"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Thank you for your quick reply Ivellious. What I don't get is how you can derive the conclusion that God must exist because we can conceive of him as the greatest being. I don't understand how you can make that logical jump.Ivellious wrote:I might be wrong (I'm no expert at this), but here's how I understand it:
We can conceptualize God in our mind, and understand what God is.
Nothing can be greater than God.
If the greatest possible thing (God) can exist in our mind, it necessarily must exist in reality as well.
As far as I understand, it derives the necessity of God's existence because nothing greater than God could exist. I'm not sure if I agree that this is a good argument, but as far as I know that's what it means. Though as far as I know, not even all Christians or theists in general accept the ontological argument as rational, so it might be a moot point.
It is a direct derivative of both the prime mover and first causation arguments. If everything exists has a cause and requires a mover then the first mover must be uncaused. Since there's anything at all, the first cause is the greatest of all existence (and therefore the greatest we can imagine). Since he is the greatest we can imagine and we exist, he also must exist. Honestly I wouldn't use it, I would use the prime mover and first causation instead as they can be articulated much more clearly.Silvertusk wrote:Thank you for your quick reply Ivellious. What I don't get is how you can derive the conclusion that God must exist because we can conceive of him as the greatest being. I don't understand how you can make that logical jump.Ivellious wrote:I might be wrong (I'm no expert at this), but here's how I understand it:
We can conceptualize God in our mind, and understand what God is.
Nothing can be greater than God.
If the greatest possible thing (God) can exist in our mind, it necessarily must exist in reality as well.
As far as I understand, it derives the necessity of God's existence because nothing greater than God could exist. I'm not sure if I agree that this is a good argument, but as far as I know that's what it means. Though as far as I know, not even all Christians or theists in general accept the ontological argument as rational, so it might be a moot point.
Byblos wrote:It is a direct derivative of both the prime mover and first causation arguments. If everything exists has a cause and requires a mover then the first mover must be uncaused. Since there's anything at all, the first cause is the greatest of all existence (and therefore the greatest we can imagine). Since he is the greatest we can imagine and we exist, he also must exist. Honestly I wouldn't use it, I would use the prime mover and first causation instead as they can be articulated much more clearly.Silvertusk wrote:Thank you for your quick reply Ivellious. What I don't get is how you can derive the conclusion that God must exist because we can conceive of him as the greatest being. I don't understand how you can make that logical jump.Ivellious wrote:I might be wrong (I'm no expert at this), but here's how I understand it:
We can conceptualize God in our mind, and understand what God is.
Nothing can be greater than God.
If the greatest possible thing (God) can exist in our mind, it necessarily must exist in reality as well.
As far as I understand, it derives the necessity of God's existence because nothing greater than God could exist. I'm not sure if I agree that this is a good argument, but as far as I know that's what it means. Though as far as I know, not even all Christians or theists in general accept the ontological argument as rational, so it might be a moot point.
I have listened to WLC podcasts on this which is probably why I still didn't get it.PaulSacramento wrote:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/wh ... bby-conway
LMAO !!Silvertusk wrote:I have listened to WLC podcasts on this which is probably why I still didn't get it.PaulSacramento wrote:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/wh ... bby-conway
So, as you can see. What is special about this argument is that exploits YOUR UNDERSTANDING of INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE to create a trivial statement about that knowledge. I also want to make this clear. This is epistemological CERTAINTY, NOT verificationism (which is circular reasoning or leaves you with phenomenalism at best).Anselm wrote:Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.
Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.
For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.
And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.
This is where you get overloaded with information, but if you want to look into it. Feel free to look at Godel's versionMulla Sadra wrote:There is existence
Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
God is perfection and perfection in existence
Existence is a singular and simple reality (No metaphysical pluralism)
That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (No monism)
That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence
Hence God exists
). Never mind Kant's criticisms either which is utterly laughable.I also want to point out that the ontological argument is CERTAINLY NOT SO to the underlined.Byblos wrote:It is a direct derivative of both the prime mover and first causation arguments. If everything exists has a cause and requires a mover then the first mover must be uncaused. Since there's anything at all, the first cause is the greatest of all existence (and therefore the greatest we can imagine). Since he is the greatest we can imagine and we exist, he also must exist. Honestly I wouldn't use it, I would use the prime mover and first causation instead as they can be articulated much more clearly.
I disagree. I find the argument very persuasive. People yawn when its presented? Sure, I will give it that, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't true or its a bad one. When someone argues me 1+1=2, I yawn as well. We're being told something we already know. What makes the argument persuasive? People try go against the argument or have commentary of its unsuitability (according to their philosophy).1. Even if it works (and I don't think it does, for reasons I'll detail below), it isn't persuasive. Look, we have to be somewhat pragmatic here. Let's pretend that it is absolutely true in all of its glory . . . truer than even its most ardent supporters believe it be. The fact is, when you present it, people just yawn. It doesn't matter how much you explain it. It doesn't matter how much conversation you have around it. People still hear, "I know God exists because it's impossible to imagine Him not existing, and I know you think you can imagine it, but you really can't." That's true whether you take Anselm's greatest conceivable being approach or Plantinga's God-is-necessary-in-all-possible-worlds approach. Bottom line: it just isn't persuasive.
I disagree, it can be persuasive without the discussion of a host of philosophical issues. Does the discussion of those issues help? Certainly, especially for those existential skeptics you find every now and then. Its very key against eastern philosophies, but against western philosophies? Not so much. I've had much success presenting the argument with many different people who hail from asia (where some form of buddism is prominent).2. In order for it to have a hope of being persuasive, you have to have a very long, very extended discussion on background philosophical issues. For instance, if you want to use Plantinga's model, you have to explain the differences in possibility, necessity, and contingency, and if they really start asking good questions, you had better be able to defend modal axiom S5. I mean . . . really . . . if you are going to put that much effort into things, there are much better arguments worth spending your time developing.
Well, the problem with your example here is that the ontological argument is supposed to say something trivial about something you already know.3. Frankly, I think the argument fails anyway because it doesn't appreciate the two was in which something can be self-evident (that is, it conflates the two ways in which something can be self-evident). A thing is always self-evident in itself, but first, it may be self-evident to others, and in other instances, it may not be self-evident to others. Take the sentence, "All triangles have three sides." That's true by definition--the essence of triangles includes already the idea of three-sidedness. Therefore, the moment someone understands the meaning of the term "triangle," it is immediately and necessarily evident that the proposition is true. But suppose someone does not know the definition of "triangle." If so, then the proposition will not be self-evident to them.
Pit fall no. 2, the ontological argument isn't telling you that "existence does not exist". You in particular keep falling into this trap saying that you don't understand "Nothing", zero, etc when it certainly does exist in understanding. You only need to understand it, and I'd already got you stuck in admitting what you already know is true. As Anselm has already started,Now, applying this to the OA, that God exists is self-evident in itself. We who have studied know that God's very nature is existence itself, and so to propose that existence does not exist is just self-contradictory and therefore false. Thus, I know that God's existence is self-evident. It is impossible for me to conceive of His non-existence without entailing a self-contradiction. A lot of people, though, have no such conception of God. They simply are not educated enough. The Bible itself bears witness to the fact that people do hold that God does not exist.
the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying, understands what he hears
Nobody has appealed to "proper" understandings of God. People like to play semantics (like you, for example), so it requires us to find other descriptions you cannot say you don't understand. In my position, there is no greater way to describe God aside from calling him Perfect. I however do understand that some people need to get some other descriptions so they can wrap their head around the argument itself. Like "Maximal greatness".So what Anselm (and Plantinga and all the rest) fail to realize is that the moment they appeal to a "proper" understanding of God (which all versions ultimately do), they make their argument entirely trivial. That is because, in order to demonstrate the OA, one must FIRST who that the very notion of God necessarily entails God's existence, but in order to do that, one cannot rely on the OA (without falling into a circular argument). On the other hand, once you demonstrate that God's existence is necessary, the OA becomes completely superfluous, because God's existence has already been demonstrated.
SureNow let's look back at my objections.
I think this is just your opinion, really. If it really wasn't persausive, people wouldn't even bother. Whats the difference between arguing 1+1=2 and 1+1=3? The first, we already know. The second is so silly, we wouldn't bother.First, no matter how clearly you explain this, I'm sorry, but people just are not going to be persuaded by it. The only people who like this are people who already believe in God. It's clever. And they already believe that God is the greatest possible thing, so they go along without a fight.
My philosophy tells me that what we often "feel" isn't reliable. Our senses and feelings are very dubitable. For example, how fast are you moving right now? In the scientific revolution, there was much resistance in going into the heliocentric model based on "it doesn't feel like I'm going that fast"But other people? It just "feels" like a slight of hand. Forget about whether it works or not. They just will not buy it.
I should probably make a flow chart for you guys, then. It certainly is daunting, but once you get your opponent to admit they really know nothing aside from a few basic things, you've won the argument. A modern Descartes philosophy is excellent at this.Second, to defend this, you will have to have a very long discussion both about the notion of "greatest conceivable thing," and particular about the question of whether or not existence contributes to a thing's greatness. Perhaps it does, but here's the kicker--that requires a discussion about the nature of existence itself. And that is a doozy of a philosophical topic. You'll spend hours on that (believe me, I've done it), and if you are going to argue for God's existence from that perspective, there are much better arguments to use.
Don't fall into the pit fall, friend. Kant, does not even challenge the argument. Not even close.Third, it is immediately clear that the requirement to discuss the nature of existence means that the sentence "God has to exist" is not self-evident. Granted, if we already know that existence is the type of thing that contributes to greatness (and, in turn, if we understand on a philosophical level what greatness is), then the argument follows. But if it follows, it is superfluous, for we have already concluded from our understanding of existence that God exists. On the other hand, if we don't know those things (and most modern philosophy does not know those things: Kant, for instance, and those who follow him, deny that existence is a proper predicate at all), then the whole argument fails, because you are essentially trying to prove that a triangle has three sides to a person who doesn't know the definition of a triangle.
There is existence
Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
God is perfection and perfection in existence
Existence is a singular and simple reality (No metaphysical pluralism)
That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (No monism)
That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence
Hence God exists
You find it persuasive because you are already a Christian. And what makes it persuasive? Nothing. That's the whole point.domokunrox wrote:I disagree. I find the argument very persuasive. People yawn when its presented? Sure, I will give it that, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't true or its a bad one. When someone argues me 1+1=2, I yawn as well. We're being told something we already know. What makes the argument persuasive? People try go against the argument or have commentary of its unsuitability (according to their philosophy).
They don't just help. The argument can't be understood without them. And I highly doubt that you've been successful with the argument to Buddhists, especially without explaining the metaphysical backgrounds to them, because they come from a completely different worldview.I disagree, it can be persuasive without the discussion of a host of philosophical issues. Does the discussion of those issues help? Certainly, especially for those existential skeptics you find every now and then. Its very key against eastern philosophies, but against western philosophies? Not so much. I've had much success presenting the argument with many different people who hail from asia (where some form of buddism is prominent).
Trivial doesn't mean something you already know. It means something that gives you no new information. To say triangles have three sides is not trivial. To say three sided figures have three sides is. The OA is trivial once you understand the essence of God as existence itself, because then you are just saying "Existence exists." If you don't get that, then not only is the OA not trivial, it isn't intuitive and is completely devoid of any persuasiveness at all. Moreover, the OA does not speak to something you already know. There are people that don't know that God exists, so the OA says nothing to them about what they already know.Well, the problem with your example here is that the ontological argument is supposed to say something trivial about something you already know.
Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu, thus, there is no such thing as intuitive knowledge. Second, don't confuse the Cartesian version of the argument with the Anselmian version. Third, everything is analogous to perfection. Fourth, the OA--at least in Anselm--doesn't start with the idea that God has all possible perfections. Rather, it deduces that the First Cause has all perfections following the OA and from there works as sort of a divine attribute generator. Since Omnipotence is the perfection of power, then the FC must be omnipotent, etc. (at least in Anselm's thought).Your triangle example is excellent in showing in strength of the argument. Triangles are not intuitive knowledge, first off. Second, triangles are not Perfection and does not have all possible perfections. You pretty much gave a pit trap example of what someone shouldn't do against the argument. You've made a false analogy. There is nothing analogous to Perfection
I've never said that things like "nothing" don't exist in the understanding. I've said just the opposite, but you are so painfully ignorant of basic philosophy here that you don't understand the very simple words I wrote. Read them again. Try it more slowly. If you really want to educate yourself on this matter, you should read An Interpretation of Existence by Etienne Gilson, particularly his discussion on the distinction between judgment and conceptualization.Pit fall no. 2, the ontological argument isn't telling you that "existence does not exist". You in particular keep falling into this trap saying that you don't understand "Nothing", zero, etc when it certainly does exist in understanding. You only need to understand it, and I'd already got you stuck in admitting what you already know is true. As Anselm has already started,the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying, understands what he hears
If you don't think the OA appeals to a proper understanding of God, then you don't understand the OA. The entire argument is premised (in Anselm) on the definition of God as the greatest conceivable thing. If you don't understand that definition, then you cannot see how the argument works. In Plantinga, the argument presumes understanding what a "maximally excellent being" is.Nobody has appealed to "proper" understandings of God. People like to play semantics (like you, for example), so it requires us to find other descriptions you cannot say you don't understand. In my position, there is no greater way to describe God aside from calling him Perfect. I however do understand that some people need to get some other descriptions so they can wrap their head around the argument itself. Like "Maximal greatness".
Again, you say the argument is trivial. Thats because it supposed to be. It is telling you something you already know.
Most people don't bother. There is a reason it doesn't appear in many debates, and it's only been under Plantinga that it has had anything of a revival, and that thanks only to the power of his name. Craig has lent it some support recently, but even for him it isn't part of his stump speech. There's a reason for that: it's unpersuasive. But feel free to keep using it. You'll just be ineffective.I think this is just your opinion, really. If it really wasn't persausive, people wouldn't even bother. Whats the difference between arguing 1+1=2 and 1+1=3? The first, we already know. The second is so silly, we wouldn't bother.
I don't care what your philosophy tells you. People ought to pay more attention to what the think is true rather than what they feel, but they don't, and your job isn't to convince you; it's to convince them. That means you have to go to them where they are, and since their philosophy puts feelings very high on the list of things to trust, you're wasting your time if you ignore them.My philosophy tells me that what we often "feel" isn't reliable. Our senses and feelings are very dubitable. For example, how fast are you moving right now? In the scientific revolution, there was much resistance in going into the heliocentric model based on "it doesn't feel like I'm going that fast"
Cartesianism is an embarrassment to rational thought. About the only thing I know more embarrassing than Cartesianism is logical positivism.I should probably make a flow chart for you guys, then. It certainly is daunting, but once you get your opponent to admit they really know nothing aside from a few basic things, you've won the argument. A modern Descartes philosophy is excellent at this.
Did I say existence wasn't a predicate? Read more closely before you respond, dom. Existence certainly is a predicate, but analytical philosophy, which is the dominant form today, tends to deny that. Kant is a joke, but that's because he comes directly out of the Cartesian disaster. Or, put differently, Descarte made a giant mess of things, and Kant tried to clean it up while keeping that fool's basic assumptions. So, I agree that Kant doesn't challenge the argument. But no one else does, and in order to get them to see that, you have to undo all of Kant. Now, that's perfectly doable, and the sooner it is done, the better. But why go through all that to defend a silly, unpersuasive argument, when there are much better ones to offer?Don't fall into the pit fall, friend. Kant, does not even challenge the argument. Not even close.
Lets say that existence isn't a predicate (Kant), then the only way to talk about existence is by identity. Thats hardly convincing at all. Impossible to do without making a mess (syllogistic errors), actually. There is no metaphysical pluralism and Monism is false. Look at Mulla Sadra's argumentThere is existence
Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
God is perfection and perfection in existence
Existence is a singular and simple reality (No metaphysical pluralism)
That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (No monism)
That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence
Hence God exists
Thats your opinion, and your opinion (for lack of a better word) sucks.Jac3510 wrote:You find it persuasive because you are already a Christian. And what makes it persuasive? Nothing. That's the whole point.
The argument can certainly be understood without them. If you cannot even grasp that, you are very lost.Jac3510 wrote:They don't just help. The argument can't be understood without them. And I highly doubt that you've been successful with the argument to Buddhists, especially without explaining the metaphysical backgrounds to them, because they come from a completely different worldview.
I have no other way to interpet this aside from me imagining you as you were writing this, then your pupils got huge, and you fell on the floor. Then you woke up, and forgot to check what you wrote.Jac3510 wrote:Trivial doesn't mean something you already know. It means something that gives you no new information.
Triangles are not intuitive knowledge, sir.Jac3510 wrote:To say triangles have three sides is not trivial. To say three sided figures have three sides is.
God's existence is INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE, sir. His existence has been understood the very moment your mental substance came into existence.Jac3510 wrote:The OA is trivial once you understand the essence of God as existence itself, because then you are just saying "Existence exists."
You're just plain wrong on this topic, sir. An argument's persuasiveness has nothing at all to do at all in regards to the argument's goodness or truth value. As I've stated before, this is your opinion, and your opinion sucks.Jac3510 wrote:If you don't get that, then not only is the OA not trivial, it isn't intuitive and is completely devoid of any persuasiveness at all. Moreover, the OA does not speak to something you already know.
What? Lets move the philosophy aside for a second.Jac3510 wrote:There are people that don't know that God exists, so the OA says nothing to them about what they already know.
This is a false theory of knowledge. Your senses are dubitable.Jac3510 wrote:Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu, thus, there is no such thing as intuitive knowledge.
There is no confusion. Descartes DIRECTLY takes from Anselm, sir. He even uses it. Read Descartes before you even attempt to characterize his philosophy.Jac3510 wrote:Second, don't confuse the Cartesian version of the argument with the Anselmian version.
False. Nothing is analogous to perfection.Jac3510 wrote:Third, everything is analogous to perfection.
No, sir. You need to read up on Anselm, again.Jac3510 wrote:Fourth, the OA--at least in Anselm--doesn't start with the idea that God has all possible perfections. Rather, it deduces that the First Cause has all perfections following the OA and from there works as sort of a divine attribute generator. Since Omnipotence is the perfection of power, then the FC must be omnipotent, etc. (at least in Anselm's thought).
This some kind of joke? What I am telling you is that your characterization of the Ontological argument is wrong. Top to bottom WRONG.Jac3510 wrote:I've never said that things like "nothing" don't exist in the understanding. I've said just the opposite, but you are so painfully ignorant of basic philosophy here that you don't understand the very simple words I wrote. Read them again. Try it more slowly. If you really want to educate yourself on this matter, you should read An Interpretation of Existence by Etienne Gilson, particularly his discussion on the distinction between judgment and conceptualization.
If you think the Ontological argument is trying to prove God exists because you don't know if he exists, then you don't understand the Ontological argument.Jac3510 wrote:If you don't think the OA appeals to a proper understanding of God, then you don't understand the OA.
The argument does no such thing. The only way you can attempt to get out of the argument, is only by saying that you believe actual infinity exists. (Which is Pluralism/Monism)Jac3510 wrote:The entire argument is premised (in Anselm) on the definition of God as the greatest conceivable thing. If you don't understand that definition, then you cannot see how the argument works. In Plantinga, the argument presumes understanding what a "maximally excellent being" is.
Again, you're wrong.Jac3510 wrote:And, again, the argument is not designed to tell you something you already know. It is designed to prove to you something that you did not know, namely, that God exists; and it attempts to do that by showing you that, properly understood, the very idea of God is such that it must exist, lest it not by God at all.
Its ineffective if you don't know how to use it.Jac3510 wrote:Most people don't bother. There is a reason it doesn't appear in many debates, and it's only been under Plantinga that it has had anything of a revival, and that thanks only to the power of his name. Craig has lent it some support recently, but even for him it isn't part of his stump speech. There's a reason for that: it's unpersuasive. But feel free to keep using it. You'll just be ineffective.
Really? Then I don't care what your philosophy tells you, either. Hilarious, right? I didn't know your philosophy incorporated stubborn zen buddism.Jac3510 wrote:I don't care what your philosophy tells you.
I am not ignoring anyone. I am telling you that your senses are dubitable, and cannot be relying on to give you ANY knowledge until you have a foundational basisJac3510 wrote:People ought to pay more attention to what the think is true rather than what they feel, but they don't, and your job isn't to convince you; it's to convince them. That means you have to go to them where they are, and since their philosophy puts feelings very high on the list of things to trust, you're wasting your time if you ignore them.
Thats your opinion. Again, your opinion sucks.Jac3510 wrote:Cartesianism is an embarrassment to rational thought. About the only thing I know more embarrassing than Cartesianism is logical positivism.
No, Did I say you said such a thing?Jac3510 wrote:Did I say existence wasn't a predicate?
I suggest you do so, first.Jac3510 wrote:Read more closely before you respond, dom.
Kant comes out of "Descartes disaster"? Thats funny. Kant is responsible for Kant. Kant, attempted to take on the ontological argument by trying to talk about 100 coins. He made the SAME MISTAKE YOU DID. 100 coins is NOT ANALOGOUS to the ontological argument. Refuting Kant is so ridiculously simple, I feel terrible when I run someone over intellectually while they're gripping to their facade of ignorance for dear life. I can see the fear in their face. Its so cold, strain'd, and so ridiculous that it baffles me that they often do not desire to enter the intellectual discussion any further.Jac3510 wrote:Existence certainly is a predicate, but analytical philosophy, which is the dominant form today, tends to deny that. Kant is a joke, but that's because he comes directly out of the Cartesian disaster. Or, put differently, Descarte made a giant mess of things, and Kant tried to clean it up while keeping that fool's basic assumptions. So, I agree that Kant doesn't challenge the argument. But no one else does, and in order to get them to see that, you have to undo all of Kant. Now, that's perfectly doable, and the sooner it is done, the better. But why go through all that to defend a silly, unpersuasive argument, when there are much better ones to offer?
You know, this entire discussion is like we're at the chocolate factory. So, to bring in comedy relief I went ahead and went with this.Jac3510 wrote:As to your proof, do I really need to take the time to deconstruct that contortion? There are no middle terms. There are a ridiculous number of assumptions built in. And you may as well stop after the fourth statement . . . 5-8 are completely superfluous. Look, yYou start by stating that there "is existence" (if that isn't a redundant phrase, I don't know what is) that would need pages of discussion to reach any agreement on. But let that pass, you assert that it is a perfection, and then argue that God is perfection. So all you have said is, "Existence exists; it's a perfection; God is perfection; so God exists." That's a really, really bad argument, dom.