# God, and existence as a predicate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2004, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159 "2004-01-12T12:44:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/61 "2004-01-15T14:47:43Z")
> [@](#): > > [Being]:Why be so terrified of a term? It hardly “terrifies” me; rather it irritates that it so clearly implies personhood when, as you say, it is meant merely as “thing which exists”. > [@](#): > > Why not use a term that is sensibly derived? Because I find the derivation underhand. If God and Necessary Existence are indistinguishable, why cause all the inevitable confusion by using the word “God”, with all its connotations regarding love/sentience/ personhood _etc._? Surely one should just stick to the unambiguous “Necessary Existence” (unless you actually _want_ to use these threads to sow confusion)? > [@](#): > > you have no epistemic basis to claim that what you cannot observe (which you say exists) is even part of the universe at all. This epistemological herring is as red as Chairman Mao’s curtains. Do you propose that there might be somewhere where the universe is not? Then it wouldn’t be _universal_, would it? In the same way that you have set forth God = Supreme Being = NE, I can contrive Universe = Combined Whole = Everything Which Exists = NE by similar legerdemain. If my U-word may not lay claim to NE, then neither may your G-word. If both may lay similar claim, why then let us think of some more! > [@](#): > > I think you meant that God is contingent on goodness, rather than love, but even so it is the other way around. Without God’s existence, goodness would have no aesthetic value. And there would be no mechanism for its facilitation. I hereby produce a similar bunch of flowers for spacetime, energy, or whatever else you would declare the universe to be contingent on. I use “universe” as another word for “necessary existence” because it is ontologically greatest: the Combined Whole. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/62 "2004-01-15T15:00:26Z")
> [@](#): > > You have defined G as necessarily existing in all possible worlds (G). You have then attached the attributes of the traditional God of the three monotheistic religions, attributes which include but are not limited to those I enumerated above. These attributes are what makes the concept incoherent. > [@](#): > > G implies nothing whatsoever about those traditional attributes. Whether such attributes comprise a coherent concept is so far removed from the debate as to constitute a red herring. Then why provide a link to the [supreme being](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supreme%20being), as _defined in your link as_"the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]". So what you are saying is that your mention of these qualities did not belong in this discussion? _This_ is the reason that we should not call what you are trying to show God, since everyone, including you, cannot seem to stop making asides about dictionary-God. **(The dictionary definition, by the way, refers to a supreme being that is dictionary-perfect, not ontologically perfect.)** I would be close to agreeing with you if you defined your terms well, which you cannot. But still, metaphysically speaking, it is difficult for me to accept that there is even a single statement which is true in every universe. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/63 "2004-01-15T15:33:09Z")
**Sentient** > [@](#): > > It hardly “terrifies” me; rather it irritates that it so clearly implies personhood when, as you say, it is meant merely as “thing which exists”. I don’t agree that it so clearly implies personhood. The first definition of “being” offered by _American Heritage_ is “The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.” Personhood is not even mentioned until the third definition. I hope you will concede the point unless you want to digress into a debate about whether their editors grasp the language. I truly do not. > [@](#): > > Because I find the derivation underhand. If God and Necessary Existence are indistinguishable, why cause all the inevitable confusion by using the word “God”, with all its connotations regarding love/sentience/ personhood etc.? Surely one should just stick to the unambiguous “Necessary Existence” (unless you actually want to use these threads to sow confusion)? But we’re discussing \*ontology \* here. That is the context in which they are equivalent. Consider my astonishing predicament: you are calling me underhanded for using the term in its strictly ontological sense, while Dr. Zoidberg is calling me a baggage handler for NOT using the term in its strictly ontological sense. I think you’ve tagged the wrong opponent for debate. It is he with whom you apparently have issues. > [@](#): > > This epistemological herring is as red as Chairman Mao’s curtains. Do you propose that there might be somewhere where the universe is not? Then it wouldn’t be universal, would it? Hey, don’t blame me. I wasn’t the one who said that parts of it are not observable. > [@](#): > > In the same way that you have set forth God = Supreme Being = NE, I can contrive Universe = Combined Whole = Everything Which Exists = NE by similar legerdemain. If my U-word may not lay claim to NE, then neither may your G-word. If both may lay similar claim, why then let us think of some more! They are not derived the same way. The Supreme Being exists necessarily because it is transcendental (“Concerned with the a priori or intuitive basis of knowledge as independent of experience” — _American Heritage_.) The universe cannot be known independent of experience because the senses are themselves a part of it. It is not a red herring when I say that one is metaphysically derived (and thus ontologically relevant), while the other is epistemically derived (and thus ontologically irrelevant). See [this explanation](http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic) of the difference because, as it explains the usage there, the MOP is making a substantive ontological commitment. Your claim about the universe is epistemic because it conjectures about how the universe might be for all you know, whereas Hartshorne’s claim about God is metaphysical because it conjectures about how God might be _in essence_. It is possible _for God to exist_, but it is possible _that the universe exists_. > [@](#): > > I hereby produce a similar bunch of flowers for spacetime, energy, or whatever else you would declare the universe to be contingent on. I use “universe” as another word for “necessary existence” because it is ontologically greatest: the Combined Whole. That doesn’t make any sense. Your knowledge of the universe is a posteriori. It is ontologically no more significant than a single one of its molecules which, if destroyed, would render the Combined Whole undefined. **Dr. Zoidberg** > [@](#): > > An empty spacetime in the shape of, say, a hypertoroid is different from an empty spacetime in the shape of a hypersphere. Both differ from “nothing”. How can “nothings” be differentiable. How does an “empty spacetime” have a shape? What is it bounded by? It has nothing in it. > [@](#): > > It is not a red herring. It is absolutely central to the debate. If G has no such traditional attributes then your “God” cannot be differentiated from the universe, primal energy, the “ground of being” or the callous deist clockmaker god. These might be interesting concepts but they all lead to practical atheism. Why bother. I believe that what you just wrote is an object lesson in dicto simpliciter. A good carpenter has many tools, not just one. The MOP is about His existence and its modality, but no one is saying that it describes Him completely. But logically, you are mistaken anyway, since necessary existence _individuates_ the Being in the MOP. That directly implies that He cannot be the same as the universe, primal energy, or anything else. > [@](#): > > The old Christian apologist’s “man fucked up why blame god”. I won’t even bother with this. Uh huh. The old Materialist’s “the mean ol’ Christian pissed on my argument so I won’t play”. Hey, you brought it up. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/64 "2004-01-15T15:39:44Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Then why provide a link to the [supreme being](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supreme%20being), as _defined in your link as_"the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]". So what you are saying is that your mention of these qualities did not belong in this discussion? _This_ is the reason that we should not call what you are trying to show God, since everyone, including you, cannot seem to stop making asides about dictionary-God. **(The dictionary definition, by the way, refers to a supreme being that is dictionary-perfect, not ontologically perfect.)** > > I would be close to agreeing with you if you defined your terms well, which you cannot. But still, metaphysically speaking, it is difficult for me to accept that there is even a single statement which is true in every universe. Once again, I did not link to supreme being; I linked to Supreme Being. The first definition found on the page — the _American Heritage_ one. Not the second one from _World Net Daily_ or whatever it was. Theirs does not even use proper case. I mean, be fair. If we were discussing Newtonian physics and I linked you to a page with the definition of force, would you be asking me why I linked you to something that happened to include among its entries a definition that said “legally binding, as in having the force of law”? ---
**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/65 "2004-01-15T15:55:17Z")
[QUOTE=Libertarian] > [@](#): > > How does an “empty spacetime” have a shape? What is it bounded by? It has nothing in it. You’ve never heard of a finite but unbounded space? > [@](#): > > I believe that what you just wrote is an object lesson in dicto simpliciter. A good carpenter has many tools, not just one. The MOP is about His existence and its modality, but no one is saying that it describes Him completely. No. No one is saying that except you. You are the one adding the Christian idea of “God” to the much more general idea of NE. You want to call NE by the name of your god and attach all his attributes. This is where the confusion comes in. No one at this point even knows what the subject of the argument is. I have no real problem with NE. It is you who want to make a god of it. > [@](#): > > But logically, you are mistaken anyway, since necessary existence _individuates_ the Being in the MOP. That directly implies that He cannot be the same as the universe, primal energy, or anything else. So. Let me get this straight. Anything which has the property of NE also has the property of personhood. You want to add that as an axiom? > [@](#): > > Uh huh. The old Materialist’s “the mean ol’ Christian pissed on my argument so I won’t play”. Hey, you brought it up. Sorry if I express boredom when you drag out a tired old answer to the problem of evil. It doesn’t do much to explain why an omnibenevolent god doesn’t intervene to stop any of the madness in the world. It doesn’t explain suffering or the seeming arbitrariness of the world. It’s just the standard apologist’s excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/66 "2004-01-15T15:55:27Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Well, I can prove that necessary existence is true in S5, if that helps. Lovely. Now all the citizens of S5 can rejoice. Should you or I rejoice? Well that depends on if assertions about S5 are applicable to reality. Since you’re trying to take an assertion based on logic built on S5 and use it to disprove existentialism I feel it only fitting that you should show the framework both models are based on is equivelant. I don’t think this is an unreasonable request. The proof and all it implies aren’t interesting in the least if there is no crossover between S5 and reality. It certainly isn’t a threat to existentialism unless there is near-perfect crossover, and it wouldn’t be a death blow unless S5 is an inerringly accurate model. You’ve said if the proof is sound then it is significant. This implies ramifications far beyond the necessary existance of a supreme something in a single modal logic framework out of dozens/hundreds. Show me why the man on the street should care. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/67 "2004-01-15T16:02:32Z")
Labeling \<\>G as “intuitively obvious” and \<\>~G “prima facie absurd” doesn’t make for a rationally compelling reason why we should use one over the other. Faced with contradictory conclusions, I don’t see how the MOP resolves anything. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/68 "2004-01-15T16:27:20Z")
It is possible _for the universe **to** exist in all possible worlds_, surely? Not “for all I know, the universe exists in all possible worlds” but “it is _logically possible_”. But of course, I was forgetting. The universe is _ontologically_ insignificant because part of it is observable, and therefore _physics_ as opposed to _meta-physics_. How convenient! (Sometimes this entire endeavour seems like learning Klingon; the kind of subject the word floccinaucinihilipilification was invented _for_.) So (correct me if I’m wrong) the only things which can have Necessary Existence are those which are transcendental, _ie._ cannot be known by experience. Do you therefore contend that _God_ cannot be known by experience? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/69 "2004-01-15T18:47:51Z")
Ahhh, so I am to believe that, despite the fact that SB and sb are synonyms, as per your link, that you do not believe that they are equivalent. Thank you for making this perfectly clear! But to answer the OP, in _this_ case, at least, we cannot use existence as a predicate, as far as acceptablility of the premises of the MOPoG. For, while I would agree that we can define God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, but it has yet to be shown that one can conceive of a Being in which modal greatness of extent implies, in all cases, dictionary “greatness”. (For instance, evil universes.) Perhaps the first line should read something like G^R-\>G, where R reads something like (x^~y-\>Gd(x,y)), i.e. a possible world in which x exists and y does not implies that x is dictionary-greater than y. I would actually accept that as a premise (i.e. the G^R-\>G part.) at least within the modal logical model, which has yet to be shown to be true for all dictionary-possible universes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/70 "2004-01-15T18:50:50Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > That page, incidentally, is criticizing the success with which various versions of the MOP have rendered Anselm’s original. The criticism focuses on what the authors have added to or taken from the OA. Note especially that it does not criticize Plantinga’s MOP at all, and it is derived directly from Hartshorne’s. > > It is not a criticism of an argument per se to assert that it does not change someone’s mind. When a man rejects the conclusion of an argument whose premises are acceptable and whose inferences all follow logically from one another, then the man is either intellectually ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Just like creationist scientists, he will grasp at any straw to contradict a conclusion that he does not like. Sorry, but I detect more dishonesty in saying one moment that in modal logic it is indeed dealing with _a god_ and not _the god_ and it seems that you are jumping from one to the other. It is also very dishonest to say the criticisms of finding god there are not valid, the truth remains that other intellectuals have taken a look and found that it doesn’t deserve much attention, and I do see that you are just twisting what I am saying: I do see the argument as valid logic, the problem is that it validates god, the IPU, og, and more interestingly: the impersonal forces of nature. Parodies are recognized as valid, and speaking of the impersonal forces of nature, I got a thought while looking at the possible parodies, and choose this one because it helps people who are not logicians: [http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/ontological-arguments/](http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/ontological-arguments/) > [@](#): > > There are some very nice parodic discussions of Ontological Arguments in the literature. A particularly pretty one is due to Raymond Smullyan, in “5000 BC and Other Philosophical Fantasies”, in which the argument is attributed to “the unknown Dutch theologian van Dollard”. A relatively recent addition to the genre is described in Grey (2000), though the date of its construction is uncertain. It is the work of Douglas Gasking, one time Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne (with emendations by William Grey and Denis Robinson): > > 1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable. > 2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. > 3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. > 4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. > 5. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. > 6. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist. > 7)(Hence) God does not exist. As I reflect now: modal logic shows that we can experiment with a god, it is just that whatever god we can find and manipulate there, is not relevant to our world, or related to the biblical god. It is importand to see that even finding no god there does not mean that in our universe, outside of modal logic, that for this reason alone he exists or not. Here is IMHO my improved version of that parody: 1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable. 2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. 4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be to not exist! 5. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being, namely: the 4 forces in physics. Forces that don’t give a hoot that the world or humans were the result of the actions and reactions of those forces. 6. An existing God, therefore, would not be a something than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be the impersonal and blind forces of nature. 7. (Hence) God does not exist. And so, the “non-creator” does: the blind forces of nature. Q.E.D. Only for the modal logic god! I am not bound by that logic, So I still see a chance for a god out there, it is the reason why I remain a hard agnostic, but I don’t need a silly contraption, like modal logic, that fails to be convincing, as evidence of a god. So far, no evidence for him/she/it has been found in this current space, time and dimension. It is a matter of faith in the end, not logic. As I see the consensus, of even theistic intellectuals, it is indeed a matter of faith that you think modal logic is the proof, and this is a good logical conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/71 "2004-01-15T18:58:19Z")
Libertarian, I’m really starting to think that you don’t understand your own proof. Let me work through this in baby steps. **Pochacco’s Proof of the Nonexistence of God** I’m using Libertarian’s necessary existence definition of God: G. Please note that this is a definition, not an assertion. We don’t know if the _assertion_ G is true or not. Now I will attempt to prove ~G … “God does not exist.” _Premises_ 1. G -\> G … from the definition above 2. ~G … “It’s possible that G doesn’t exist.” 3. G -\> G … the modal axiom Taking #2 as a premise seems entirely reasonable. After all, there is no physical evidence of G. Occam’s Razor tells us we shouldn’t unnecessarily introduce extra entities. Furthermore, its easy to imagine a possible universe (such one devoid of all matter and energy) where nothing exists. This premise is not in contradiction with the definition of G. As I pointed out above, we don’t know if G is true or not. The strongest assertion we can make based on the definition is “If G, then G”. Understanding the difference between defining a term and asserting the truth of that term is one of the things that’s tripping Libertarian up here. _Inferences_ 1. G v ~G … law of excluded middle 2. ~G -\> ~G … Becker’s postulate, 4 3. G v ~G … free variable substitution, 4 and 5 4. ~G -\> ~G … modal modus tollens, 1 5. G v ~G … free variable substitution, 6 and 7 6. ~G … disjunctive syllogism, 2 and 8 _Conclusion_ ~G … modus ponens, 3 and 9 Using modal logic I have proved that God doesn’t exist! Furthermore I can use my proof to invalidate Libertarian’s proof! Libertarian takes as his second premise ~~G … “It’s possible that God exists.” But within my proof I’ve also proved ~G … just leave off the last step. Since I’ve conclusively established that ~G is true, Libertarian’s second premise (~~G) must be false! His proof is based on a false premise! There is no God! You see, the two proofs are like two snakes eating each other’s tails. I can use my proof to show that Libertarian’s second premise is false. He can use his proof to show my second premise is false. The definition of God that they both use doesn’t give us any reason to prefer one of these premises over another. Basically, Libertarian, you have three choices: 1. Demonstrate a flaw in my proof – unlikely since its a mirror of your own. 2. Demonstrate that ~G is a false premise – without using the results of your own proof, or confusing a definition with an assertion, or baldly asserting G without proof. 3. Admit that modal logic is an inadequate tool to resolve this issue. As I said many posts ago: I think you’re dead in the water. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/72 "2004-01-15T19:17:53Z")
I hope you will see **Pochacco** that usually a believer in a “modal logic god” can still use the ruse that ~G is nothing, I think it is better to plug in the impersonal forces that humans have found to explain the “acts of god” out there. Still, I do see your point, and I have to say once again that logic is not the place to find a god, much less _The God_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/73 "2004-01-15T19:53:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I hope you will see **Pochacco** that usually a believer in a “modal logic god” can still use the ruse that ~G is nothing … Oh, I agree. That’s why I include my prohibition against baldly asserting G. If you take “God must exist” as your starting point, it’s trivially easy to prove that he does! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/74 "2004-01-15T23:19:23Z")
**Dr. Zoidberg** > [@](#): > > You’ve never heard of a finite but unbounded space? I sure have. But you didn’t say anything about space, bounded or unbounded. You said that a universe consisting of _nothing_ — your words: “a universe with nothing in it” — might be shaped like this or that. > [@](#): > > No. No one is saying that except you. With due respect, there is no need to lie to slip your point in sideways. I have in fact explicity stated several times now (and always have) that the modal ontological proof speaks to nothing other than the modal states of existence. > [@](#): > > You are the one adding the Christian idea of “God” to the much more general idea of NE. I think you have me confused with yourself. > [@](#): > > You want to call NE by the name of your god and attach all his attributes. I want to call NE SB, just as Kant did, just as Hume did, just as practically everyone does. > [@](#): > > This is where the confusion comes in. At last we agree. The confusion indeed does come in with your obfuscations. > [@](#): > > No one at this point even knows what the subject of the argument is. Oh, sure they do. Type “Necessary Existence Supreme Being” into Google. You will see that there are just _oodles_ of people who know. Philosophers, they are. Many even are critics. > [@](#): > > I have no real problem with NE. It is you who want to make a god of it. Well, that much is correct. I hope that this more reasonable generalization is a retraction of your no doubt well intentioned lies. If there is a being that exists necessarily, then our own existence is contingent upon it. That alone, in my opinion, merits god status. But to be the Christian God requires much more. Christians do not worship God because He is ontologically perfect; we worship God because He is _morally_ perfect. The MOP, however, does not address that issue. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/75 "2004-01-15T23:28:58Z")
**Dr. Ziodberg** > [@](#): > > So. Let me get this straight. Anything which has the property of NE also has the property of personhood. You want to add that as an axiom? I’m not sure you realize that what you responded to was this: _But logically, you are mistaken anyway, since necessary existence individuates the Being in the MOP. That directly implies that He cannot be the same as the universe, primal energy, or anything else._ You bulldozed your way past the point and grabbed at a grammatical device. The pronoun implies no ontological commitment. You may use “it” if it makes you less terrified. The being is individuated metaphysically because the bounds of its existence are defined. That was the point that you were afraid to address. > [@](#): > > Sorry if I express boredom when you drag out a tired old answer to the problem of evil. As contrasted, I suppose, with your exciting and new objection? If you intend to raise red herrings, at least have the fortitude to argue them out. ---
**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/76 "2004-01-16T00:33:00Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > I’m not sure you realize that what you responded to was this: > > _But logically, you are mistaken anyway, since necessary existence individuates the Being in the MOP. That directly implies that He cannot be the same as the universe, primal energy, or anything else._ > > You bulldozed your way past the point and grabbed at a grammatical device. The pronoun implies no ontological commitment. You may use “it” if it makes you less terrified. The being is individuated metaphysically because the bounds of its existence are defined. That was the point that you were afraid to address. I knew exactly what I was responding to. But thanks for being so condescending. And I’m not “terrified” of the big bad Modal bogey man. I see nothing in the MOP that individuates or defines bounds except in the most general sense of “it is this and not something else”. If you want to talk only about G as NE I remain unconvinced that it cannot be the universe itself or some other non-personal entity. > [@](#): > > As contrasted, I suppose, with your exciting and new objection? If you intend to raise red herrings, at least have the fortitude to argue them out. Once again I have no herrings, red or any other color. The issue of what this G thing _is_ is absolutely central to the discussion. You started out, as Ludovic pointed out with a link to the supreme being which contains almost _the exact language I used in my “red herring”_. You are the one with the fishing pole Mr. Lib, not me. You _started_ this debate with that link. You now want to backpedal and talk only about NE. And don’t bore me with talk about Supreme being vs. supreme being. The shift key will not save you. I checked both those links. They are the same bloody thing. Oh, and “well intentioned lies”. I try not to lie. But when I do rest assured it is with bad intent. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/77 "2004-01-16T00:45:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _Libertarian said_ > If there is a being that exists necessarily, then our own existence is contingent upon it. That alone, in my opinion, merits god status. But the keystone crystal does not ask for god status. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/78 "2004-01-16T00:55:26Z")
Libertarian said: “If there is a being that exists necessarily, then our own existence is contingent upon it. That alone, in my opinion, merits god status.” Our parents are gods!!! ;j ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/79 "2004-01-16T14:43:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I want to call NE SB, just as Kant did, just as Hume did, just as practically everyone does. This is purely bogus. “Practically everyone” does not equate NE with a modally-great SB, but “practically everyone” DOES equate an SB with an sb, with all the attributes you claim to not be trying to prove. It’s sort of funny. You are trying to argue truth by popularity without even having the populace behind you. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159/80 "2004-01-17T05:38:12Z")
Well, I’ve answered the specifics of **Libertarian’s** preferred modal proof in at least two of the earlier threads, so I will attempt to not repeat myself here. I will summarize that objections to the proof can include both issues with the form of the definition, the assumption of “God’s” possible existence, the applicability of S5 to modal questions regarding non-rigid expressions, the appropriate reading of the symbol (see Quine and especially Prior, who insists upon a distinction between A and ~\<\>~A for possibly uninstantiated variables.) If anyone really wishes a recapitulation of these points please ask (or wad through the earlier threads.) I would like to address **Lib’s** use of RN to prove that “necessary existence” is true in S5. I want to highlight hits because it is very illustrative of the potential confusions that can arise in interpreting modal arguments. The proof appears to be valid in S5, even sound, but quantifiers in modal logic are not straightforward and I disagree with **Lib’s** interpretation of what has been demonstrated. The key(s) lie in the interpretation of the identity axiom, the implications of quantifiers, and in the Rule of Necessitation itself. _x = x_ Simple, right? Often expressed (x)(x=x). In **Lib’s** quantified notation, Ax(x=x). Here’s the question: _Does the identity axiom imply the existence of x?_ Most modern logicians, following Boole, would say no. Universal quantifiers do not carry existential import, though existential quantifiers do (intuitively). So, this means that in **Lib’s** proof we have not demonstrated that “x” exists. No problem, really. Yet. Step 2 – looks good, still no implication of existential import. Step 2 – looks good, still no implication of existential import. Step 4 – oops. Now we are implying Ey(y=x). Somehow we have managed to insert an implication of actual _existence_ into our logical structure. Let’s look at how that happened. Step 4 relies upon the definition of E {Ex(A) -\> ~Ax(~A)}. This is a classically correct treatment of quantifiers, but that can be a problem in modal logics–it leads to many conclusions that are so counter-intuitive as to convince many logicians that teh rules of FL (Free Logic) should be used instead. Interestingly enough, one of the classic (so [stanford.edu](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/) assures me) problems encountered when applying classical quantifiers to a fixed-domain modal logic (which is the best place to apply them, most agree) is that it leads to exactly the conclusion of **Libertarian’s** proof. More on that in a second. In the quantifier rules of FL, put simply, introduce a new predicate, let’s call it **E** , for “exists actually”. In this case, the existential predicate of classical quantification (“E” in **Lib’s** notation, a reversed “E” symbol classically, but I don’t have the patience to figure out what ascii code will produce that on the board) is read as “some” and understood to not imply “real” existence. In FL, the inference from Ax(Rx) (Everything is real) to Rn (some specific thing is real) is not valid. Coincidentally, one of the charges sometimes leveled against the FL approach is that it makes existence a predicate, which ties back very nicely to **Lib’s** OP. I’ll get back to that soon. First, a return to **Lib’s** conclusion. One of the reasons that it is considered a damning conclusion for fixed-domain applications of classical quantifiers is that the classical interpretation is not usually interpreted “necessary existence is true”. It is read: **everything exists necessarily**. To break it down: AxEy(y = x) [ul]li – y is identical to x[/li][li]Ey(y = x) – x exists[/li][li]Ey(y = x) – x exists necessarily[/li][li]AxEy(y = x) – Every x exists necessarily[/ul][/li]Now, this can be variously read as “all things that exist exist necessarily” or “necessarily all things exist”. Both of these conclusions, though, conflict plainly with the intuition that some things really do exist conditionally. Interestingly enough, this very conclusion lends credence to the arguments that “G” could be [insert mundane or ridiculous being here]. I have no idea whether those raising that barb intended it to call attention to the use of classical quantifiers in a fixed modal domain, but I think that that is the only way it really carries weight. Barring such context, it is pretty hard to argue that all existence is unconditional. So, this brings us to the Rule of Necessitation itself. The interesting thing about RN is that it shows us exactly how X -\> X is generally understood within a modal logic. **X is a theorem of the logic in question**. That is all. Any theorem exists unconditionally in the domain defined by the logic of which it is a member. Barring the interjection of some other predicate for “G” in **Lib’s** original ontological proof, there is absolutely no reason to bind the symbol to a “supreme being” of any definition rather than to the theorem “… = ”. Now, I admit that it’s a pretty cool theorem, but I don’t think I am going to start worshipping it. **Lib** I have to apologize, now. I had hopes to dispense with the modal arguments more quickly than this since I was trying not to repeat old ground, but brevity has never been my strength. Then the board went down and I couldn’t even post this reply “on time”. I’ll return to discuss the idea of predicated existence as soon as I am able. Later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-existence-as-a-predicate/224159.md?page=5)