• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.

I would read up on this. I try to help you here, but you are trying to make confusing what is very simple. Possible world just means what is logically coherent. Math, Logic, whatever the truth of those are, they are consistent in all, and necessary truths. This doesn't mean we grasp all of it properly.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Yes, of course it matters *if* you want to claim uniqueness of any possible maximally great being.

The fact that different 'virtues' give different answers for 'greatness' is a fundamental problem because it implies that you can have two incomparable things. And, in that case, there may not be a 'greatest'.

In the example above, you would need to show that there is some w that is *both* greater in wisdom *and* greater in strength than both y and z. Why would you think this is true?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I would read up on this. I try to help you here, but you are trying to make confusing what is very simple. Possible world just means what is logically coherent. Math, Logic, whatever the truth of those are, they are consistent in all, and necessary truths. This doesn't mean we grasp all of it properly.

OK, so consistency is the only criterion? Which means the laws of physics might be different? Maybe some world has no causality? And maybe one has gravity as a repulsive force?

Are those logically coherent?

What about a world where some beings are physically the same as people but are not conscious? Is that logically coherent? How would you know?

But, like I said, I will give you this one (in spite of the fact that I think that 'possible worlds' philosophy is broken).
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, of course it matters *if* you want to claim uniqueness of any possible maximally great being.

The fact that different 'virtues' give different answers for 'greatness' is a fundamental problem because it implies that you can have two incomparable things. And, in that case, there may not be a 'greatest'.

In the example above, you would need to show that there is some w that is *both* greater in wisdom *and* greater in strength than both y and z. Why would you think this is true?

I see you bring a good point. It happens to be perfectly balanced and putting virtues in their right place is part of greatness. The more something is balanced and put's virtues in their proper place, the more greater it is as far as that goes. That is a being that misplaces virtues, goes into extreme of some quality x that leads for quality y to misplaced.

But the ontological argument as I present it doesn't need you know to compare all those. It looks at purely mathematically from the viewpoint of LIFE and Existence.

Suppose even that evil was the way to be great and we have only possible evil gods rationally because being good is too boring and is weakness. Even then is evil was criteria of being great, the absolute most evil being which would be the greatest being (in this irrational impossible world).

So you don't have to determine all these things. Just in whatever case, in whatever balance, in whatever goodness is, in whatever greatness is, you don't have to know the details. We are just concentrating on it's existence and life and the necessary being is known through that mathematical part, not qualitive comparison.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I would read up on this. I try to help you here, but you are trying to make confusing what is very simple. Possible world just means what is logically coherent. Math, Logic, whatever the truth of those are, they are consistent in all, and necessary truths. This doesn't mean we grasp all of it properly.

I'll give you an example. There is a statement in mathematics called the 'continuum hypothesis'.

This hypothesis is *known* to be unprovable from the axioms of math that are usually accepted. It is also known that it also is impossible to prove it to be false.

What this means is that there are two possible worlds (well, more than that, but..) one where CH is true and the other in which CH is false. The two worlds have different mathematics. In the same way, it is possible for two different possible worlds to have different logics.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
OK, so consistency is the only criterion? Which means the laws of physics might be different? Maybe some world has no causality? And maybe one has gravity as a repulsive force?

Are those logically coherent?

What about a world where some beings are physically the same as people but are not conscious? Is that logically coherent? How would you know?

But, like I said, I will give you this one (in spite of the fact that I think that 'possible worlds' philosophy is broken).

Different physics are possible in logically coherent worlds. Physic laws are not universal in all possible worlds.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I see you bring a good point. It happens to be perfectly balanced and putting virtues in their right place is part of greatness. The more something is balanced and put's virtues in their proper place, the more greater it is as far as that goes. That is a being that misplaces virtues, goes into extreme of some quality x that leads for quality y to misplaced.

But the ontological argument as I present it doesn't need you know to compare all those. It looks at purely mathematically from the viewpoint of LIFE and Existence.

Suppose even that evil was the way to be great and we have only possible evil gods rationally because being good is too boring and is weakness. Even then is evil was criteria of being great, the absolute most evil being which would be the greatest being (in this irrational impossible world).

So you don't have to determine all these things. Just in whatever case, in whatever balance, in whatever goodness is, in whatever greatness is, you don't have to know the details. We are just concentrating on it's existence and life and the necessary being is known through that mathematical part, not qualitive comparison.

Yes, you *do* need to see how the different 'virtues' relate to each other. For example, if someone is the strongest possible being, that may well preclude it being the wisest possible being (there is no reason to assume the wisest and the strongest are the same--you need to prove this).

Next, even *if* you can compare any two possible beings for 'greatness' (which my argument says you cannot do), there is *still* the possibility that there is no 'greatest'.

Once again, we can compare every two numbers, but there is no 'greatest number'. Why do you think that the collection of possible beings actually has a greatest?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Suppose even that evil was the way to be great and we have only possible evil gods rationally because being good is too boring and is weakness. Even then is evil was criteria of being great, the absolute most evil being which would be the greatest being (in this irrational impossible world)..

Why is this an impossible world?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, you *do* need to see how the different 'virtues' relate to each other. For example, if someone is the strongest possible being, that may well preclude it being the wisest possible being (there is no reason to assume the wisest and the strongest are the same--you need to prove this).

Next, even *if* you can compare any two possible beings for 'greatness' (which my argument says you cannot do), there is *still* the possibility that there is no 'greatest'.

Once again, we can compare every two numbers, but there is no 'greatest number'. Why do you think that the collection of possible beings actually has a greatest?

You don't need to compare, because the greatest being would have the greatest balanced approach with respect to all virtues and have all virtues in the maximum way.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You don't need to compare, because the greatest being would have the greatest balanced approach with respect to all virtues and have all virtues in the maximum way.

Which begs the question of existence. You need to show that for any two individuals, there is always one that is greater on *all* of their virtues.

And that is going to be a difficult proposition to prove.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Different physics are possible in logically coherent worlds. Physic laws are not universal in all possible worlds.

And can you prove this? For example, can you prove that the physics we have isn't the only logically consistent one?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which begs the question of existence. You need to show that for any two individuals, there is always one that is greater on *all* of their virtues.

And that is going to be a difficult proposition to prove.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. We can suspend judgment, what is better, patience of x amount, or wisdom of x amount, or love of x amount, what is better to have, etc, all this is we can suspend for now.

The greatest being has all in absolute oneness and in absolute greatest possible way and in perfectly most appropriate way. There is nothing incoherent of a maximally greatest being. It's a good thing to look for and not rationally impossible.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, then you need to prove this, don't you?

It is an assumption that is required for your ontological argument to work, right?

Yes, you have to believe greatness is legit for this to work. If the most evil humans are as great as the best and most good humans, this argument falls apart.
 
Top