What is untestable is if a given existent or spiritual entity falls into the class of entities defined by the definition. We have our coherent definition of god. How do I know if I have been in contact with God or something less than God? (Less in your sense of not being existent in all possible worlds - that is the only possible meaning of less in this context.) A definition that cannot be used to distinguish things in the class of those defined from those that are not is not useful.
Well, as we saw in the last go round, I am less than convinced by your proof of necessary existence. Specifically my problem was in the application of the identity axiom to non-existent things, which seemed to me to lead to a contradiction. You didn’t seem to get it. My fault, no doubt. However, my analysis of this is from the view of not accepting necessary existence, which I hope helps you to understand my point.
I am sure that you love high level philsophical talk. For me, I have always been satisfied with the personal argument against a historical god, i.e. the picture of god that appears when put together all the contradictory statement of god’s nature as described in the holy books.
You don’t seem to have answered my point that a person could call this “force” a giant gravity elf. Oh, well, I wasn’t serious anyway.
For your own amusement, here is a refutation of “necessary existence”
For my own amusment, I will do something else, for I still do not see it as convincing proof of a “god”
also here is a pretty satisfying ref I found on usenet
No, you are making a huge leap in logic here. Why does the necessary
existent have to be a “being,” a term which implies intelligence and
personality? Why can’t the necessary existent be the simplicity of material
particles? In other words, why does the necessary existent have to be
something with life and intelligence? I also fail to see why a necessary
existent would have to be immutable. You are simply projecting your
personal religious biases into the mystery of existence.
I hope not. God may be the tag of supreme being, but it is hardly the meaning. I’d bet they’d say the being that is greater in all respects than any other. I doubt they’d say the being that is existent in all possible worlds.
Not that what a poll says is of any importance, of course.
Somehow, I read that as "there might be alternate universes that are nothing but empty rocks. That is to say, I was looking a existance as "animals exist’, while you were using the philosphical def. of existance. Now I see. My defintion is not the philosophical view, nor is it even correct.
Oh, I see what you mean now, and I understand your quandary on some level. But necessary existence is distinguished from possible existence and actual existence by quite rigorous definitions. It is in fact a logical truth. I don’t understand the “contact” part though. A thing is useful if it can be used. I’ve never made contact with modus ponens, but I find it to be useful all the same.
Yeah, I had forgotten about that, and I should have remembered since I had never before (nor have I since) encountered an objection to the Axiom of Identity. But if that’s all that’s bothering you, here is a proof sketch that does not invoke it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/ltrueNE.html
I very much appreciate that concession. You’ve made a giant step toward our developing a mutual respect.
With regard to the musings on usenet, that’s where the notion that you cannot prove a negative apparently began. What you read there must be taken with a gigantic grain of salt. You must sift for truth very carefully. Inasmuch as I already quoted a reputable source as both defining existence as being, and calling them synonymous, we can discard the usenet rant that “being” implies something else.
Good one, Scott. Lib’s proof did not include the notion of “positive” but just existence, but it has the same issue - I don’t see why you can not construct an unlimited number of necessary entities with it.
That’s one of my problems with calling Lib’s god a “supreme” being. Supreme usually implies uniqueness, but Lib’s definition has no such implication.
For instance, if we decide that strings are the basis of existence (of any frequency) than strings are necessary entitities, and are god, being necessarily existent in each world by definition.
Note the "if: there, by the way.
I don’t really see how that is a strawman. It seems like when people want to define god, they reach into the holy books and pull out concepts like “love” and omnipotent, never minding the fact that they contradict each other. What I should say “seem” to contridict each other. In this discussion we seem to be having a discusson about a god, about who nothing is know, but that should not stop me from saying that is the definition of god used practically and historically, i.e. however anyone wants to , with support from the “holy books”
It suddenly occurs to me that you might be trying to establish some sort of identity and attach it to the being in the proof. Is that the case? And if so, why?
What is known is that Its existence is necessary. It’s a proof about existence. Ontological, and all that.
At any rate, I don’t know why you have such an axe to grind against religion. But I can tell you that it will severely retard your intellectual growth. It is not the case that there are two people in the world — you and all-others-as-one. There are idiot atheists, dumbass Christians, moronic Muslims, stupid Jews, Neanderthal Wiccans, and pea-brained agnostics. There are also erudite atheists, brilliant Christians, wise Muslims, intelligent Jews, well-informed Wiccans, and perspicacious agnostics. By wearing your generalizations like a chip on your shoulder, you are denying yourself much edification and enlightenment.
I understand that lashing out at religion might seem somehow daring, or fashionable, or cutting-edge to you. But it is the intellectual equivalent of a starvation diet. You seem to think people of faith are close-minded, and yet your own mind is a slammed shut bear trap. I urge you to put aside your prejudices and start respecting people just for being people. You are a half-step away from blind hate, making yourself indistinguishable from religious fundamentalist fanatics. If you don’t do something about it, your ignorance will be your downfall.
Indeed I seem to be unable to get over the fact that I don’t like religion, and think it is bad for society. I justify it by saying that while I am close minded, it is the close minded religious people who have done the greater harm to this world. I see all attempts to point out good aspect of religion as being "cherry picking” However, in my last post I believe I addressed the fact that the definition of god I use is not the immaterial Supreme Being used in this discussion, and that it is irrelevant.
Well, you are showing some signs of growth in this thread, at least lately. It doesn’t mean that you have to agree with anyone else. But it does mean that you have to respect them if they argue their views with intellectual honesty. It is possible for two people to hold opposing views and still respect one another. If you continue on this path, you will be amazed at the doors that open to you. May your journey be fruitful, and bring you peace.
Oh, and before I forget, it is an attempt to get away from the mindset that everything religous is perfect that I grew up with, not some fashionable thing.
Again, it’s all ghoti. If, by supreme being, you mean, “That thing that kicks everything else’s ass at being,” then you’re technically right.
The problem is that this is not the common parlance of supreme being. In common usage, a Supreme Being is an entity better than all other entities, not just the entity that won first place in the existing-really-hard contest.
When you take the words as defined in a specific (and, to my mind, devoid of significant meaning) context, and then move them into a different context, their perception among the new audience changes.
Since the Common Parlance has seniority in usage of this fairly common phrase, I prefer to respect that; I think you’re better off not using that term with its entirely different meaning in the proof, in order to avoid confusion. What’s wrong with, instead, using the term Necessary Existence?
If I may add something: ask a random sampling of people what Supreme Being means, and a significant number will answer, “God.”
An insignificant number will answer, “Necessary Existence.” That’s the map I dispute.
Similarly, ask this sample what God means, and an insignificant number will answer, “Necessary Existence.” Or vice versa.
Most of your philosophical quotes seem to me to suggest that existence is a necessary component of a Supreme Being, that a being that doesn’t exist cannot be a Supreme Being. I’d agree with that. They don’t seem to establish that necessary existence is a sufficient criterion for being a Supreme Being–therefore, the mapping doesn’t hold, just as you run into problems if you define zero as “the product of 0 and 17,” and try to reverse-engineer any equation producing zero thereby.
