# Define God
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 13, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623 "2005-01-13T23:54:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/101 "2005-01-18T19:13:43Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Your demand that an ontological statement describe God’s attributes is absurd and unreasonable.
i don’t think anyone’s looking for an ontological statement about attributes.
where i think the problem lies is the conflating of the god you can prove with the god whose attributes you _know_. you can’t prove the latter, nor do you claim you can, but it is the latter with which we are here concerned.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/102 "2005-01-18T20:02:35Z")
> [@Lib](#):
>
> If, as Hawking suggests, entropy increases inside a singularity, and if a singularity was the entity from which the universe emerged,
Note that a black hole singularity and the universe singularity are hardly identical entities. As I understand it, entropy can change in the black hole only from the perspective of a reference frame within the event horizon: it still looks timeless to one outside it. The t=0 singularity has _no_ outside.
> [@](#):
>
> and if the singularity was itself not metaphysical (as in beyond physical) — then it seems to me that your assignment of time’s beginning is merely arbitrary and convenient. The increase of energy incapable of doing work implies events, and events imply time. Therefore, there was time before the event called the Big Bang.
The t=0 singularity shows an increase in entropy compared to…what? A different configuration of the universe? Which one, given that the only other configurations possible would appear to be at t\>0?
---
### Author:  [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/103 "2005-01-18T20:13:10Z")
Liberal: Do you find the proof you posted satisfying?
My gut told me there were problems (which may have just been my own desire to poke holes in it, or maybe I was really detecting problems), not with the logic, but more with definitions. I read Sentients link and since then I have investigated and read some of the criticisms of the ontological argument.
It seems pretty clear you enjoy logic and philosophy and so I’m curious whether you feel the criticisms are valid, or whether that proof is satisfying as it stands.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/104 "2005-01-18T20:14:02Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> So where do you get these portable goalposts, or do you have to make them yourself? This is why my instinct to bow out was right: you don’t debate honestly. Follow the thread back.
>
> Daniel
What the…?
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/105 "2005-01-18T20:25:48Z")
> [@Priceguy](#):
>
> I read that a long time ago, and I would still like to see your response to his comments.
I commented on it before. It is an excellent commentary, in my opinion. I have no substantial arguments with it.
> [@](#):
>
> No, you’ve misunderstood me. I would have posted what I did regardless of your statements about his attributes. What I meant was that when you use the very word “God”, it immediately, whether we like it or not, carries with it connotations. When you say “God’s existence can be proven”, as you often do, you do not deliver the idea “necessary existence can be proven” to your listeners. You deliver an idea containing, precisely, a whole sackful of unrelated connotations such as omnipotence (or at least extreme power), omniscience (or at least enormous amounts of knowledge) and so forth.
Sorry for misunderstanding you. Please note that the MOP is not proof of necessary existence. That is a separate proof, and is even simpler:
**Definitions:**
A = for every
E = there exists
**Prove:**
AxEy(y=x)
**Argument:**
1. x=x (Identity Axiom)
2. Ay(y≠x) -\> x≠x (Quantifier Axiom)
3. x=x -\> ~Ay(y≠x) (Contrapositive of 2)
4. x=x -\> Ey(y=x) (Definition of E)
5. Ey(y=x) (Modus Ponens 1 and 4)
6. Ey(y=x) (Rule of Necessitation)
**Conclusion:**
AxEy(y=x) (General Modal Axiom)
That isn’t what the MOP proves. The MOP proves that Necessary Existence exists in actuality.
> [@](#):
>
> Mainly because I don’t think Daniel has done anything wrong. It is quite understandable that he misunderstands your statements, simply because the word “God” carries so much baggage.
I honestly do understand your point. However, it isn’t like I haven’t gone out of my way to explain myself forty ways from Sunday. I have made clear what I am talking about and in what context.
> [@](#):
>
> I’ll read the Hawking cite and get back to you on that one, as I’m in the middle of washing up after dinner and my roommate is shooting some evil looks my way.
Understood. No problem.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/106 "2005-01-18T20:29:08Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#):
>
> i don’t think anyone’s looking for an ontological statement about attributes.
>
> where i think the problem lies is the conflating of the god you can prove with the god whose attributes you _know_. you can’t prove the latter, nor do you claim you can, but it is the latter with which we are here concerned.
That may indeed be your concern. However, as I’ve said already, I complied with a request from someone else that I supply proof of the ontological statement. Perhaps it can be the case that a thread need not be so narrow as to exclude all related topics. The thread’s title, after all, is “Define God”. I offered my definition, and have responded to all requests for clarification. If you do not wish to engage me in a discussion about it, then don’t.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/107 "2005-01-18T20:42:44Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Note that a black hole singularity and the universe singularity are hardly identical entities. As I understand it, entropy can change in the black hole only from the perspective of a reference frame within the event horizon: it still looks timeless to one outside it. The t=0 singularity has _no_ outside.
But that makes my point, doesn’t it? Events are occuring _inside_.
> [@](#):
>
> The t=0 singularity shows an increase in entropy compared to…what? A different configuration of the universe? Which one, given that the only other configurations possible would appear to be at t\>0?
I’m not sure I understand the question. It seems to me that there must be information inside the singularity; otherwise, there is no mechanism by which it could expand. Very small singularities typically are not very stable. I don’t know whether you’re conjecturing that the singularity had all the mass of the universe, but if so, I don’t see how that can be the case since mass is equal to energy.
---
### Author:  [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/108 "2005-01-18T20:48:13Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> That may indeed be your concern. However, as I’ve said already, I complied with a request from someone else that I supply proof of the ontological statement. Perhaps it can be the case that a thread need not be so narrow as to exclude all related topics. The thread’s title, after all, is “Define God”. I offered my definition, and have responded to all requests for clarification. If you do not wish to engage me in a discussion about it, then don’t.
indeed. and i was quite satisfied with your separation of the two different (provable and knowable) sets of attributes of god.
i just meant to point out that the confusion, and perhaps where **Left Hand of Dorkness** thinks he finds dishonesty, is in calling them both god. one god you can prove exists, and one god you know exists. when we see “i can prove god exists”, we’re usually looking for proof of the latter.
---
### Author:  [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/109 "2005-01-18T20:49:43Z")
Liberal: I am curious about your views of the proof you linked to earlier.
I’m not sure if you missed my previous question or if you do not want to respond. Either way I will ask this 2nd time.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/110 "2005-01-18T20:51:17Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#):
>
> Liberal: Do you find the proof you posted satisfying?
>
> My gut told me there were problems (which may have just been my own desire to poke holes in it, or maybe I was really detecting problems), not with the logic, but more with definitions. I read Sentients link and since then I have investigated and read some of the criticisms of the ontological argument.
>
> It seems pretty clear you enjoy logic and philosophy and so I’m curious whether you feel the criticisms are valid, or whether that proof is satisfying as it stands.
The only interesting criticism against it, in my opinion, is rejection of the premise ~~G in favor of the premise ~G. If indeed the former is replaced by the latter, then the opposite conclusion is reached, namely ~G. However, the assertion ~G is untenable, in my opinion, chiefly for two reasons: (1) it is a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition, i.e., negation of the modality itself implies a modal state — whatever is not necessary is still possible, and possibility (\<\>) is the same as the negation of a modal negative (~~), which supports the original premise, and (2) it is a contradiction to say that that which exists necessarily possibly does not exist.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/111 "2005-01-18T20:55:35Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#):
>
> Liberal: I am curious about your views of the proof you linked to earlier.
>
> I’m not sure if you missed my previous question or if you do not want to respond. Either way I will ask this 2nd time.
Please be patient. The board is excruciatingly slow, I am one against many, and these matters are quite technical, requiring thoughtfulness and precision. My response to you is, as of this writing, just above this post.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/112 "2005-01-18T20:58:13Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#):
>
> indeed. and i was quite satisfied with your separation of the two different (provable and knowable) sets of attributes of god.
>
> i just meant to point out that the confusion, and perhaps where **Left Hand of Dorkness** thinks he finds dishonesty, is in calling them both god. one god you can prove exists, and one god you know exists. when we see “i can prove god exists”, we’re usually looking for proof of the latter.
Were there not a long history of this discussion, I would agree with you. For example, in the case of II Gyan II, I am covering the most elementary aspects of the MOP. But Daniel has participated in these discussion for, well, years now. I cannot take seriously any pretense from him at the sort of misunderstanding you describe.
---
### Author:  [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/113 "2005-01-18T21:09:37Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> The only interesting criticism against it, in my opinion, is rejection of the premise ~~G in favor of the premise ~G. If indeed the former is replaced by the latter, then the opposite conclusion is reached, namely ~G. However, the assertion ~G is untenable, in my opinion, chiefly for two reasons: (1) it is a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition, i.e., negation of the modality itself implies a modal state — whatever is not necessary is still possible, and possibility (\<\>) is the same as the negation of a modal negative (~~), which supports the original premise, and (2) it is a contradiction to say that that which exists necessarily possibly does not exist.
Thanks.
I’m only familiar with propositional and predicate logic, but I’m going check out this modal logic in more detail.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/114 "2005-01-18T21:09:47Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> But Daniel has participated in these discussion for, well, years now. I cannot take seriously any pretense from him at the sort of misunderstanding you describe.
I do not believe I am misunderstanding you. But if you consider this worthy of further discussion, it’ll need to be in a new thread; this is a two-step hijack of this one, I believe, which is not supposed to be about the merits of the ontological proof or about whether I believe you debate said proof honestly.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/115 "2005-01-18T21:18:06Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#):
>
> Thanks.
>
> I’m only familiar with propositional and predicate logic, but I’m going check out this modal logic in more detail.
Here is an excellent introduction:
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/)
---
### Author:  [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/116 "2005-01-18T22:32:51Z")
**Liberal** , I’m going to post your proof here and try to clarify some things…
Liberal’s MOPOG, few things added
> [@](#):
>
> Let G = Supreme Being = ontological perfection
>
> Argument
>
> 1. ~~G (It is possible that God exists) Induction
>
> 2. (G -\> G) (It must be the case that if God exists, then He is the Supreme Being) From the definition of God
>
> 3. ~G -\> ~G (If it is not the case that God must exist, then it is necessarily the case that God does not necessarily exist) Reductio ad absurdum by Becker’s Postulate, i.e., necessity obtains
>
> 4. G -\> G (If it is necessary that God exists, then He exists in actuality) Modal Axiom
>
> 5. G v ~G (Either it is necessary that God exists, or else it isn’t) Law of Excluded Middle
>
> 6. G v ~G (Either it is necessary that God exists, or else it is necessary that God does not necessarily exist) Substitution from 3 and 5
>
> 7. ~G -\> ~G (If it must be the case that God’s existence is not necessary, then it must be the case that God does not exist) Modal modus tollens from 2
>
> 8. G v ~G (Either it is necessary that God exists, or else it is necessary that He does not) Substitution from 6 and 7
>
> 9. G (It is necessary that God exists) Disjunctive syllogism on 7 and 1
>
> Conclusion
>
> 1. G (God exists in actuality) Modus ponens from 4 and 9
Well, here’s my problem, if I’m reading this correctly. You define God as necessary existence. Then shouldn’t (4) by itself be proof?
(1) is a statement borne out of our uncertainty, isn’t it? IOW, we can’t claim that Reality can accomodate God, but that we can’t see a reason why not.
Isn’t (2) a tautology since they reference the same underlying entity? If not, how is it justified?
No problems with (3), (4) or (5), per se.
(6) seems to be saying the same as (3).
(7) sounds sticky. Why must God necessarily not exist if not necessary?
---
### Author:  [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/117 "2005-01-19T01:01:07Z")
Just to make sure I’m following along correctly…in what context are we using the word “necessarily” in reference to God’s existence?
---
### Author:  [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/118 "2005-01-19T01:24:36Z")
> [@Othersider](#):
>
> I was first tempted to post something Descartesian, but I think instead I’ll ask you if you’re a phenomenologist.
In case anyone has no idea what I’m talking about, [here](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/) is a brief description.
As it relates to the discussion, I’ve been told that some phenomenologists posit that nothing exists, which I personally think is a rather asinine conclusion.
> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> Perhaps the whole existence-of-God thing may be dealt with by simply exploring the idea of **Cecil Adams**. Seriously. I am neither trying to make a joke nor to belittle anyone’s faith. But many of the arguments for and against the existence of God are very much similar to the more light-hearted ones that surround the existence and nature of **Cecil**. He is seen as a source of wisdom, much writing is alleged to be from him, some people think he’s a fraud perpetrated by a coterie of writers purporting to speak for him, he never reveals himself… The parallels are intriguing, and by dissociating the argument from issues in which people have emotional investments, we might get somewhere in analysis.
Very astute of you, **Polycarp**. Consider also Shakespeare (whom some people have alleged was also a fabrication of one or more people). ;j
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/119 "2005-01-19T10:25:39Z")
**Lib** , I think our discussion of singularities and entropy is best had elsewhere since you’re currently in the midst of quite a crowd, but if you’re opinion is that the January 2005 universe _is_ the singularity (and hence “events are occuring inside it”) then we largely agree.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2005, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623/120 "2005-01-19T12:22:54Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#):
>
> **Liberal** , I’m going to post your proof here and try to clarify some things…
>
> Liberal’s MOPOG, few things added
>
> Well, here’s my problem, if I’m reading this correctly. You define God as necessary existence. Then shouldn’t (4) by itself be proof?
No, because you can’t just define things into existence. Otherwise, I could prove that pigs fly by defining fly to mean “wallow in mud”. There is a difference between a definition and a proposition (or assertion) — the latter is a truth bearer (having a truth value), and the former is not. Before G -\> G can mean that God exists, it must be the case that G is _true_ as a proposition (not a definition). And that doesn’t happen until step 9.
> [@](#):
>
> (1) is a statement borne out of our uncertainty, isn’t it? IOW, we can’t claim that Reality can accomodate God, but that we can’t see a reason why not.
More or less. All induction is born of uncertainty. Take Peano’s Fifth Axiom, for instance. There really is no way to know (or prove) whether any given n will have a successor, but it “rings true” intuitively.
> [@](#):
>
> Isn’t (2) a tautology since they reference the same underlying entity? If not, how is it justified?
I don’t understand the question. To what does “they” refer?
> [@](#):
>
> No problems with (3), (4) or (5), per se.
Just for the record, Becker’s Postulate is not entirely without controversy. A logician named Pete Suber, in particular, is a bit critical of its use here. But the MOP can be formulated without Beckers Postulate.
> [@](#):
>
> (6) seems to be saying the same as (3).
Not at all. First of all, number 3 is an implication, meaning that if the first term is true, then the second term must be true. Implications may be read as, “If A, then B,” or “A implies B”, or “B follows from A”. Number 6 is a conjunctive phrase. Either A is true, or B is true, or both are true, but both cannot be false. And one does not necessarily follow from the other. But second, the first term in 3 is negated, and is not negated in number 6.
> [@](#):
>
> (7) sounds sticky. Why must God necessarily not exist if not necessary?
Because it is a logical modus tollens. Two of the most popular and influencial rules of logic are the modus ponens and the modus tollens. A modus ponens is of the form A -\> B; A; Therefore B. A modus tollens is of the form A -\> B; Not B; Therefore, Not A.
For example…
**Modus Ponens:**
Bob wears a red shirt only on Sundays. Bob is wearing a red shirt. Therefore, today is Sunday.
**Modus Tollens:**
Bob wears a red shirt only on Sundays. Today is not Sunday. Therefore, Bob is not wearing a red shirt.
As a matter of interest, the MP and the MT have accompanying logical fallacies: Affirmation of the Consequent, and Denial of the Antecedant. An AC fallacy is of the form A -\> B; B; Therefore, A. A DA fallacy is of the form A -\> B; Not A; Therefore, Not B.
For example…
**Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy:**
Bob wears a red shirt only on Sundays. Today is Sunday. Therefore Bob is wearing a red shirt.
**Denial of the Antecedant fallacy:**
Bob wears a red shirt only on Sundays. Bob is not wearing a red shirt. Therefore, today is not Sunday.
(_Maybe Bob is wearing a blue shirt this Sunday._)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/define-god/284623.md?page=7)