Oh, I was not saying he was right about the whole arguement, just that I am more satisfied with my own 5 seconds looking over a proof, than with fifty years of back research. Besides, 5 seconds is not out of hand. I appreciate you finding the links thought, and I will save them to disk and read them.
Something that exists in all possible universes must exist in this universe. Define God = Something that exists in all possible Universes. What else is there in the Ontological proof?
Conjecture: Mathematics is true in all possible universes.
Mathematics provides a derivation of many things, including the identity called the number 1
Does that mean God is amongst other possible things the number 1?
I’m going to start from scratch. First, about the characteristics of god. Your lack of assumption about the characteristics of god, except ontological perfection is very clear, and I did not imply otherwise. However, god is such an overloaded word, that some (and scott_plaid did this) assume you are discussing a god with some of the characteristics they learned in Sunday School or on the street. If they carefully read what you wrote they wouldn’t have this problem. If you remember, we had a discussion on what was meant by Supreme Being. Hope that’s clear.
Now, on to the argument. Can I summarize the first part as:
Definition: God: an entity existent in all possible worlds.
You are correct that there is no truth value to this definition.
To peanut gallery: This is the definition, and don’t add anything else.
Now, question 3: Is it possible that God exists?
If it is possible that God exists, then it is possible that it not be possible for a world to exist without God. Right?
If God does exist, then it is not possible that a world exists without God. Correct? My sentence above is different from this sentence, but given that the rest of your proof is correct, this sentence logically follows from it. I rather think it does, actually. 
So, is it possible that it is impossible for a world to exist without god? The answer to your question depends on this. If you adopt the possibility of the existence of god as an axiom, then the answer is clearly yes. Since by your proof you can prove the existence of god if you take this as an axiom, then you would also prove that a world without a god is impossible. Right?
Now, you make two arguments against this. The first is that if you accept the axiom, then a world without a god is a world without existence. That’s fine, but only if you accept the axiom. If it is possible for there to be a world with existence but without god, then the answer to the question “is it possible for god to exist” must be no. The definition still is there, of course.
The second thing you say is that a possible world has one true statement. I don’t know what this means, and I suspect getting into it would involve a discussion of physicality again. I agree that any possible world does have at least one true statement, but it also has more.
So, to restate what I said earlier, can you prove that it is not possible for there to be an existent world without a god without assuming that god, under your definition, is possible?
You see, the marketing value of this proof is that most people are willing to assume anything is possible without understanding the implications. If they do this, and answer yes to question 3, you’ve got them. If you rephrased question 3 to state:
3’: Is it impossible for there to exist a world without a god?
you’d get way different answers, though the questions are equivalent.
[QUOTE]
Possibly. I had trouble with it myself. I’ll try again.
I understand there is a scientific standard for refutability and faslification. In order to get to the point where something meets those standards, belief has to exist and persist. Therefore, belief without those standards being met is a nessecary and worthwhile part of gaining knowledge.
Thats probably not any better. Read the Popper quote.
[QUOTE]
Agreed
Yeah… I was thinking of similar not exact in every detail. Approximation might be a more accurate term.
If someone tells me they found God while meditateing, becoming a vegitarian, and
reading Buddhist text I could try all those things. It my be my variation on one of those details that works for me. It’s not scientific but it might be considered trying to replicate somones elses findings.
Theoretically, I could say that I believe in multiple universes. There is one universe per variable. Such an absurd concept would result in a world of living cartoon characters. Likewise, one of the universe might have come into existence by the operation of the laws of physics, and not by means of Odin, the All-Father. (Just to give one example of a god.)
Now, I know it is an absurd answer, but it seems to make as much sense as an invisible energy field mentioned elsewhere, and it seemed to get me out of the “god created everything” argument that would trap me in an ontological argument.
We’re not allowed to define things into truth; otherwise, I could prove that pigs fly by defining fly to mean “wallow in mud”. Definitions have no truth value. They are not logical propositions. You can think of the definition as reading this way: If it does indeed turn out that God exists, then the nature of Its existence will be necessity. That’s all. Note especially the “IF”. It just lets you know what you’re talking about. It doesn’t do your proof for you.
No, it would mean that God is Mathematics. But note that your conjecture is not a definition of Mathematics; it is an assertion about truth. What would Mathematics be in your context? That would be the definition.
Voyager just explained to you that “Lib’s proof says nothing about his god creating anything.” Why you think ontology has anything to do with creation is a mystery. Would you mind using one of your five-second blocks to look up the term?
Okay, given Cosmos’s latest post, I’m wondering if we can all agree on the following statement:
None of us know of any evidence that we may exhibit to another person and that we consider to be persuasive of God’s existence.
Note a couple of important caveats here:
-“None of us know of any” is not the same as “There is no.” Such evidence may exist, but we don’t know of it, and it’s not been discussed in this thread.
-“Exhibit” is important, as we cannot exhibit personal revelation (labor law prevents exhibiting personnel revelations, but that’s another topic). Telling someone about personal revelation is not the same thing as exhibiting it.
-Persuasiveness doesn’t just mean persuasive to the speaker: it must by definition be persuasive to the audience. We will assume that our audience here is reasonable.
The ontological proof may be the closest we’ve come to finding such a persuasive proof; but indeed its lack of persuasiveness is one of its largest problems, inasmuch as many logicians agree that a reasonable person who doesn’t start off believing in God will find nothing therein to cause belief in God.
Similarly, I think we can make a good case that the converse is true: except for particular, logically inconsistent definitions of God,
None of us know of any evidence that we may exhibit to another person and that we consider to be persuasive of God’s nonexistence.
Do we all agree on these two statements? If not, where, specifically, do we disagree?
Daniel
Oh, I know that his definition has nothing to do with creation, but such a defintion is pretty meaninless, since a usefull defintion of god has to do with creation. I did not think it was such a huge leap to think that defintion was what Bippy was asking about. Than again, I might have misunderstood.
Well, if you think he is saying that “anything is possible” it shows how you can benefit from closely reading his argument. It is tightly constructed, and cannot be rejected out of hand. I found that I needed to think deeply about each section, and understand some of the unstated premises and implications of it. The great thing about Lib is that he seriously answers serious questions about his posts. You are probably too new to the net to realize how rare that is.
My side comments are an attempt to keep others from starting with the misconceptions I had. If you accept his proof, you accept the existence of a god by his definition. You not necessarily accept Jesus in your heart, or Krishna, or Zeus. A deistic god fits also. Its fun to address the arguments of Jack Chick-like raving lunatics (I hope it is acceptable to call Jack Chick a lunatic even in GD? If not I apologize.) It is more rewarding to address intelligent arguments.
You are so going to hell. Haw haw haw!
Daniel
Clear and fair. Certainly, there are as many perceptions of God as there are closed consciousnesses. And in its loosest possible sense, a god need be nothing more than a god of fire. Of course, the purpose of providing a coherent definition is to eliminate equivocation. Quite honestly, I could not begin to guess what Scott_plaid may think God is. For all I know, he may say God is one thing now and something else five minutes from now. Predicting his responses is problematic. They are like chess moves that come about by throwing rocks at the board from a distance.
Yes.
Thanks!
Oy. I’m not sure. That’s a lot of modalities crowded together! 
For the sake of accuracy, let me check.
~~G -> ~~(~(~~)(~G))
~~G -> ~~(~)(~G))
~~G -> ~~G
If I have my reductions right, that doesn’t quite work. It has possibility implying necesssity. I think you need to change your assertion to: “If it is possible that God exists, then it is possible that it not be necessary for a world to exist without God.”
I’m not sure of that either. The Symetric Axiom states that actuality implies the necessity of possibility (A -> ~~A). But the assertion that actuality implies the possibility of necessity is suspect.
Well, yes, but that’s ignorantium. The next-to-last inference in the proof is that “a world without God is impossible”, or in other words, G. If that’s where the proof stopped, without the final modus ponens, then that would be its conclusion.
Which axiom do you mean? ~~G? The only thing I said about a world without existence is that you could posit one by saying that its necessity is not possible. In other words, you attached my definition to your postulate. It just didn’t make sense. It’s the same problem that a person who posits ~~(~G) faces: he is saying that it is possible that, were God NOT to exist in all possible worlds, Its existence would be necessary. And that’s just a basic contradiction.
It is possible, but not necessary, that it have more.
If I understand your question correctly, then the answer is no. Without the premise that it is possible that God exists, the proof fails.
I wouldn’t want them. The man who comes to me looking for parlor tricks has come to the wrong place. That is not my interest.
No, they’re not equivalent. There are two ways to deny the premise ~~G. Denial is done by negation. You may negate either the modal operator or the term. Thus:
~~G … it is possible that God exists (literally, it is not necessary that God does not exist)
~(~~)G or ~G … it is not possible that God exists (literally, it is necessary that God does not exist)
Finally
~~(~G) or ~G … it is possible that God does not exist (literally, it is not necessary that God exist)
-following on from Lib’s reply to my last post.
Is it then the conjecture that “something that exists in all possible universes” could exist is then used with the paraphraised “if something could exist then it must exist in at least one possible Universe”.
Giving rise to “something that exists in all possible universes” must exist in this Universe.
b.t.w. you haven’t mentioned anything about 1 (or 0 for the matter) having existance in all possible universes. Are you thinking about it or ignoring it or something.
Whoops, I guess it was a mistake to use “god” as defined historically. Unfortunately, I do not recall where in this five page debate I have seen the definition of "god used. Well, other than in the Douglas Adams quote used in the OP. I think I will look up what his opinion was on the matter.
What, scott? The post by Lib explicitly began by asking you whether a particular definition of God was reasonable. And you responded to that. How on earth could you miss it?
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
agreed
helpful, thanks
agreed
Cool! I think what makes this issue so difficult is that:
- Many people disagree: they think that one of the caveated statements I gave is incorrect; and
- Most things that we believe aren’t like that: they’re either completely personal claims (“I want blueberry pie!”) that nobody else can gainsay, or else they’re objective claims (“I haven’t eaten blueberry pie today”) for which evidence may exist to persuade other people of their veracity. God’s existence doesn’t quite match either of those models, and so we scuffle over it.
Daniel
That would probably be a good place to let this thread peter-out. However I cannot seem to let it go on such a fair, even-handed ending , so here are Douglas Adams thoughts on the subject, as per the OP having a quite from him:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?
DNA: Yes.
I suppose I could give more of the speech this comes from, but I think it speaks for itself.
(No, it does’t. See,: The American Atheist for the whole story)
Well all those statements separately are true, and are axioms of the modal logics — each mapped to a different accessibility relation. For proofs, of course, we have to tie statements together by valid rules of whatever system (in this case, S5). So your statements, while true, do not necessarily follow from one another. Still, they’re right.
Neither. I answered it directly. I said that what you posited as having existence in all possible universes was not the number 1, but Mathematics. You wrote: “Conjecture: Mathematics is true in all possible universes.” (Emphasis mine.)
For me the fun of this forum is the opportunity to examine what I believe and to find a way to refine it express it clearly. Sorry if I’m not to good at it yet. I defend my and your right to make the final conclusion about what we believe and how that relates to our choices and actions. I appreciate ideas that challenge me and make me think.This forum is good at that. Scuffle on.