Some deists don’t believe that’s the case. You seem to be assuming that deists are not theists, which I don’t entirely agree with. I posit that deists can be (and often are) theists. And from this post alone, it appears that you may be a deist.
Substantially correct.
Thanks Lib, I wanted some check that I was uderstanding the symbols used correctly.
You are understanding the symbols fine, but you could use just a wee bit of tweaking on possible word semantics. The world in which we exist is called “actual”, for example. Still, as I say, substantially correct.
Two things about that proof. The first is, for which x is this proof not true? The second, is the identity axiom valid for a non-existent object? It seems to me that there is an unstated premise that x is existent, and that given that the proof works.
And I don’t see your objection to multiple supreme beings. E y: y = x does not imply that
~Ez: z <> x. (sorry, using programming notation here.)
While we are at it, I understand Bippy’s rewording. If God is defined as a supreme being, and that is defined as existent in all possible worlds, then being existent in one implies being existent in all. Fine. But if there is a G2, existent in all possible worlds, G1 <> G2, if we find G2 on a possible world G2 is also existent in all. Or are the properties of G defined by being existent in all possible worlds alone? In this case G1 = G2 by definition - i.e. their properties are identical, so they are identical.
Accessibility is not the issue. Neither is reflexivity. Yes, if God can communicate (or be identical) from world w to world v, and from world v to world u, then there is trivially identify from world w to world u. But this does not establish that either of the relationships exist, which was my question. Making this axiomatic seems like a rather large leap. Now, if you define Supremacy as not only being existent in all worlds, but being equivalent in all worlds, then it works - but only by definition.
The perception of god in these worlds is of course not relevant. There may be no entity besides god (and does god have to be perceptive?) to do the perceiving in many possible worlds.
I was just interested in why you don’t agree with them.
I’m not trying to put anything back in anything. I have no problem dealing with anything.
OK, let me put it this way. I have no problem with you advocating the ontological proof at all. I personally find it unconvincing, for the reasons outlined above, and I’m a physicalist. I have no dog in this fight. Personally, I don’t care either way. The only reason I popped into this thread to start with is this:
I like you.
I do. I really like you. We may not agree on much, but you’re very intelligent and always interesting. When I see that you’ve posted to a thread, I always open it, because at least nine times out of ten, you’ll have something worthwhile, interesting and thought-provoking to say. Reading a post by you is never a waste of time.
There are not many Dopers that I can say the same thing about. SentientMeat is the only other one that I can think of. I look forward to posts by either of you two, but it’s more remarkable in your case since we disagree on virtually everything. I’m a socialist atheist, you’re a libertarian theist; hey, we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on much, but I always like reading what you have to say, simply because I know in advance that it will be thought through and relevant, whether or not I agree with it.
Here’s the thing: not many Dopers agree with me on this one. Many of us dislike you, and to be honest, I can see why. You’re often very inaccessible and sometimes really condescending. Even if you might not mean to be. For example, the “questions from people unfamiliar with late 20th century advances in philosophy” bit sounds condescending, no matter how you meant it to sound. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it sounds condescending. That is not going to help anyone.
It’s the same thing when you pop into a thread to say that there is a logical proof of the existence of God. I can’t bring any logical arguments to bear to say that you’re flat-out wrong (although, due to fundamental differences in our philosophical outlook, I will always consider you wrong as you will consider me wrong), and that’s not even the point under dispute.
But when you, for example, say “God”, no matter what you or I or SentientMeat or the emperor of Assyria may think of it, you do bring in a lot of baggage, which is a barrier to communication. Since I know that you do have something worthwhile and interesting to say, I find it very sad that you choose that terminology, knowing full well that it will hinder your message rather than helping it.
Now, you may be technically correct (or not; I’m not even going to enter that discussion and it probably wouldn’t lead anywhere anyway) in saying there is a logical proof of God. Fine. Trouble is, it doesn’t help much. When you describe the ontological proof I assume that you want people to listen with an open mind, perhaps even come to accept the ontological proof, and using the word “God” from the start doesn’t further that goal, but keeps you from reaching it.
I hate seeing pile-ons on you, because I know what that’s like and how difficult it is to defend against no matter how good your arguments are (and yours usually are). I hate seeing people insulting you because they’re not grasping what you’re saying (which doesn’t mean they’re stupid; you often say things that are difficult to grasp). I would love seeing people listening to you, debating intelligently with you, and then agreeing or disagreeing. That last part doesn’t really matter to me, and I have a pretty shrewd idea that it doesn’t matter to you either, because to you the fair, intelligent debate is a point unto itself. That’s one point on which we agree.
That is a rather lengthy explanation of why I would like you to, and think you should for everybody’s sake, choose another terminology, and another mode of discussion. I would like you to consider how your post will be received, rather than how it should be received, in a perfect world.
I’ll pop out of this thread now, because if the preceding doesn’t explain what I mean, I’ll probably never be able to.
I’m sorry, you’ve lost me. Which proof? So far there are two formal proofs in this thread, and numerous informal arguments without logical flaw.
I’m not able to wrap my brain around the phrase “valid for a non-existent object”. Validity has to do with the formulation of an argument. If it follows that rules of its system, and all its inferences follow from its premises, then it is valid. But again, what proof for x? Do you mean the proof of NE? If you mean the proof for G, G has been proved to exist.
Well, let’s try a different tack. Forget symbols. Consider the coherent meaning of “supreme”. As a point of grammar, it is a superlative. American Heritage uses “Greatest” as the qualifier for the terms in its definitions. If there are two, both cannot be greatest or supreme.
Here is another way to look at the tie-in between supreme and necessary. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were possible that a being be supreme but not necessary. Given the proof of a necessary being, then we have a being that exists in every possible world — including the world in which our supreme being exists. Since every necessary being is a supreme being, this would mean we have two supreme beings, which is akin to having two biggest planets. It is a metaphysical impossibility.
It seems to me that accessibility is a prerequisite for communication. If a man shouts things 5 miles away from anyone’s hearing, is he communicating?
Well, I think it’s relevant. Plus, it’s just plain nice to know that not only can God speak to the worlds, but the worlds can speak to It.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. Nothing has been said or proven to indicate that God should be identical in every world — merely that It should exist in every world. It would be absurd, for example, to demand of God in our world that It construct a circle whose circumference is pi times its diameter because our world is not flat. And it’s not absurd on account of It can’t do it; it’s absurd on account of we can’t perceive it.
If It is perceiving within the confines of a particular world, then It must perceive according to the rules of that world. That’s what makes It’s viewpoint objective — It is privvy to every possible view.
I’d like to echo what Priceguy said. Lib, whether or not your normal hijacks are meant to score cheap smugness points or to (poorly) illustrate an obscure point, your hijacks in other threads about the proof of the existence of God seem sincere.
However, intentionally or not, they suffer from the same problem the others do: namely, you reference a non-standard definition (in much the same way that “racism” has a specialized definition in some circles of multicultural studies,) and use it as if it that is its common-language use.
To most people, this has the persuasive cachet of grammatical nitpicks. It’s not going to change anyone’s mind.
For instance, if someone claims that 1+1=2, it wouldn’t behoove me to walk into a thread and say “ahem, actually, it’s fairly well known that 1+1=10.”, then not say any more unless someone asked me about my perplexing statement.
Like I said before in this thread, your concept of God as the most ontologically widespread entity is informative since it is another data point in what theists believe. Even more informative would be a cite as to how many theistic philosophers also believe that.
All that will still not change the fact that if you try to discuss God using your definition, you will fail to persuade most people due to what amounts to a linguistic nitpick.
I think that your objection two two supreme beings fails when you consider the supremity of the being to be infinite.
An entity with infinite power is exactly as powerful as another entity of infinite power, both would be supreme in power. Infinity is not like a measurable value that can be measured with greater and greater accuracy until it becomes possible to distinguish it from any other measurable value.
Doesn’t the theory also prety much rely on all possible worlds actually existing? Or dose it postulate that G is so powerful that even the possibility of existing within a non-existant world is sufficient for its existing in the actual world?
Priceguy, I cannot bring myself to ruin your post and dump on its intent by parsing it and treating it clinically. It is humbling, edifying, and affirming — all at once. I very much appreciate that you like me. For we Melancholies, words of affirmation are like rainwater to a rose.
I know that you are right, that I am perceived as condescending. I know this because people have said so. Coincidentally, perhaps, they typically are the people who most dislike my views. Notwithstanding that, however, Lord knows that I do not have the social skills of a Polycarp. And frankly, it is not something to which I ought to aspire. If you knew me personally (as Poly does), you would know me as a caring, kind, and giving man, but with certain self-esteem issues stemming from a childhood of bigotry and a lack of formal education. I cannot change my temperament. I’ve tried.
I know also that it is too much to demand that I be given the same deference that, say, an expert on evolution is given when he is asked questions by Creationists. After all, I have no degree in philosophy (or anything else). Nevertheless, I have been called upon (twice) for advice and guidance by men who were writing their post graduates theses in philosophy. I might have no formal education, but there is scarcely a philosopher or logician of any note whose original works I have not read.
I don’t think it means that anyone is stupid for not being familiar with late 20th century advances. After all, most college courses (especially undergraduate) deal almost entirely with the classics. And most professors are, well, let’s just say biased in various ways. I became familiar with the modalized versions of the OA only in recent years, and it took me weeks to acquire the books and learn what I needed to know. What I try to do is spare people some of the time and effort that I had to expend myself. But again, I can understand why this in me seems condescending.
Thanks for your patience with me.
At least in this thread, Lib gave his on-topic opinion on the OP (post #36) and then with endless patience responded to requests for clarification.
Thanks Lib, I learned something new about your views again!
I don’t know what any of that means. Necessary existence is coherently defined. It has nothing to do with any infinity.
Only one world actually exists. But all worlds with at least one true statement possibly exist.
It postulates nothing at all about power.
Thank you! So many friendly voices in one thread… I think I can die happy now! 
Sorry through theis thread I thought you were defining necessary existance as the same as supreme being. Supreme means to me that some measure of value is made against all beings and the highest ‘scoring’ being is the supreme being. If the ‘score’ of a being is finite it can be measured to arbritrary accuracy such that no two beings could possibly have precisely the same ‘score’ and that seemed to be your argument that there must therefore be only one highest scoring being, not two equal highest scoring beings. If that was your argument, then I was pointing out that if the G beings ‘score’ was infinite, then it is no longer valid to say that you could compare it to another being G’ say that also had an infinite ‘score’ in order to determine which of G and G’ had the highest ‘score’ and was thus supreme over the other.
I’ll quote Richard Feynman:
“God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.”
I’ll add my thanks to Lib’s, Priceguy. Such kind words are rare enough in ‘real’ life, let alone on a message board of pixels and usernames.
It never fails to astonish me that though Lib and I might disagree as utterly as two people possibly can (intellectually) on various specific issues, our overall attitude and the ultimate conclusions of our vastly different approaches seem so strikingly similar: in terms of how our respective philosophies affect how the world and the people within it make us feel, it often seems as though we’re merely arriving at the same place from different directions.
I talk singularities and neuropsychology, Lib talks metaphysics and aesthetics. Like some lads from my home town sang:
All you need is love.
He clarified this in a response to me a while back. His meaning of Supreme Being is existent in all possible worlds, not power. I was confused in the same way, since the common meaning of supreme being involves power.
It is not clear to me that God must be the creator of worlds, only existent in them. It doesn’t seem to be the case, but it might be hidden in some axiom or other.
Yes, the NE proof, which depends on the axiom x=x. No, we are not proving x, we are proving the necessary existence of x. The second step says that there must exist some y = x if x = x - perfectly reasonable of x is existent.
Let’s try this. Let’s say the domain on which you are operating is the set of all things, existent and non-existent. However, all non-existent objects map into the null set. After all, they have no properties, so they are equivalent. (Tags of non-existent objects do have properties, of course.) Then x=x is defined for all elements of the set, but the y you find in step 2 is {}. Going through all the steps of your proof, you show that the set of necessary objects is null for non-existent x. Thus, if I claim that god is non-existent, I have no problems. If you claim god is existent, you must show it by means other than this proof.
Another way of saying it is that by stating there exists a Y = X, you are assuming that there exists an X. My method gets around that, by providing something that X can be even if nonexistent.
But you gave another definition of supreme above
I abandoned my discussion on the supremacy of power or other factors when you gave this one. I can agree that there is no greater existence, but there can be equal existence. Unless of course you allow a world in which there is only the supreme being - but I think your proof can find another necessarily existent being to occupy it also. That’s the danger of using Supreme in the way you are using it - you can fall into exactly this trap.
Not by your definition of supreme. Once you get into a definition that implies an ordering to measure supremacy, you get into the problem I mentioned on page 2.
Example - not dealing with necessity, but… if supremacy of an atom is defined as existing in every star, then both hydrogen and helium atoms are supreme. If supremacy also counts atomic numbers, then helium is supreme. If supremacy involves two measures - atomic number and being combustible with oxygen (silly, I know) then neither is supreme, since neither has both properties, and no atom is supreme at all, assuming that no other atom appears in every star.
Or have I lost absolutely everybody? I’m saying that I don’t challenge the proof, which seems valid to me, but rather the axioms. Given the axioms, I agree with the conclusions. But I don’t agree with the axioms, for reasons that I hope are clear.