Possibility != Existence

Great Debates
121

Phoenix wrote:

Gah. I never said any such thing! Criminey!

I said that if you believe that God is not possible, then it is logically equivalent to believing that it is necessary that God does not exist. And it is. In fact, the whole notion of possibility is derived from the denial of non-necessity. <>p = ~~p.

Here’s a cite.

What? There are four precedent paragraphs that explain how we know this.

I don’t mean to get upset. But I feel like the man who has said, “I have a green shirt,” and your response is “Yes, but what color is it?”.

122

Whether the thought arising from synaptic activity is purely fantastical and imaginary, or not.

Sentient, loving, righteous, patient, forgiving, pure, big, omniscient, omnipresent, imaginary (oops, not that one).

123

Sorry, that first bit wasn’t clear. God is contingent on whether or not he is imaginary.

124

[…sigh…] I give up.

125

Heh heh, sorry mate.

I’ll go and read stuff now, I promise.

126

Of course, one hand we can and we do, and on the other sometimes not because we already have.

Suppose we were at the stage of definition. Of course, definitions are required before there are any axioms or theorems. Now what do you use to judge whether a definition is true or false or a good one or not? I don’t see that we can logically pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

127

—So, standing alone, the argument may be taken pantheistically if the interpreter believes that there are no true statements about anything but the universe.—

Can you explain this a little more, centering on whether this requirement (the “may… if”) holds only for a pantheistic interpretation, and why or why not?

128

Actually, you said:

…Which isn’t necesarily true. I don’t agree with <>G, without believing ~G (At least, assuming I understand the terms correctly). We have no reason to believe <>G. In the basic sense, I would say that I don’t know if god is “possible” in this sense. Or if god is necessary. Assuming them to be true for the sake of proving themselves seems like major circular logic to me.

How? None of them give any explanation as to why god is defined that way. They define the qualities of the description, such as what a possitive or negative definition is, but I don’t see anything in there that supports the idea that god can not be given a possitive definition… ESPECIALLY when the whole thing is used to support a particular possitive definition (“Supreme Being”)! Can you explain?

Further, if we assume god can have no possitive definitions, doesn’t that mean, in addition to the list of "non-"s that you included there, that god is also (To paraphrase an earlier example) non-sentient, not loving, not righteous, not patient, not forgiving, not pure, not big, not omniscient, and not omnipresent?

129

Okay, I’ve read this whole thread, despite my encroaching headache. I say that as a disclaimer, in case my question sounds ignorant.

The question is for Libertarian, who hopefully hasn’t given up completely on this thread.

Libertarian, could you put this proof’s definition of God into concrete terms?

Elsewhere, you’ve told me that for you, God=Love (IIRC, it was in the thread about saying, “God bless you” to atheists). I don’t know that you’re using the same defnition for God here: otherwise, it seems you’d be asserting that Love is the Supreme Being of the universe, that a world may not exist unless there is love in it. This seems, on its face, an absurd suggestion to me – in other words, I think that a definition of God=Love AND God=Necessary is a contradictory definition.

I think you’re saying that God=Supreme Being, that God=Necessary. What would be some examples of beings that would meet this definition?

Not Love, I think.
Would YHVH meet this definition?
Would Zeus?
Would Quantum Physics?

What traits beyond necessity must such a being have? Must such a being have material existence? Must such a being be sentient? Must such a being be benevolent? Must such a being have any effect on the universe?

After reading the proof and trying to wrap my head around it, what I come away with is the idea that it doesn’t really prove much of anything – that it uses such a vague definition of God that it doesn’t offer us any useful religious or materialist insight. What I’d like is to better understand the definition of God that it uses, with examples and defining traits of God.

I think I saw you say that God is that to which no positive descriptions can be applied (forgive me and correct me if I misunderstood). If that’s the case, I’m even more confused: does this proof simply prove that in all possible universes, there is at least one entity which cannot be described? That seems a far cry from proving that something exists which most people would label “God.”

Daniel

130

Well, no. I’m not proving that God doesn’t exist. You are trying to prove He does. And stating that I haven’t proved God can’t exist doesn’t mean that he can. No one has disproved the existence of Invisible Quantum Elves that play pool with orbiting electrons. That does not make them possible.

'Sides, if you define God as necessary existence, then your proof holds. But, if you go back and modify God to necessary existence AND loves AND sent Jesus to Earth AND likes the smell of burning meat et al, then you’re cheating.

131

DanielWithrow, that was an excellent post. I think you really summed up the problems here, and asked the right questions. Well done.

Lib, your last post to me revealed who really has the chip on their shoulder. Damn. It looks like I brought my boxing gear to a gun fight. This isn’t the pit, so quoting old posts from threads with entirely different contexts and using them as character assasination tools is highly inappropriate. You should know better. I mean citing your own praises? Would you like me to provide a counter-cite as to your “nature”? Is that the “Great Debate” you want to have? WTF? You constantly throw out comments to me about living up to the standards of this forum, and then moments later decide that you won’t address my points 'cause you’re mad at me due to old threads (how do you spell c-h-i-p?). That is not GD behaivior. It’s playground behaivior. Take it to the pit. You’re entitled, I suppose, but I think you can do better.

I hope that you will address the points in DanielWithrow’s post, as I feel he has delivered a crushing and revealing blow in an intelligent and courteous manner. Your quickness to lump together people who take issue with the definition as “amateur materialist’s”, are generalizations, and your presentation makes such sound like an insult. Anyway, it’s not true of all your opponents who would ask that question. Many of us wish to hear both (all) sides and decide for ourselves. You have asserted that taking issue with the definition is amateur-ish. This is a terrible tactic (“dodge” is a perfect description) and not worthy of GD.

DaLovin’ Dj

132

I’m still trying to get my head around this (symbolic logic gives me a migraine), but I think I can at least make a couple of observations.

I think that robert is correct in asserting that the statement “God is possible” has not been proven. I further agree that saying that does not constitute, necessarily, an assertion that God is not possible. I believe it can be stated like this:

It is unknown whether God is possible or impossible.

I realize that this statement can still seem to imply possibility, but it can also imply impossibiliy. I am saying that it’s equally possible that God is possible or impossible. To say that God is merely possible discards, without cause, the possibility that God is impossible.

So the proof only works if God is possible, a predicate which has not been proven.

133

Lots of things are unknown. This does not mean we refuse to entertain such hypothesis.

134

Has the Induction Axiom been proven? No. So arithmetic only works if induction is always true. So what?

Axiom: “A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.” — American Heritage. Also called a “premise”.

As I said before, “God is possible” is one of three axioms in the proof. Asking for proof of an axiom is intellectually insane.

What? Am I dodging? Making stuff up? Is there no Induction Axiom? Did Whitehead and Russel not write Principia Mathematica? Is DJ going to declare yet another bold stroke against my worthless waste-of-everyone’s-time point? It’s like debating against Creationists about what a theory is.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Get off my high-horse/cross/soapbox… whatever. I don’t give a damn anymore.

135

I hope I haven’t accused you of wasting anyone’s time, Lib, I don’t think you’ve wasted mine. I’ve found this discussion very entertaining and challenging. I’ve reached a conclusion that I don’t accept one of the axioms, but I do agree that if the axiom is accepted then the proof works.

I also think that the proof is not particularly helpful in learning anything about God (and I’m not convinced that it’s even about God in any traditional sense).

Correct me if i’m wrong, but what the o.a. proves is that if there is a greatest thing in the universe, it exists, necessarily in this universe. If nothing greater than the universe exists, then the universe, itself, is the greatest thing which exists. I guess you can conceive of something greater than the universe which “created” or contains the universe, but then can’t we conceive of something greater which created that? and that? and that? Couldn’t we get an infinite succession just by conceiving of creators?

You’ve already stipulated that the o.a. does not necssitate a specific doctrinal extropolation, in fact you’ve admitted that it can be applied materialistically (as pantheism) so let me ask you (seriously, I’m not baiting you) do you believe, personally, that anything really important can be learned from Anselm, or do you just find it to be an interesting logical exercise?

136

Another bold stroke.

“God” as used in this proof could easily be a non-aware & non-loving process. Quantum Physics could indeed be substituted for God, which illustrates that when the proof says “God” they do not mean anything specific enough to answer the age old question “Is there an aware being responsible for all of this?”. Yet some will slyly suggest that it does just that. The history of this argument is indeed facsinating, and I would have to agree that it is “a joke, but a charming joke”. It tells us nothing about the nature or history of reality.

DaLovin’ Dj

137

Nice bold stroke. Except it’s not Anselm’s argument. It’s Hartshorne’s, Tisthammer’s, Suber’s, McHugh’s, Dougherty’s, and many others.

Anselm had three arguments, and the modern modal arguments are based on his third. There is not one single version. There are many. Possibly scores. Anselm was not privy to alethic techniques (they were developed in the 1940s), and thus his arguments appeared to say that possibility implies necessity, which is why Kant assailed it. But modalizing it makes the apparent error disappear. Kant was mistaken, but understandably so. He didn’t know these techniques either.

Of course, I’ve already said all that in this thread. I guess we can revisit this point again in a page or two.

138

How about instead you address the definition of a “Supreme Being”, as several have asked you to do here.

If “God” is not defined as a sentient being, then what does this proof tell us about the existence of an all powerful being? It seems to me the answer is nothing. If this is the case, then “god” is kind of a silly word to use, becuase for most people that word refers to a sentient being. Without further clarification, I must assume that it is safe to say that by “God” you mean a quantum fluctuation. Your proof allows for the existence of supreme being existing as a non-aware process. This leaves us where we started. WE don’t know if there is an intelligent creator or just a mindless process. Correct?

DaLovin’ Dj

139

How about you listen for once. I’ve addressed the definition of “Supreme Being” to a fare-thee-well. Have someone find it and read it to you.

140

Lib, if you get a chance, I would like to hear some examples of entities that would constitute a God under the proof above, and some advice on distinguishing between entities that do and do not qualify as God for the purposes of that proof (I’m guessing that the laws of thermodynamics might qualify as God, whereas Poseidon, love, Jerry Springer, and red do not qualify – but I could be wrong).

Thanks!
Daniel