»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The Ontological Argument for God's Existence
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The Ontological Argument for God's Existence |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ontological argument: I can conceive of a being that is the greatest of all possible beings. Something that exists is inherently greater than something that does not. If he or she did not exist, he or she would not be the greatest of all possible beings. Therefore, he or she must exist. We call that being God. Problem: This is the softball argument for God’s existence because it confuses conceptual and physical categories. You do not think God inside your head, you think of the concept of God inside your head. Example 1: Imagine pigs in a blanket. You cannot eat that breakfast because it is not food; it is the concept of food. Of course, that breakfast physically exists but it is neither dependent on my imagination nor is my imagination dependent on its existence. Example 2: Imagine a superhero with the power of ten thousand exploding suns. Do not expect him to come to your aid in a time of crisis. You don’t imagine the superhero; you imagine the concept of the superhero. My concept of that superhero (Marvel’s Sentry) is dependent on other people’s ideas but it is not dependent on Sentry’s physical existence. Nor is Sentry dependent on my concept of Sentry for his conceptual existence. I don’t know. It seems to me that this argument opens up some interesting ideas about the relationship between the physical and the conceptual. Of course maybe I’ve just muddied up a clear and simple pond so to speak(if somebody wants to clean it up, be my guest). Any takers? |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
This part of your argument is flawed: quote: Surely a god that could create the universe while not existing is inherently greater than an existent god who could do the same. Think of the greatness required to overcome the handicap of non-existence and still create the universe versus that of a god that really exists - ergo non-existence is greater and therefore god must not exist.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Good God, Man! *laughing* I was still trying to understand the question! (It's good to see you again, Brad.) I'll go look up "The Ontological Argument" to make sure I even understand that part, and ask that you guys be patient with me. Coffee. A little bit, today. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I am now stuck in circular reasoning.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
God is an artistic confusion. It is just as unicorn: horse (nature) + horn (nature) = unicorn (imagination). But if we tried to make an equation like that to account for God it would surely be almost endless, so much has our art modified concepts that were originally just snapshots of nature. In any case, it all exists |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Ha! I didn't think anyone would take that route here. Apparently, there are "sophisticated theologians" who do say something like this with a straight face. See Dennett: deepities |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Karen, How yoo doin'? (think "Tangled" which I saw last week) Ess, Of course you mean the invisible pink unicorn. Though Maximus, a horse, was the best part of "Tangled"(see above). "Artistic confusion" is well phrased. This is the inherent weakness in the God concept. But actually the relationship of what you would call conceptual existence and physical existence is what interests me here: 1. The conceptual domain is dependent on the physical domain (no brains, no minds). 2. Yet, how is the relationship best expressed in cases of human creation and collapsing wave functions? 3. Can we map out a more serious "entanglement" in the social domain or is the meme viewpoint (it's not a theory) good enough? Note: I know I started with a syllogism but I'm not really interested in stating any of this in a formal way (unless someone else wants to do that). I just thought it was interesting. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Oh. Since I got a case of brain hiccups, I ducked out to play a game of "Civilization." tsk...I built monasteries while everybody else advanced in technology. So I guess I'm in exile with the Dalai Lama... It's very difficult to stop a bullet with a sword, but that looks way cool in the movies. There's an option to be a deity, but I am no superhuman, much less a demi-god. dess? <--one can aspire.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I think it shows ironically confusion is one of the things that has led us to the most enlightenment. Some things are much worth believing because they give meaning and strength to life.; things important to people for meaning rather than objective accuracy. If God correspond to giving subjective strength and meaningfulness to life, who should not believe in God for that, rather than demanding God live up to an objective description of Nature too? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Social entanglement? Do you mean a form of connectedness over a distance, something similar to quantum entanglement but resulting in the simultaneous and spontaneous transmission of a conceptual idea between people? If so it might explain the alleged phenomenon of shared feelings between separated twins. It'd have to be a different mechanism than quantum entanglement though, if it were the same the feelings of one twin would be the exact opposite of each other. Of topic slightly but is there an issue regarding whether the spooky action at a distance theorised in quantum mechanics is in fact a valid theory? For a start, if it were true, wouldn't it seem to invalidate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - a basic tenant of the Copenhagen interpretation. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Confusion leads to enlightenment?  Good news for me, indeed. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
In a sense, or at least helps us appreciate it more, I think. Consider how confusing Religion and Science can both be, and yet they are both always enlightening people too. Love, freedom, justice, etc, can also be very confusing too, and yet pursuing them in better ways has given us enlightenment and a better civilization. The same thing has proved true about God. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I could argue that many times that I have noticed confusion just leads to paranoia--but I must say, Ess, I think you are very sweet. For you, all things lead to enlightenment... It took me some time to appreciate that quality in you. But I like you, Essorant! I really like you.  |
||
|
sandgrain Member Elite
since 1999-09-21
Posts 3662Sycamore, IL, USA |
I lived in a state of confused frustration, which is why I needed God to make some sense of it all. My argument for God's existence, is in the wonderful changes I've experienced in life since believing in Him. Even if, in the end, it was found God is non-existent, I'd still be ever so grateful to have lived a far better life by believing in Him. It's a no-lose opportunity each has. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yes and no. I was really just playing around with the title of a movie I had just seen. I do think there is a kind of "simultaneous and spontaneous" transmission among people, but I don't see the need to tie it to quantum effects. My hunch is that consciousness is not the big deal that many people think it is. At the same time, I see good reason to believe that individual consciousness (the "I" if you will)is both created in and extends into the social domain. quote: You're talking about the shared experience of a tragedy when one twin experiences a tragedy and the other does not? I don't know the research on that. Or to put it another way, I don't know. Stuart_Hameroff would argue that quantum effects do have a necessary place in consciousness, but I don't know what he would say about the twins problem. quote: Well, if I remember correctly (a dubious assumption), entanglement's "proof" is still probabilistic. It is statistically true but we still don't know what is going to happen at the single particle level. Thus uncertainty is saved. -------------------- I'll try to get to the other comments later but I will end with a point that I should have clarified in the beginning. Showing that the OAFGE is invalid is not the same thing as showing that the God concept is invalid. And that's part the problem. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Excuse the intrusion. I just wanted to tell Brad that I haven't yet seen "Tangled". (I watched the trailer just now and it seems like a good story, so thanks for the heads up.) Funny that you'd think of me though, as when I first saw the screen adaptation of the play "The Sunset Limited"? I thought of you.  *laughing* Do continue. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Serenity, Thanks for your kind words. I really like you too (how couldn't I?)  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
At the risk of totally annoying Brad, I just came back to say, "aw" and "thanks".  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why would I be annoyed? I see nothing wrong with common decency, common civility, common affection. I see nothing wrong with cultural traditions that help you get through rough times, Sandgrain. We all need help at times. Get it where you can. But is that it? Do I really need to list the problems? And if I do, how many will argue that that's not the God I believe in or that yes, many people have distorted God for their own nefarious purposes but . . . . And that's the weakness of the God concept. Two quick sound bites: One: Orwell writes somewhere that all authoritarianism is at base theocratic. That makes sense to me. Two: In this world, good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but if you want good people to do bad things, that takes religion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Seems to me, Brad, that the whole argument rests on a fallacy. In point of fact, we can't conceive of a being that is the greatest of all possible beings. As we've discussed a few times in this forum, omnipotence invariably and inevitable leads to paradox. A very necessary paradox, I might add, according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Can you conceive of an omnipotent being who can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift? I can't. And of course that's just the tip of iceberg. Sentry's power is astronomically immense (pun intended), but nonetheless finite. It is within the realm of our imagination. Obviously. Ironically, while we have words for omnipotence and omniscience, and definitions to go with the words, we really can't imagine those concepts. Not really, not concretely. Our minds balk at the paradoxes and the concepts remaining are necessarily fettered by our own human limitations. You can't prove the existence of God. Not ontologically, nor any other way. quote: No it doesn't, Brad. It's a nice sound bite, of course, but I think we both know it's not even close to accurate. Good people do bad things in the name of family, friendship, nationalism, even sometimes in the name of science. All it takes for good people to do bad things is the conviction they are right. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I just popped in to say that I now have about 15 minutes of experience as a deity. It's really hard, Brad. I was a total failure, but then? I was an itty bitty Malinese deity. (Civilization again...  ) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, okay. But I don’t think it ends with a shrug of the shoulders: Doesn’t it follow that the greatest of all possible beings is not omnipotent. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. I can think of some OT textual evidence to back that up, I also know that at least one rabbi, Brad Artson, has made the same claim. Is omnipotence all that important for God’s existence? Of course, we could also argue that God cannot exist because omnipotence is not a logical possibility, but I don’t think anyone is going to go down that route. Another way to argue is that omnipotence is defined by God. Whatever God can do is omnipotence by definition (That may sound silly but it is used in arguments for omnibenevolence.) quote: We also balk at quantum effects (or at least we should). This doesn’t stop us from describing probabilities in that realm. Christian apologists seem comfortable attributing certain qualities to God and then balking when we attempt to extrapolate from those qualities. If you’re going to open that door, you should be able to look in. quote: Agreed, but I have different reasons for accepting that statement than you do. Nevertheless, it doesn’t seem to stop apologists from trying to prove what you and I say they can't. quote: True, but it does bring to light a certain dilemma: What is the relationship between “God told me to do that” and “I did that because it was the right thing to do?” The more synonymous the above responses become the less the need for the former; the less synonymous they appear, the less it appears that you are doing something you think is right. I thought the sound bite expressed that more clearly. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Anselem's Ontological argument, interpreted as some kind of obejective "proof" for God's existence, is more than weak. As you've rightly pointed out, and idea doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. However, most Christian apologists do not interpret it so, or use it as such. There are many other evidences for God (the moral argument, argument from design, evidential argument, historical arguments), that converge, and make what can be considered "good reason" for believing. But, as Ron has noted, none of these are proof. None are incontrovertible. Given the importance of commitment and love, in the Christian view, it seems that it was meant to be this way. That doesn't leave us with complete fideism, however, else Christian apologetics wouldn't even be an interesting conversation. It just so happens that an atheistic view of things, a hard agnosticism, or pragmatism, or whatever you want to call it, involves a lot of ambiguity and puzzlement as well, and requires its own kind of commitment ... or postponement of commitment, whichever you prefer. As Geddy Lee of Rush once sang, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". Having debunked the ontological argument along with you, I still find it interesting (Barth's interpretation is worth looking into), as it brings up the whole concept of perfection, and raises the question of why it is there in the first place. A longing for such a being, in not a few, is an intriguing phenomenon. Hunger denotes the existence of food, even when a man happens to be starving. Brad, I think the goal of the best of Christian apologetics has been to open minds, not to shut mouths. For as difficult as the synthesis of "God told me to", and "it was the right thing to do" is, that's nothing compared to the tension of believing there really is a "right thing to do" without God. Making the two synonymous, as you said, may not be necessary, if we reflect on the human condition of having a conscience which is, in the main, reliable. Yet it is prone to corruption (an occasion for correction by God), and even when not we are prone to ignore it or suppress it (an occasion for reiteration by God). And so, the two may be related without being equated. And Ron, You and I seem to have much in common (we both believe in Christ and God, and we both think absolute proof is presently an enemy to faith and devotion). But I've noticed that in these conversations, you argue very little corresponding reasons to believe. Would you consider your approach one of complete fideism? Or am I misunderstanding? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I have to insist that with Faith there must be a correspondence with reality, AND that unless there were, it would not be healthy enlightening or enriching to believe, as much as I appreciate what Sandgrain and Essorant said regarding this. It would be a form of denial. I would have to insist that Paul touched a great truth when he wrote (in the context of the bodily resurrection of Christ, and our future resurrection) that "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Cor 15:19). Of course, this is also more in line with critics of religion, who say that it is, because unreal, rubbish. I have to say, I respect that line of thinking better than that of a thoroughgoing unbeliever, who patronizes faith for its humanitarianism. A bishop Spong is more lamentable than a Christopher Hitchens, in my estimation. Do any of you who profess the faith feel this way? If not, how would the conclusion be avoided that your faith is just another form of existentialism? Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey, glad you stopped by. I like calling myself an agnostic atheist these days. Agnosticism is the method, atheism is the conclusion. It seems more consistent with Huxley's original intent at any rate. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me to find value in the religious process itself whether or not it is true. I know you don't buy that but don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that in any pejorative sense. My original idea was to go after this one first, then take on the teleological and cosmological arguments (and if I was really feeling ambitious, attempt to deal with some version of TAG). TAG: the transcendental argument for God's existence. Right now, I find myself more interested in discussing some of the scenarios surrounding the Big Bang. That's some pretty awe inspiring stuff. We'll see what happens. Wow, what a boring post! Well let's end with this: What if atheists left America? Quiz: Anybody else notice the grammar mistake? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I knew I forgot to do something. The good people/bad people sound bite is from Stephen Weinberg. Here's the original quote: "With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but it takes religion to get good people to do evil." |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but it takes religion to get good people to do evil." It's not so much "not true" as Ron was arguing, as too simplistic as to be of any value. If there really was any such thing as a purely "good" or "bad" person then I guess you might begin set up a debate. As there isn't you can't. And even if you talk hypothetically you run into the chicken and egg argument immediately. How can someone "good" be good if they succumb to the evils of religion? Clearly they were inherently "bad" even before that badness became manifest, and vice versa. Anyway I was taught that we are all miserable sinners who "are not worthy even to gather up the crumbs under your table". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote:. And don't get me wrong either Brad. I probably strained a bit in that statement about Spong and Hitchens. I don't fail to appreciate that some people can appreciate "Faith" for what they see as sociological or psychological benefits. It's just that for me, the whole idea of "good" and "right" makes no sense apart from God, rendering sociological benefit, by itself, an insipid and untenable idea. I also feel that atheists who hold any serious notion of moral good, only do so by arbitrarily presuming upon a worldview foreign to their own. In such a muddle, I sometimes find myself appreciating those voices, like St. Paul's, which have underscored the inevitability of final choices ... what C.S. Lewis referred to as the "Great Divorce". I too, certainly don't mean any of this as perjorative, only as descriptive. And yet, that doesn't mean I don't sometime appreciate some common ground, even if we're on different roads. I think all of that serves a purpose. I would always look forward to your thoughts on some of the more common arguments for God. Though I'd still insist that Christian apologetics, at its best, does not depend upon a lynch pin, or silver-bullet argument (I know that TAG has been used this way). Rather all of these thoughts, in addition to many outside of these categories, illuminate what Christians consider to be good evidence, not irrefutable proof. Always good to chat Brad. But about that melodramatic video clip ... I suspect the "majority" status in many of those categories was assumed, as well as the notion that most Christians want atheists simply to pack up and leave. In my version, they are our fellow human beings and even friends. Hey Moonbeam, good to see you! quote: "Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” The doctrine of Original Sin tells us we are fallen gods, not swine. I guess that's why we can't quite shake the desire to sit at the table. Therefore those doctrines of depravity which forget whose image we were made in, don't sit well with most of us. Stephen |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's should be its. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Hi Stephanos As usual I get the feeling that if you had been my divinity teacher 40 years ago, I'd be a Bishop by now  . Seriously though, you have an knack for explaining the almost unexplainable, thanks Denise?? "It's should be its." Was that at me? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yep. Stephen is our version of William Lane Craig. Oh, Denise wasn't talking to you. She was just answering an earlier question of mine. She was right. Response to the comments |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Just not my comment. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Thanks Brad What a relief.I hate having my grammar corrected, lol. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Um, why does grammar correction bother you? I'm used to it. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Insecurity. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
MB, at least you capitalized that and put a period after it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." - F. Nietzsche Just thought we should at least try and tie this into the subject matter. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
steeve asl rotf |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
MB, What does "asl" mean? Christ, do I have to start a thread on the importance of grammar? Steven, If you have time, can you expand on the moral argument here? I have tended to shrug it off but I'm truly interested in what you think. You know, or I think you remember, that I tend to see that is simply confusing origin versus identity. At least we both agree that theists and atheists can be moral (insofar as we can be moral at all), right? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Who is Steven?? Okay, I'll pretend that's my name. And I'll respond as soon as I can. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I think I have a mental block when it comes to your name, Stephen. You're not alone, I was calling a guy named Kent Kurt for about two months (He couldn't be named after a superhero, could he?). And don't get me started on my Julia/Julie or Ann/Annie/Anna problems. It's a mental defect, I'm sure of it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I really don't care Brad ... Just giving you a hard time. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I may have more to say later about the Ontological argument ... So I thought it might be best to make a new thread about the Moral argument. So that's what I'll do. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: But Essorant, God is not described, Biblically, as an amalgam of temporal objects. The horse, like the unicorn, is stately and majestic and art in itself, yet it is temporal and not a necessary thing. A universal mind or consciousness who is necessary, as God, would be a better description of the artist ... not the art. Since you are so keen on explaining away Divinity in terms of art, my question to you is how you might describe nature, without using the concept of art (ie, not created). And if you don't invoke the art/artist relationship with nature, how is "it just happened" a good or satisfying explanation to you? If you think God is an "artistic confusion", I think you should at least question whether you could be confusing art and artist. God as art, would certainly explain the similarities between God and humanity that you've noted, at the expense of leaving the "art" of nature unaccounted for. But God as artist would also explain these similarities, while retaining an origin for the mythical beauties in nature you've described. And anyway Essorant, it's been a while. Good to "see" you again, and exchange some thoughts. PS) We were at post "42" Douglas Adams' supreme answer to the secrets of the universe. Why did I have to go and mess that up?? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hi Stephanos Good to see you as well! quote: I'm not really trying to explain it "away", but address a seeming-contradiction that I think many of us struggle with: on one hand we objectively find nature working through its own processes and yet subjectively and in our art and imagination, find or think about, and believe in or not believe in a God and some kind of divine creation or control over things. Watching a tree grow, may make you think of God, but the tree is still objectively the tree, and its growth is still objectively its growth, and no matter how you look at it, objectively there is no magical hand there, creating new branches, leaves etc. Scientifically, the tree is working through its own processes and we can basically explain them all in great detail. Everything (subjectively) changes though when we allow imagination to be in the equation and not be ashamed about it. When we use our imagination, then we can find God, then there is a magical hand creating the tree. Should we be ashamed to say we are using our imagination when we believe in a God? I don't believe so. That is one of the things I think imagination is for. Where do we get our imagination from though? We get it from taking snapshots of the world around us such as "horse" and "horn" and then imagining something more or different through modifying them in our mind, to something such as "unicorn" as I mentioned. When we look outside our imagination there is no unicorn (objectively) but when we look through or within our imagination, then there is a Unicorn (subjectively). The same is true about God because God exists (subjectively) in our mind/heart/ imagination. No one that believes in God ought to be ashamed of this. I am not . There is nothing wrong with only being able to experience something subjectively or spiritually. We need to beware not to let let something we experience subjectively blind us from acknowledging objective truths about the natural world around us, but likewise I think we need to allow objective things not take away subjective/spiritual experiences that are very important to us and experiencing everyday life. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
“He who knoweth his own self, knoweth God” - Muhammad (SAW) |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
