notation horribly now, but if I write A->B for material implication, then is strict implication.
So, using -> for material implication, Tisthammer’s first axiom would be stated as . This is the required form of his first axiom.
You might wonder what happens if plain old material implication is used for G->G. In that case, the argument is no longer valid (it can be demonstrated with a modal tableau). The counter-model is an interpretation with two possible worlds, W0 and W1. W1 is accessible to W0 (that is: R(W0,W1)). ~G is true at W0, G is true at W1. Both G->G and <>G are true at W0, but G is not true at W0.
What happens if material implication is replaced with the (material) biconditional? The argument is still not valid. The counter-model is an interpretation with three possible worlds, W0, W1, and W2. R contains (W0, W1) and (W0, W2). ~G is true at W0 and W2, G is true at W1. Then G<->G and <>G are true at W0, but G is not true at W0. (This isn’t the simplest possible counter-model, but the one given by the tableau).
It’s worth repeating since we haven’t been emphasizing it: Tisthammer’s first axiom is G strictly implies G.
kg m²/s²
What is the point of proving the existence of God, if you can prove the meaninglessness of that God if it does actually exist?
“”"""""""""""“I think I see what you’re asking now. But that is a matter for theology and not ontology. It’s sort of like the difference between physics and engineering.”""""""""""""
Not precisely so IMO. There is no standard of meaning being applied to the term “greatest possible being”. The greatest possible being could be any being, it could even be pluralized.
Like others have noted here, that is meaningless. You need at least one condition, for this to even parse as anything but an interchangable term for anything and / or everything else. This axiom, in effect, dissolves itself by suggesting that the “greatest possible being” has no meaning. The conclusion of such a ‘being’ existing, becomes a null set.
-Justhink
I don’t see any difference between this argument and the argument:
God must exist, because something cannot come from nothing.
Since the term ‘God’ exists, it is impossible for God not to exist; because every idea needs precedence in form. (this can be argued for anything)
That does not give any value to the term, “God” or “greatest possible being”.
Maybe I’m using value, property and meaning too interchangably here, and am confusing the matter somehow. The term needs a property, or it is just using the above axiom IMO.
-Justhink
Ethic
I’m surprised at that. If anything, I would have expected the objection that it might a circulus in demonstrando (it isn’t). I don’t know of any serious critic who has charged question begging. The axioms presented seem universally to be accepted as “clean”. (Although, there appears to be a problem that Newton is bringing up, but it is technical in nature, and not intrinsic; i.e., it can be fixed.)
Newton
I’m sure it’s just an oversight or typo. Even if the young man made a mistake, I remain impressed with his effort. It’s good, from my persepective, to see the kids thinking. Thinking hard. You know what I mean.
Debating with you is a priviledge. Thanks for all your important input.
I’m sorry. Why is the first axiom tenable again? Why is the existence of an existent necessary?
Wow, so your brilliant comeback is to just say that I am not serious. I’ll try to make this simpler for you.
Premise: God is the greatest possible perfection
Problems: Well, the use of the word god is clearly used to make this proof seem to have something to do with god, when it doesn’t. Suffice to say, I do not agree that “god” is the greatest possible perfection. Still, I’ll ignore that for your sake.
Premise 2: If God exists based on this definition, he must exist in real life because that which exists only in our minds is not as perfect as that which exists in real life.
Problems: Well, for starters this premise is blatantly wrong. The concept “circle” is completely perfect. It includes all possible perfect circles. Anything that really exists is likely to be examined and found to have flaws, but a concept is always perfect and all-encompassing.
The real premise 2: If god exists based on this definition, he must exist only as a concept, because a concept is always more perfect than that which exists in real life.
Premise 3: God is not impossible.
Problems: I take this to mean that we are capable of imagining god, but in any case I can’t really argue with this because it is necessary to even attempt the proof.
Conclusion: After correcting premise 2, the proof proves the existence only of the concept of god as the greatest possible perfection.