Oh. Well then, just read a Russian translation. 
[sub]Definite and indefinite articles do not even exist in many languages. Don’t make the mistake of straining gnats while swallowing camels.[/sub]
I am not letting God be Everything.
I am not letting God be Everything.
C’mon soldier (bright light!!), spill the beans
I am not letting God be Everything.
I am not letting God be Everything.
Hard man, huh? (SLAP!) Say it, and you can go home.
I am not letting God be Everything.
I am not letting God be Everything.
Well, you asked for it. Sergeant, bring in the electrodes…
[sub]…only everything that is not contingent, Grasshopper…[/sub]
[smartass]
This atheist agrees that God is everything that is not contingent.
[/smartass]
Well, actually, since everything that we can observe is contingent, I guess that would make me an agnostic.
Who’s this “we”, Kimosabe? 
I’ve never been able to get the ontological argument, no matter how many explanations or angles that I look at. It always just looks like an attempt to define God into existence. Essentially it just says that God is defined as having the quality of existence, therefore God exists.
One problem for me is that the term “greatness” is subjective. What is meant by “nothing greater?” I could say, for instance, that nothing greater exists in the universe than love. (and who are you to argue, if we have no formal definition of “great?”) I can also assert that human love is greater than “divine” love because human love must overcome human weakness while divine love has no obstacles. If human love is greater than divine love, then (by Anselm’s logic) then human love is God. A formal deity (while technically still possible) cannot be God because he would not be as “great” as human love (and he’s not as great because I say so). If this is the case then the deity does not exist necessarily which means we can use modal logic to show that the deity cannot exist at all.
Also, why is it necessary to conceive of God as a singular entity? Why can’t there be two or twelve or an infinity of equally great entities. Anselm only specifies nothing greater can be conceived, he does not say nothing equally great can be conceived. If I can conceive of one Jesus, I can conceive of two which are identical in every way. I can conceive of an army of Jesuses. In fact, since two Jesuses are just as possible as one Jesus, then an infinity of Jesuses now becomes necessary. Take that Anselm.
Try not to hurt yourself patting your own back so hard. You make it sound like you should be getting a nobel prize and insult those who would dare argue on any terms. Color me unimpressed. Don’t get me wrong, the subject is interesting, and when I say useless, I mean in the sense of the proof telling us anything about the nature of actual reality. It is evidence of quite little from where I stand. The argument isn’t that hard to follow, and as I see it, it breaks down in a couple of places. You’ve read a couple books and taught yourself a neat little logic trick, declared your opponents incompetent & yourself a genius. Forgive me for not agreeing that your position here is infallible.
We must go into the realm of cosmology and quantum theory to encompass the full scope of this debate. You claim to be unlearned in these departments. Well then you’re missing a big piece of the puzzle/argument. You see the Universe may be a “quantum fluctuatuation”. Random. Unintelligent. This could be said to be the “supreme being” if you define “supreme being” as necessary existence. Necessary existence need not be intelligent, kind, or even aware. Supreme (necessary) need not be defined as intelligent. In fact, intelligence may not be necessary at all. It is possible and actual, but is it necessary?
The interesting overlap in the two lines of thinking is in the consideration of all that is possible (multiple universes - all sets). Here is a page that hits the main points pretty well. I’ll link to more when I have a little more time to search the web. I would advise a google search on “quantum fluctuation” and “universe” to start.
I have spent much time thinking along these lines, and you can insult me with the adjectives of your choosing (armchair representative, grasshopper), it does not change the fact that your case has holes. Your knowledge of logic and the symbols involved is not the be-all-end-all trump card. There are quite a few other things to consider.
DaLovin’ Dj
Diogenese wrote:
I’d love to wrap my brain around that. Could you help me? Here’s my problem with it. In the typical version, there are around 10 inferences. It is the final inference, just before the conclusion, that matches the definition of God. Since one inference follows from another, and it is the last one with 9 others before it, how was God defined into existence?
That’s another one I don’t get. Which inference exactly is it that says that?
Maybe you can help me see why that’s a problem. I thought that ontology dealt with the nature of existence. Doesn’t it? Wouldn’t greatness then apply to the greatest nature of existence? And I thought that alethicity (modality) applied to necessity and possibility. Is there some reason that “nothing greater” in an alethic ontological context would mean something other than “necessary existence”?
Maybe I’m just dense. When Kant wrote, “But the unlimited all is an absolute unity, and is conceived by the mind as a being one and supreme; and thus reason concludes that the Supreme Being, as the primal basis of all things, possesses an existence which is absolutely necessary,” where exactly is his error in reasoning?
What is meant by “unlimited all?”
Unconditioned existence. (See exerpt from CPR above.) That which is not contingent.
It seems to me that Kant’s description could also be applied to the physical universe, which as a whole, is not contingent, which necessarily exists (if anything exists then the universe exists) and which contains all reality. How do we further extropolate a formal (sentient) deity from this?
I’m sure you know that Kant was a critic of Anselm’s argument. IIRC, Kant was able to use the same formal logic to show that God does not exist.
Yeah, he was a critic of Anselm’s (first) argument, but only because he thought that Anselm was positing that actuality implies necessity. It was discovered by Hartshorne in the 20th century, when he modalized Anselm’s (third) argument, that this was not the case.
No one is saying that the argument posits a sentient deity. And in fact, almost all materialist philosophers interpret the argument pantheistically. But watch out with your contingency/necessity relation with respect to the universe. It is not the case that if anything exists, then the universe exists. (That was what Kant was protesting about Anselm.) Rather, it is the case that if the universe exists, then so does everything else. That’s what is meant by non-contingency. The universe’s existence is not contingent on the earth, for example. It’s the other way around.
So, standing alone, the argument may be taken pantheistically if the interpreter believes that there are no true statements about anything but the universe.
If it is possible that god exists it is necessary that god exists.
Therefore it is either necessary or it is not possible.
But we already said it is possible so it is necessary.
And once it’s necessary, god exists.
Is that the crux of it?
It leaves out some critical connecting inferences, and it rather mutilates the excluded middle, but other than that, yes.
Looking back over the thread, I think that where Lib’s stance gets the most shady is right about here:
I have no idea why Lib thinks that classifying all who would question the definition of God used as “armchair materialists” who use “every means . . . to strike it down because he has already decided what his conclusion would be” is a reasonable or fair tactic. Of course, it is entirely possible that reason and fairness are his goals here. His pre-attacks ounds nice. Makes him look unfairly persecuted and paints his detractors as ignorant amateurs. Unfortunately, for him, it’s just conceit with no real substance. It is a memetic tactic he uses, on which attempts to discredit competing memes. A classic primitive human tactic, even if it is dressed up in its sunday best here. It is a perfectly valid (even crucial) question, and his attempts to demean people who follow this line of thought are childish.
You see, the definition of God is important, since the proof intends to prove its existence. To request clarification of the assumed definition is not disdain-worthy, as Lib would have you believe, but crucial, and ultimately what causes the point to fall apart. Suppose the existance of a “Supreme Awareness” (God - the most powerful “being” possible - let’s call it “G”) requires the existence of an unintelligent quantum fluctuation which creates existence (let’s call this non-intelligent-everything-creating process “Q”).
Now, Q (a non intelligent process - do we call this a “being”?) is required for existence if it exists. So now we can take the same argument and substitute Q:
- The definition of Q requires that if Q exists, its existence is necessary.
- Q is possible.
- Q therefore exists in a world.
- Therefore, Q exists in every world.
- Therefore, Q exists in this world.
I have, by the same logic, proved that the unintelligent process that creates the universe must exist. It requires no “being” as in awareness, intelligence, or conciousness. It only requires the fluctuation, which (getting into tricky Quantum Physics here) would seem to be a zero sum energy fluctuation. We get everything from nothing without violating physics laws - the ultimate free lunch. “If inflation is wrong”, said the Canadian cosmologist Jim Peebles, “God missed a good trick.”
To sum up, the biggest problem is that in step 1 they assume that if a god can exist that the god will be necessary to existence. This is a hell of a leap, since there is nothing to suggest that awareness is required to have existence. I could easier be convinced (but am not - yet) that a quantum fluctuation is required for awareness then I could that an awareness is required for a qunatum fluctuation. Of course, neither one is provable as it stands, so the definition is key, and ultimately, devastating to the ontological proof of God. Awareness may not be a neccesity. And if we subtract “awareness” as part of the definition of God, then we are just using the word to mean “mindless process” instead of “aware being” and the proof does not support the idea that a concious “creator” exists. An awareness existing without requiring Q may not be possible, shattering step 2 (such a being is possible). If Q is neccesary then G is not possible.
DaLovin’ Dj
If Q is neccesary then G is not possible without Q, that is. Typos abound as well, but I think I got the jist of it out there.
Beautifully put, dalovindj.
Libertarian’s disregard for definitions is what makes me doubt that he’s truly a professional philosopher. All of the philosophers I’ve ever met (which admittedly isn’t many) were very concerned about proper definition and clarity of meaning.
And I’m still waiting for evidence that God is possible.
And no, I don’t have to prove God is impossible.
Nor, of course, does Lib have to prove God possible, lest he become impossible due to lack of argument. If something has not been proven possible or impossible, then it is neither until someone does.
Until Lib can demonstrate that God possible, his starting “If G is possible” don’t wash.
I agree, Vorlon. But on the plus side, he has exposed me to different logical systems and kept my logical thinking fresh, so I will be better-equipped to handle a serious philosophical discussion should I ever find myself engaged in one.
I don’t know how we get from “possible” to “necessary”
If it is possible for god to exist, it is only necessary that god exists IF god exists.
If it is possible for god to exist it doesn’t mean god exists, it only means that it is possible. God might not exist.
And if god does not exist, it is not necessary that god does not exist. If god does not exist why do we have to say god’s non existence is necessary. What is it necessary for if it doesn’t exit? For its non-existence?