# Possibility != Existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538 "2003-02-03T17:32:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/501 "2003-02-13T20:30:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > Question: Would you consider this definition of God-as-Supreme-Being as more or less appropriate?: and aware creator etc with etc. > > Answer: yes, I rather think I do. > \*\* I agree with this. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Does **this** proof allow itself to be used for other things? Of course! It applies to anything that satisfies the conditions layed out of G-\>G and \<\>G. That’s why I asked you if you felt anything could satisfy those criteria. Modal logic gives us no method of choosing between all the various interpretations, so saying “It can’t be talking about your definition because it could be talking about this other one” is silly. > \*\* but not this. There IS a contradiction here, for me. If you define G-\>G and do not attempt to attach other proerties to it, then it may be a valid proof, but I wouldnt agree with the definition. But if you try to attach other properties to it, it forms a contradiction. For instance, the idea of “maximum greatness”. A maximal _aware_ being would not exist in all worlds, namely, the evil ones. Therefore, god does not exist in at least one world. Therefore, god cannot exist at all. Congratulations, you’ve just disproven God! \*\* > [@](#): > > It is useless to say the proof applies to other things and so can’t be right. They all do. They apply to whatever they apply to, whatever _we_ apply them to. \*\* but a proof is only sound if the premises are sound. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/502 "2003-02-13T20:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dalovindj \* > Once we assign the thing properties (awareness, mindless process) we have to add another axiom. Hardly. The modus ponens applies to my bachelor example, and I needn’t add an axiom that men exist or define a male, and even if I did, it would only go so far in logical symbols and would look the same if I was talking about breasts and nipples or hair and protien. > [@](#): > > I submit that awareness may not be necessary at all, so such is not a reasonable thing to take as a given. Well the counter to this is simply, “I sumbit that awareness may be necessary and so it is something reasonable to take as a given.” I totally agree the proof has all these issues we might critique, but I don’t think we’re actually doing anything here other than hand-waving. **Ludovic** , does it form a logical contradiction or do you just find that you need to restrict what sort of qualities can be maximized? You see what I mean? If all universes are necessarily infinite in size, is there a “maximum” height? So then god can be however tall. 😛 Bad example, but I hope it illustrates that… I too mind neither the definition nor the possibility, but I do not agree to their conjunction, and I think if I ever did I would not be using the word “possible” in the same way that modal logic would be. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/503 "2003-02-13T20:59:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Well the counter to this is simply, “I sumbit that awareness may be necessary and so it is something reasonable to take as a given.” As I see it, there is not ample evidence to accept either a priori. That’s the crux isn’t it? In this way it is no different then one person saying “I believe in God” and one saying “I don’t believe in God” for all it tells us. For the person who is not already convinced of the origin of everything being an aware creator, the proof does not hold. The way the proof is presented, however, implies that it has proved the existence of an aware god without taking as a given a priori that god is aware: a feat that has most definately not been accomplished… DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/504 "2003-02-13T21:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dalovindj \* > **In this way it is no different then one person saying “I believe in God” and one saying “I don’t believe in God” for all it tells us.** And it also comes as no surprise that the person most adamantly holding up modal logic as evidence of God’s existence while ignoring the fact that it also proves the existence of a non-sentient creator is adept at [quoting bible verses.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=162775) ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/505 "2003-02-13T23:15:23Z")
You are in error, **zwaldd**. If Necessary Existence were a creator, it would have a property, no? We’ve established that N.E. cannot have properties… or so **Lib** would have us conclude. Again, I think **Libertarian** is fundamentally mistaken about what the proof indicates. As I’ve mentioned before, I think it’s a shame that he’s actually a Taoist but is a really, really bad one. ---
**Author:** ![simple\_homer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@simple\_homer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simple_homer)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/506 "2003-02-13T23:26:52Z")
, ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/507 "2003-02-13T23:38:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > **You are in error, zwaldd. If Necessary Existence were a creator, it would have a property, no?** By non-sentient creator, I was thinking ‘process’. Those dang definitions again… ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/508 "2003-02-14T00:32:27Z")
Even ‘process’ is going too far, methinks. At least, if we accept the idea that N.E. has no ‘positive’ properties. I say that not possessing any positive properties is impossible for a thing that exists. So is not possessing any negative properties. The Tao has neither, and both, but I don’t think **Libertarian** can understand that he can’t understand the Tao. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/509 "2003-02-14T02:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > **Ludovic** , does it form a logical contradiction or do you just find that you need to restrict what sort of qualities can be maximized? > \*\* the latter. It forms a contradiction if one insists on maximizing “greatness” and positing G-\>G. \*\* > [@](#): > > I too mind neither the definition nor the possibility, but I do not agree to their conjunction.\*\* good way of putting it, me too. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/510 "2003-02-14T03:02:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*Even ‘process’ is going too far, methinks. > > At least, if we accept the idea that N.E. has no ‘positive’ properties.\*\* Well since I was willing to accept that God=NE for the sake of argument (in that the NE proof, valid or not, negates the validity of the Actual Existence proof, IMO), I’m equating NE with whatever the explanation for the creation of the universe is, whether a chemical reaction, a God, whatever. As usual, I’m probably off on my own logical tangent. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/511 "2003-02-14T14:09:43Z")
[Here’s](http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:WJ7A0z8fDQsC:cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002492/01/ontarg-en.pdf) an interesting general disproof of the validity of any ontological proof of God. The basic argument contained therein is as follows: > [@](#): > > The argument for the impossibility of successful ontological arguments can be sketched informally as follows. Begin, on the one hand, with the consideration that God is a perfect being and, on the other hand, with the fact that humans are imperfect beings. God, as a perfect being, aims at maximising all human qualities. But if we had a successful ontological argument, then faith would be unnecessary. Hence, we would fail to develop this last quality. And this would contradict the aforementioned fact that God aims at maximising the development of human qualities. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/512 "2003-02-14T14:20:47Z")
And [This site](http://www.whitworth.edu/Academic/Department/ReligionPhilosophy/Classes/PH320W_Baird/handoutb.htm) gives the lie to the idea that the objections folks raise to the ontological argument here are novel objections; many of the objections raised here are almost word-for-word the same objections mentioned in a class handout about objections to the OA. And if you’ve not already checked out [this site](http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/archives/fall1997/entries/ontological-arguments/#Obj), you should do so. It’s comprehensive and fascinating in its objections to the ontological argument in many forms. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/513 "2003-02-14T14:46:23Z")
I would say that if one cannot provide a sound counterargument to a commonly-raised objection, it throws one’s argument into doubt. I, personally, would think that, while thinking of a commonly-raised objection on one’s own doesnt necessarily make one smarter than the average bear, it does tend to make the argument itself more plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Dickerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Scott\_Dickerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Dickerson)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/514 "2003-02-14T19:39:13Z")
DALOVINDJ: Re: the notion of “awareness” as a necessary existent– Is it not a fact that we have no evidence whatsoever of ANYTHING such that the phenomenon we term “awareness” is not a co-constituent? What is “the rock, of which I am unaware”? Or in general, “the X, of which the attribute A is not true [where ‘A’ = the fact of an awareness (a being-aware) of X]”? Is any exception even conceivable? Is that not sufficient to establish necessity? The above does not do the work of demonstrating that a supreme being must possess awareness. I am only addressing the question initially stated–is “awareness” a necessary existent. DANIELW– “…God, as a perfect being, aims at maximising all human qualities. But if we had a successful ontological argument, then faith would be unnecessary. Hence, we would fail to develop this last quality. And this would contradict the aforementioned fact that God aims at maximising the development of human qualities…” It does not follow from the perfection of God that he aims at maximizing ALL human qualities. For example, it may be doubted that he wants to maximize our power to deceive, to destroy, to be cruel, to reject God. “Faith” may not be an unmitigated good, but only an instrumental good, of value to those who have no other route to God. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/515 "2003-02-14T19:42:49Z")
Maximizing all human qualities isn’t even logically possible. For each quality, there is an opposite that is fundamentally opposed to it. It’s not possible to maximize cruelty and kindness simultaneously (assuming that cruelty and kindness are in fact opposed, which is much harder to determine than it sounds). For any property X to be increased, property not-X must be reduced. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/516 "2003-02-14T19:55:03Z")
I think these are good points about the proof. I wonder if it could be modified, to say that faith without proof either is or is not a good quality? If it is, then presumably a perfect God would try to maximize all good human qualities, and therefore wouldn’t offer any solid proof that God exists. If it is not a good quality, then presumably a perfect God would not try to maximize it, and so would offer a very obvious proof of its own existence instead of something abstruse and accessible only to folks trained in formal logic. Even this is problematic: maybe an understanding of formal logic is one of the best human properties, and so God makes its existence knowable only through formal logic. 🙂 I agree that this general disproof is problematic. On the other hand, the problem with it is one that most theists won’t like: the clearest way to object to this OA disproof is to deny that faith is a positive human quality. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/517 "2003-02-14T20:00:41Z")
What do you mean by “positive human quality”? I more-or-less understand ‘quality’, and ‘human’ is generally clear in application if not in principle, but what does ‘positive’ mean? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/518 "2003-02-14T20:11:05Z")
Good ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/519 "2003-02-14T20:17:43Z")
Ah. What’s ‘good’? ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/520 "2003-02-14T20:21:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Is it not a fact that we have no evidence whatsoever of ANYTHING such that the phenomenon we term “awareness” is not a co-constituent? Awareness is necessary to ask the question, but if it’s not neccesary to ask any questions, then awareness is not necessary existance. It’s the old “If a tree falls and no one hears it, did it make any noise” bit. Just because conciousness can become aware of a rock does not neccesarily mean that a rock does not exist without awareness/conciousness. Do places that aren’t being percieved exist? Good question, and one this proof fails to answer. It also fails to answer the question “Did an awareness create everything?” as well as “Did a non-sentient process allow for awareness.” DaLovin’ Dj [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538.md?page=27)