Shortest version -Ontological argument (again I know, I love this argument)

[Link]

I disagree. The argument is circular, and thereby invalid. It assumes the existence of that which it is trying to prove. And that makes it an invalid argument.

It isn't that 'accepting God' is hard. It is that *this* argument fails to give evidence of the existence.

You can assume 3 of these are possible scenarios:

1 God is seen in imagination but not in reality.
2 God is seen in imagination but can be seen not to exist in reality or be seen to exist in reality.
3 God can only be seen to exist in reality and is seen in reality.

The argument wherever you start from, ends up proving 3.

 

[Polymath257]

You can assume 3 of these are possible scenarios:

1 God is seen in imagination but not in reality.
2 God is seen in imagination but can be seen not to exist in reality or be seen to exist in reality.
3 God can only be seen to exist in reality and is seen in reality.

The argument wherever you start from, ends up proving 3.

I choose 1: that God is only imagined.

Now continue.

 

[Link]

OK, please go through it step by step, stating what assumptions you are making and how it gets to what you want.

I'm not an absolute being. I don't contain all life. I can be imagined in some possible world to not exist, for example, a world where my parents didn't get married or meet. Do you agree with this?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not an absolute being. I don't contain all life. I can be imagined in some possible world to not exist, for example, a world where my parents didn't get married or meet. Do you agree with this?

Well, I have philosophical issues with the notion of 'possible world', but I will give you this for the moment.

 

[Link]

I choose 1: that God is only imagined.

Now continue.

Sure, this is what Anselm and Descartes start with. Assume worst case scenario and then they proved it's 3. But we have to begin to think about God as the Greatest possible being.

 

[Link]

Well, I have philosophical issues with the notion of 'possible world', but I will give you this for the moment.

What problem do you have with it?

 

[Link]

Possible world just means a logically coherent world.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, this is what Anselm and Descartes start with. Assume worst case scenario and then they proved it's 3. But we have to begin to think about God as the Greatest possible being.

OK, so you are saying that there is what is known as an order on the collection of 'possible beings': given two beings, you can say that one of them is greater than another in some sense.

Q: Please give details about this order. How, for example, do I determine if a turtle is greater than a robin or not?

In this order, you wish to define God as 'the greatest possible being', which means that in this order, there is a largest. You need to prove such a largest exists, even among possible beings.

For example, we can order the numbers. I know how to tell when one is larger than another. But there is no 'largest number'.

What proof do you have to offer that there is, in fact, such a 'greatest possible being'?

 

[Link]

When we think of a possible Creator, suppose it lacked life to some extent. That for example, life found in it's creation is not found in it. Two different things. Two separate things. That type of Creator would not be absolute or a necessary being. The reason is because then another Creator in some logically coherent world can exist and another creator in another possible world can exist.

Not only in this case are imagined Creators not necessary beings, they can be imagined to not exist. And not only that, there is nothing incoherent of non-maximum Creators to exist and be many if a maximally greatest possible being doesn't exist.

Do you agree with this so far?

 

[Link]

OK, so you are saying that there is what is known as an order on the collection of 'possible beings': given two beings, you can say that one of them is greater than another in some sense.

Q: Please give details about this order. How, for example, do I determine if a turtle is greater than a robin or not?

In this order, you wish to define God as 'the greatest possible being', which means that in this order, there is a largest. You need to prove such a largest exists, even among possible beings.

For example, we can order the numbers. I know how to tell when one is larger than another. But there is no 'largest number'.

What proof do you have to offer that there is, in fact, such a 'greatest possible being'?

Given x and y are equal in a respects (all attributes), but y is slightly wiser, y is greater.

 

[Polymath257]

What problem do you have with it?

Well, how do I determine if an imagined being is possible or not? For example, I can imagine a giant with a hearth and circulatory system that lives on Earth, but in fact, such a being is impossible because of physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Possible world just means a logically coherent world.

Do you think we have the ability to determine which worlds are logically coherent?

For example, there is an open problem in math: is every even number more than 4 the sum of two primes.

Is it coherent to imagine a world in which some even number more than 4 is not the sum of two primes?

 

[Nakosis]

One way to phrase the ontological argument is to say everything else can be conceived as possibly not existing and be in imagination (like a unicorn) while God cannot be in imagination due to his necessary absolute nature, only be seen in reality. We do conceive of God conceptually, therefore, are looking at the real thing, therefore he exists.

Comment: Why do I love this argument, well because it's God being a proof for himself to all people, mystics and non-mystics alike.

Ok, so see if I understand this.

The idea is if we have a name for something, in this case, "God" it is because something which exists caused us to name it?

So God exists because "something" caused us to create a name for God and that something would be what we created a name for.

So the the word unicorn, if something didn't exist then the word unicorn would have nothing to cause its existence. If I say the word unicorn, most would know what I am referring to or at least could look it up in an English dictionary.

So something caused the word "unicorn" to exist therefore that something, the cause of the word, exists. Otherwise there'd be no word.

That cause could be just a dream. Someone could have dreamed of a horse with a single horn. So they gave it an appropriate name, unicorn.

Just because we've given a name to something doesn't mean that thing has physical existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Given x and y are equal in a respects (all attributes), but y is slightly wiser, y is greater.

OK, but now imagine three things, x, y, and z

y is wiser than x, but less strong than z.

z is stronger than x, but less strong than y.

Which is greater y or z?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can assume 3 of these are possible scenarios:

1 God is seen in imagination but not in reality.
2 God is seen in imagination but can be seen not to exist in reality or be seen to exist in reality.
3 God can only be seen to exist in reality and is seen in reality.

The argument wherever you start from, ends up proving 3.

Imagining God is not "seeing God."

 

[Link]

Do you think we have the ability to determine which worlds are logically coherent?

For example, there is an open problem in math: is every even number more than 4 the sum of two primes.

Is it coherent to imagine a world in which some even number more than 4 is not the sum of two primes?

Mathematical axioms are necessary. Moral facts (I believe) are Necessary but most Greatness facts to me are also necessary. While the last two can be disputed, even nihilist have to acknowledge math is consistently true in all possible worlds. The same is true of logic. Logic is universal and necessary in all possible worlds.

That is how possible worlds are defined. Logically consistent, so logic rule have to be necessary in this case.

 

[Link]

OK, but now imagine three things, x, y, and z

y is wiser than x, but less strong than z.

z is stronger than x, but less strong than y.

Which is greater y or z?

Doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to class which virtues are better and in which amount, just that, it contributes to the value of greatness.

 

[Link]

Imagining God is not "seeing God."

True.

 

[Link]

Ok, so see if I understand this.

The idea is if we have a name for something, in this case, "God" it is because something which exists caused us to name it?

So God exists because "something" caused us to create a name for God and that something would be what we created a name for.

So the the word unicorn, if something didn't exist then the word unicorn would have nothing to cause its existence. If I say the word unicorn, most would know what I am referring to or at least could look it up in an English dictionary.

So something caused the word "unicorn" to exist therefore that something, the cause of the word, exists. Otherwise there'd be no word.

That cause could be just a dream. Someone could have dreamed of a horse with a single horn. So they gave it an appropriate name, unicorn.

Just because we've given a name to something doesn't mean that thing has physical existence.

No, big misunderstanding of ontological argument. But good you are thinking and trying to grasp.

 

[Polymath257]

Mathematical axioms are necessary. Moral facts (I believe) are Necessary but most Greatness facts to me are also necessary. While the last two can be disputed, even nihilist have to acknowledge math is consistently true in all possible worlds. The same is true of logic. Logic is universal and necessary in all possible worlds.

That is how possible worlds are defined. Logically consistent, so logic rule have to be necessary in this case.

OK, so you failed to answer my question. Is that world actually a possible world? How would you tell?

The problem with 'greatness' is that there are many different properties by which to measure it, and they can all give different answers. This means that you do not have a linear order (where every two things can be compared), but what is known as a partial order (where some pair of x and y, x is not greater than y nor is y greater than x).

Also, I know of a number of different axiom systems for math that can give mutually contradictory results. So which particular axioms for math do you use? And why do you think those are the only possible ones?

But even more: there are multiple different systems of *logic*. The most commonly used one is Boolean logic, but Heyting logic is also useful at times. It is possible to have multiple valued logics, for example.