Ayn Rand yerass!
Let us assume that evolution proceeds and perfects, beings evolve that are more or less godlike, until finally, God evolves. Might be millions of years in the future, billions, who knows. Doesn’t matter.
At the instant that God evolves, being God, He is not bound by the constraints of time and space. If He exists at any time in the future, He would therefore exist for all time.
Q.E.D.
I think the problem would be with your initial assumption.
a) Evolution doesn’t necessarily produce beings that are “perfect”, merely beings that are well-adapted to their current environments.
b) Even if we allow that evolution has in our case produced beings capable of directing their own development, and that human beings might consciously seek “perfection” and might even be hubristic enough to want to become godlike, it doesn’t follow that it’s possible to be “perfect” in a God-with-a-capital-G sense. For example, no matter how advanced our technology becomes, we may never be able to transcend the constraints of time and space, thus allowing ourselves to go back and initiate the Big Bang and become responsible for our own eternal and perfect existence.
okay, Crimson, I think i finally got what you are saying. took me damn long enough,
so, when I think in my mind of the perfect, toaster, I am simply thinking of something which toasts perfectly. Perfectly meaning our definition or just straight latin, per=“thorough” faceo=“to be”. To be toasting thoroughly.
The perfect being must “be thoroughly”, that is,must “be” as perfectly as possible. A consequence of being as perfect as possible is existing in all aspects. So the perfect being, if conceived, must exist.
I’ll buy it, as a mind fuck. But will you accept that an all powerful god must be able to make a boulder so large that only he can lift it?
Okay, okay, straw man. But, to actually pick a bone, I insist that there can be no “perfect being” by those criteria. Why? because we have no true internal homounculi, only essential vagueness. If I hold the idea of the perfect being in my head, what I actually hold is an approximation, small enough that I can get my mind around it and good enough that I don’t see the blind spots.
I can’t ever conceive of the perfect being, because to do so would be to have perfect comprehension. Only God can have perfect comprehension, and he doesn’t exist. Therefore I can’t have perfect comprehension.
jb,
a taste of your own medicine
or medici
Opus1 stated:
Actually, while Kant is generally the one quoted in these cases- partially because he stated it better than most other people, and partially just because he’s Kant for heaven’s sakes- the same objections had been phrased earlier. For instance, in the Objections (the book released following Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy wherein Descartes answered questions raised by his contemporaries) a monk named Gassendi posed this refutation
Essentially the exact same argument later stated by Kant, and probably(though I really have no idea) used against the argument by St Anselm.
The question of circularity as to the ontological argument was also raised in the Objections, by Caterus, who said
While the ontological argument is a lot of fun for philosophers, due to the fact that it seems counterintuitive yet still requires some careful thought to refute, it is generally not accepted as a valid proof.
Just for those who are curious about it, Descartes’ responses to these two objections to the ontological argument (also included in the Objections) basically amounted to a repetition of the part of the ontological argument being challenged. Not awfully helpful, but then again no one else has managed to come up with much against those two objections either.
(The quotes from Gassendi and Caterus were taken from a wonderful book entitled <u>The Philosophical Works of Descartes: Vol II</u>, edited by Elizabeth S Haldane and G R T Ross in 1955, for Dover Press, in Cambridge England.)
Thanks to this thread, I think I’d have to say the Ontological Argument sounds more like begging the question (or petitio principii, if you want to get fancy-pants about it) than anything else. At any rate, I don’t really see how it constitutes amphiboly.
If God does exist (I doubt it), does he go to the bathroom? lol. All I want to know is how to do the smiley faces and the quotes on the bottom.
Signatures (Go to your profile for this one; see the “profile” icon in the icon cluster on the top right corner of your screen)
From the OP:
Emphasis mine. Note that Anselm switch from what “God” means to what “God” is. Logically speaking, he should say “threfore the meaning of ‘God’ should include existence”.
What relevance does what the argument is intended to apply to have? If Anselm had intended two plus two to equal five, would that make it true?
Opus1:
What makes you think that it took that long? Ever occur to you that everyone that objected to the argument was either ignored or worse?
The Crimson Hipster Dufuz
Well, if we don’t understand it, we can hardly base logical arguments on it, can we?
Isn’t existence part of the essence of a unicorn? If something doesn’t exist, then it’s clearly not a unicorn.
Do you have some logical blind spot to circular reasoning? How you know that unicorns don’t exist?
What?!!! How can it toast bread if it doesn’t exist?
[quote]
Hey, George, if you’re still around…
Thanks to this thread, I think I’d have to say the Ontological Argument sounds more like begging the question (or petitio principii, if you want to get fancy-pants about it) than anything else. At any rate, I don’t really see how it constitutes amphiboly.
It appears to switch meanings of “perfect,” from “fufills its essence” to “freest from flaw.”
In any case, it’s just a fun thing to discuss in intro philosophy or torment Wilson with in AFCA. Kant or not, it’s no reason to run out and get the Lord.
Well, I think we all agree it’s a dead horse. We’re just debating the exact cause of death.
Actually, I take that back. C. S. Lewis, who was certainly well read and intelligent, apparently found it pretty convincing.
Message to “The Ryan.”
If you’re going to debate something, for heaven’s sake read about it before hand. Then you won’t come to a discussion thinking you’ve invented the wheel, dig? I quote here from “Eureka! 18 key ideas explained,” which you might be able to pick up at Barnes and Noble for a few dollars, or stick inside your jacket and bustle out the door, or whatever.
"In fact, one of Anslem’s contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutier, pointed out that the ontological proof couldd be used to prove the existence of almost anything. Gaunilo’s specific example was that of the prefect island, better than any known island, a place of every conceivable delight. since we can imagine such a thing, we must have a concept of it; and if it didn’t exist, we could conceive of a more perfect- (that is, existing) island. Therefore, it must exist.
As Anslem himself responded, Gaunilo misses the point. For the concept of an island does not involve the concept of existence, just as the concept of a perfect circle does not depend on the existence of any such circle. The concept of a being, however, necessarily involves the concept of existence. We can easily imagine that a perfect island or a perfect circle do not exist. But we cannot imagine that the most perfect concievable being does not exist, because the very concept precludes it."
Well, see how easy that was?
Epistemological questions are more or less completely objective, sure, after arbitrary assumpions. So what? This doesn’t “disprove” anything. Only from within one epistemology can you say you “know” something, so for someone else who disagrees on epistemolical assumptions it should come as no surprise that many may disagree.
This is why one can’t use one philosospher to “disprove” another, and there is little question in my mind that we are discussing philosophical matters (ontology?).
Unless you have found the One True Epistemology ;). I’d be interested to hear about it.
Um, in the part of Kant that we’re talking about Aynrandlover, Kant was replying specifically to the ontological argument. I think that in a case like that we’re allowed to apply what he said to the ontological argument. It’s not like we’re just grabbing his concept of, say, noumenal things and using it to disprove some theorem of Descartes- Kant really was saying “The ontological argument is wrong and here’s why…”
(or more accurately he was saying …
(quote taken from Critique of Pure Reason, found at http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html - pages 504 and 505)
So, then, Kant showed that Plato’s Forms were wrong as well? You’d have to be a fool to follow that line of thought?
I fail to see how one philosopher bashing another is of any relevance. I like debating, I like disagreeing, and I even like citing sources. But you can’t cite a source in philosophy…unless there is a One True Philosophy, or at least three for a nice debate (like atheists, agnostics, religious), or unless it is that philosophy itself which is in question.
There are some people who felt that the predicates were applicable to existence. They are not wrong in so far as any philosophy is wrong.
I mean, clearly atheists are wrong because the Pope said God exists… :rolleyes:
Um, do you really not understand the difference between a conclusive demonstration of the falsity of a premise(ie Kant saying that existence is not a perfection(for reasons previously stated in this thread) and the creation of an opposing metaphysical theory as to substance and the nature of being, or was that just a rhetorical ploy?
**
[/quote]
I fail to see how one philosopher bashing another is of any relevance.
[/quote]
**
It isn’t, had Kant said “The ontological argument doesn’t work because existence can’t be a perfection but rather the presupposition for the possibility of the perfections and besides Descartes smells bad and doesn’t get out of bed till noon” the last two parts would have been completely irrelevant(though they were true). On the other hand the first part would have been completely relevant.
**
You can’t? Damn, there go most of my philosophy papers. To think that all those grades I got could have been better had I just made stuff up, hah. You can’t quote philosophy as if it were an authority, true(as in saying “Because Kant(or whoever) said such and such it must be true”) but you can most definitly quote philosophical arguments (as in saying “Kant said such and such which shows that Descartes’ argument doesn’t work.” It’s not that Kant said it, it’s that what he said (the actual argument) is valid.)
**
Um, so basically all philosophy is equally (in)valid and arguing about what is valid or not is useless since it’s all just a matter of different systems? That there’s no point in debating axioms since they must just be accepted as givens or discarded completely? What an incredibly useless point of view!
You’re right, I do not understand this particular argument for the falsity of a premise. That is, including being as a part of perfection does not lead to any paradox or absurdity. I would almost say myself that existence is necessary for perfection. This does not in itself imply that a perfect being exists exists unless we take a Platonic view, or some strict solipsism and concluded that anything we can conceive of is true somewhere, or something.
That is, it comes as no suprise to find the conclusion wrong if one does not accept the premises. Feel free to reject the premises. But to replace one set of premises (perfection presupposes perfection) with another set of premises (perfection does not presuppose existence) and declare, “See, he was wrong!” is about the worst thing I’ve ever heard.
Surely, if you are as read as you seem, you must see that rejecting premises comes from using deduction from those assumptions to reach an invalid or self-denying conclusion. Thus, if our reasoning was correct, our premises must be wrong.
Consider a quote from an earlier post: “Kant suggested that being wasn’t an intristic property, which has been explained elsewhere.” That is, it was his contention that perfection does not presuppose existence. This is how it was presented in the thread, and this is what I had a problem with. I am not well-read on Kant, so I won’t argue against or for him as such. I will argue, however, against saying that the Ontological Argument is wrong because an alternative opinion is available. The same thing used to disprove the OA can be used to disprove the counter argument in this case, you see?
“That there’s no point in debating axioms since they must just be accepted as givens or discarded completely?”
This is pretty much true by any definition of “axiom” I have ever come across. That is, it is an unprovable statement accepted as fact. You may refute it, but you cannot disprove it. You may accept an alternate axiom in its place, but this does not invalidate either the original axiom nor does it validate yours. You have simply made an alternate hypothesis.
To show that many different hypothesis are available doesn’t say anything about the validity of any particular one, merely that something somewhere is “wrong” or that there really is no “right,” but not that any particular axiom was in error.
I mean, let’s look at this in a different light. “Euclidean Geometry was well-followed though many different people have had problems with it. When Reimann (among others) decided to rephrase or downright ignore the parallel line postulate (axiom) we found that Euclidean geometry was wrong.”
Now, does this sound a little absurd?
What a charming dodge!
Setting aside the question of circles (since I can’t for the life of me imagine what would make one circle more perfect than another) let me imagine my perfect island. mmmmmmmmmmm, Salma. Now, if this island did not exist, it would be less perfect than an island which matched my conception in all ways, yet did exist. Therefore, my perfect island must exist. Now if I could only find it . . .
Anselm apparently wished to divorce a “being” from any other object of conception. I see no justification for this, and he seems to give none other than declaring, ‘we cannot imagine that the most perfect concievable being does not exist’. Personally, I can imagine it just fine. More to the point, though, existence is every bit as necessary for a conceptual island ot be perfect as it is for a conceptual being to be perfect.
Basically, the onological argument can be extended to all objects of conceptual perfection.
I agree Spiritus. The whole exercise seems nothing more than an attempt to define God into existence. Also this bit strikes me as odd:
Even if we wave off the questions of whether we truly can conceive of perfection adequately and whether or not perfection is objective or subjective, why does the logical necessity of “most perfect” equal “perfect?” Why is it assumed that perfection is not asymptotic?
wow. You put it better in one sentence than I could have in a bunch of threads. Bravo!
jb