Oh, and how does this logical concept of the convergence of all necessary things sound the least bit like the Christian God? It sounds a lot more like some sort of cosmic Venn diagram.
jayjay
I’m sorry, Jayjay. It really is my fault. I’m no smarter than you, and the essence of the thing is really simple. Let me just try to answer your questions directly and not use any formal terms:
Because it makes sense that the most perfect thing is the thing that is as perfect as possible in every possible way. It’s just one way to define God.
Anselm of Canterbury was the first to define it this way (or pretty much this way) in his work, the Proslogium, in the late eleventh century.
God is God. Christians may not claim Him to themselves.
Libertarian: you never responded to my comment in your other thread on this subject; maybe jayjay expressed himself more clearly than I did. So I’ll try again.
IMO, the main problem with Anselm’s “proof” is that he never attempts to demonstrate that a god exists that resembles his definition/description. He just says (paraphrased) “We define God as necessary; therefore God exists.”
Maybe you didn’t like my red. ad abs. about Dubya as 7’1"; try this one:
We define God as the most of everything, or however you want to phrase it. Clearly, a god that has a physical existance is more “most” than one who doesn’t; therefore all the descriptions in the Bible of God’s back parts and feet and so on are literally true.
And a god with only one (humanoid) physical self isn’t as “most” as a god who is both humanoid and shaped like a five mile long purple dragon with gold teeth, therefore…
And so on. If you define the thing you are trying to demonstrate
in such a way that it has to exist, then what can’t you “prove”?
Mapache
Actually, we’re discussing Tisthammer’s proof (and to some extent now, Oppy’s) there, and not Anselm’s, but he isn’t defining God as simply necessary. If he were, then the ontological proof would be simply the statement of an axiom and you’re done. “God is necessary; therefore, God exists”.
Rather, He is defined as the convergence of ALL necessary existence. That definition requires the introduction of at least two axioms (more, if you want to avoid Becker’s postulate for whatever reason): one to state that if God exists, He exists necessarily; and the other to state that it is not impossible that God exists.
But I’m not sure I understand your purple dragon thing. Okay, strike that. I’m certain that I don’t. I’ll just say that if you want to define God as a five mile long purple dragon, then there isn’t anything wrong with that. But to prove that your creature exists, you must accept axiomatically that its existence is both necessary and possible. What is necessary about such a creature? Why is the creature more necessary than, say, a ten mile long yellow unicorn?
Why are Americans so obsessed with analogies? Seriously whenever I see an American on TV he’s bound to say at some point “Let me give you this analogy…”
I think in many ways, they help explain things that might otherwise be unfamiliar or inconceivable. They’re just expanded metaphors. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, they might just as likely mislead. Maybe that’s why Jesus ended one of his most famous analogies with the words, “He who has ears, let him hear.”
Agnostic checking in… I don’t really “get” your proof, Lib.
An atheist would put a God who supposedly knows EVERYTHING in the universe, everything that will happen, decides who can do what after his/her death etc. in the same category as “an even prime number greater than 2”.
God can’t be “the convergence of all necessary existance”, because the power to decide over heaven/hell, omnipresence, omniscience haven’t been proven to be necessary.
Or what did I miss?
I’m an athiest/agnostic/dont really give a shit. This thread is silly.
Well, informally speaking, if power exists in all possible worlds, then absolutely perfect power necessarily exists. And if knowledge exists in all possible worlds, then absolutely perfect knowledge necessarily exists.
Think of it this way, in terms of maximums: perfect power (or necessary power) may be defined as power that exists in all possible worlds. (Clearly, power that exists in only, say, a hundred and twenty worlds is not as maximal as power that exists in those and one more.) Same same for knowledge.
Take your example, for instance. In order to be a God attribute, the power to decide over heaven/hell must be a power that He holds in all possible worlds.
Finally, this might help. Think of all the different people in the world. More than six billion of us. Not a single one of us shares his consciousness with another. For each of us, our consciousness is a closed experience, unknowable and inconceivable to anyone else. Our consciousness is therefore imperfect.
But if we posit a being who IS privvy to all of our consciousnesses, who experiences them all, then that being has perfect consciousness, and if he exists, then his existence is necessary. (You can think of perfect and necessary as synonyms.)
I hope that helped.
A fair opinion.
So many words.
So little meaning.
This thread is empty.
Well, now you’re just proving the point. Certainly there are atheists like Gaudere who can understand analogies, but when such a preponderance of them dismiss analogies categorically as silly, meaningless, and empty, then the notion deserves resurrection.
Maybe Gaudere is not an atheist at all. Or maybe there’s a difference between soft atheists and hard.
But this is where I’m stuck. Why do we posit this being in the first place?
Can’t we use the same logic to prove the existance of an even prime greater than 2 – wouldn’t a perfect being be able to think of such a number?
Or, if you claim that thinking of such a number is an impossibility, why is this more impossible than, say, total omniscience (the uncertainty principle would seem to put a stop to that one)?
Well, I think all Christians are sadomasochists.
What? You’re not into that?
…
Well, maybe you’re not a real Christian.
If all the False Scotsmen ever united, boy howdy.
Good point on the Scotsman thing, Dryga. I retract my silly statement. Certainly, most atheists are not jerks who go into people’s threads and do drive-by hijacks.
Regarding your even prime number greater than 2… You may posit its existence. Nothing stops you from that. But to prove its existence, you must first show that if it exists, then it exists necessarily, AND that its existence is not impossible. An even prime number greater than 2 fails the second axiom. But omnipotence is synthetic a priori, in other words, something that you cannot directly perceive or analyze. You therefore would have to posit that its existence is possible before you may posit that it is not!
Think of it this way: if you will not even allow that something that exists in a possible world (like power) may be possible, then what is there to be impossible about it? Take the possible out of impossible, and all that’s left is im. There’s nothing to negate.
God is not the only synthetic a priori notion that is amenable to an ontological definition. Infinity may be defined ontologically. In fact, it must be.
If I may be a jerk and hijack a bit: Why keep repeating you’re a believer Libertarian?
I don’t understand the question. Are you saying that I should say it once only? If so, may I have a sticky thread since the membership is not frozen and unchanging?
Can I get back to you after I’ve taken some logic courses? Sorry, but I’m in over my head here. 
The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
“I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.” – Clarence Darrow.
Carl Sagan’s “dragon in the garage” from The Demon-Haunted World.
Assorted comparisons by atheist debaters of religious belief and belief in Santa Claus.
Or is it just that everyone accepts some analogies and rejects others?
If I had started a thread titled “Are Christians Incapable Of Using Logic?”, what forum do you think it would end up in?
Personally, I have no problem understanding analogies, providing they are pertinent to the argument being put forward and a direct and clear relationship between analogy and reality can be established.
BTW, if someone reads a thread of yours and disagrees with your basic premise, and tries to point out the basic mistake of your premise, it doesn’t automatically make them a “drive-by” and/or a “jerk”.