A Refutation Of The Ontological Argument, Version 1.0
The Ontological Argument
[quote=Wikipedia]In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm defines God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived."[/quote]
This is the central premise of Anselm's ontological argument. Make a note of the underlined part: "...no greater can be conceived."
Infinity
[quote=Wikipedia]Infinity is that which is boundless or endless, or something that is larger than any real or natural number.[/quote]
Note the underline bit, "...larger than any real or natural number". Sounds remarkably similar to "...no greater can be conceived" the main premise in the ontological argument.
Potential vs Actual Infinity
Potential infinity is a matter that's settled. However, actual infinity is highly controversial.
My refutation of Anselm's argument:
Actual infinities don't exist. Anselm's definition of God requires actual infinity to be an aspect of God or, if one goes the whole nine yards, actual infinity = God. Ergo, since either God must have a property that can't exist (actual infinity) or must be that which can't exist (actual infinity), God too can't exist!
Anselm's ontological argument fails!
A penny for your thoughts...
[quote=Wikipedia]In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm defines God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived."[/quote]
This is the central premise of Anselm's ontological argument. Make a note of the underlined part: "...no greater can be conceived."
Infinity
[quote=Wikipedia]Infinity is that which is boundless or endless, or something that is larger than any real or natural number.[/quote]
Note the underline bit, "...larger than any real or natural number". Sounds remarkably similar to "...no greater can be conceived" the main premise in the ontological argument.
Potential vs Actual Infinity
Potential infinity is a matter that's settled. However, actual infinity is highly controversial.
My refutation of Anselm's argument:
Actual infinities don't exist. Anselm's definition of God requires actual infinity to be an aspect of God or, if one goes the whole nine yards, actual infinity = God. Ergo, since either God must have a property that can't exist (actual infinity) or must be that which can't exist (actual infinity), God too can't exist!
Anselm's ontological argument fails!
A penny for your thoughts...
Comments (125)
Yeah, it fails but, first and foremost, because it is, at most, merely valid and not sound, only the idea of God (essence) is 'demonstrated' but not the existence of the idea's referent as "the proof" also sets out to do. And, as an 'a priori argument', the OA (Proslogion) is only 'true by definition', thus vacuous with respect to a posteriori facts of the matter. So again, my friend, I think your "potential infinity vs actual infinity" argument misses the forest for the trees (& what said :smirk: ).
Didn't read any more of the thread than this, only jumping in with a mathematical correction. In math there are quantities that are larger than any finite number, but way smaller than other transfinite numbers. For example the cardinal [math]\aleph_0[/math] is greater than every finite number, yet smaller than [math]\aleph_1[/math], which is smaller than [math]\aleph_{\text{googolplex}}[/math]. I realize this is primarily a religious thread and not a mathematical one so forgive the interruption. But your statement is no longer "remarkably similar" to "no greater can be conceived," as of the 1870's. Georg Cantor was the first human to conceive of, and logically prove the mathematical existence of, an endless hierarchy of larger and larger infinities. Infinity, at least mathematical infinity, is no longer just one single thing that's "larger than any finite number." It's an entire complex world of interrelated ideas of ordinal and cardinal infinities, respectively expressing order and quantity.
Many humans, mostly math majors, easily conceive of these things once they've had the proper training. The theologians should pay attention. Cantor himself was a very religious man, and believed that after his endless hierarchy of infinities, the ultimate infinity was God. He called it the Absolute infinite, and denoted it [math]\Omega[/math]. Cantor's mathematics is universally accepted now, while his theological ideas are forgotten by everyone except historians. I imagine he'd be disappointed by that.
Just sayin'. I'll leave you learned theologians alone now, I don't know anything about the subject. Well I know one bit, when I think of the ontological argument I know about William Lane Craig and his misuse of set theory to prove the existence of the Christian God. So I haven't got a very good impression of theological arguments involving infinity.
If God is less than anything he can't be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Infinity is the numerical representation of that than which nothing greater can be conceived (God). Ergo, since actual infinities don't exist, God too can't exist.
Thank you for your comment but, read my reply to Cheshire above. Cantor believed that God = infinity and actual infinities exist - he was right about the first but wrong about the second. Together these two (one true, the other false) constitute the premises of my argument that God can't exist!
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, the a priori - a posteriori distinction is important but do you know that theoretical physics (a priori) decides what kind of experiments (a posteriori) should be conducted. Also, many particles were first predicted by a priori physics theories and then, intriguingly, confirmed through experimentation!
Look, I ain't the brightest bulb on the chandelier but I know one thing for a fact - physics is slowly metamorphosing into a full-fledged branch of mathematics. In math, some things are true by definition!
I don't think that Anselm was defining God as being "larger than any real or natural number." That would be a category error.
When Anselm talks about "a being than which no greater can be conceived" by "greater" he means something like "better" or "more awesome."
Mathematical infinity is the numerical representation of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." What I've attempted to do is mathematize Anselm's conception of God. It's basically translating Anselm's God into a number, that's all. For instance, I say God is green, then mathematically God is a wavelength of 555 nm. Mathematizing Anselm's god is not just a trick-shot, it's germane to the ontological argument as the word "greater" in "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is inherently quantitative. It appears people failed to connect the dots, missed what was right under their noses.
Cardinality notwithstanding, mathematical infinity is the numerical representation of that number than which none larger can be conceived. But that's not what Anselm is talking about. You're just equivocating.
When Anselm talks of being greater he's likely considering such things as power, intelligence, benevolence, etc., and likely includes such properties as having created the universe or being the moral authority, and so it makes no sense to try to mathematize his concept.
Anselm's God isn't just the mathematician's notion of infinity. They're two distinct concepts.
It's not just quantitive. Jane is a greater piano player than Jim. Jim is a greater friend than Sam. These aren't things that can be assigned some numerical value.
is quantitative. If you don't believe me, in math "greater"' is symbolized as ">". Nothing more need be said.
Quoting Michael
I can, given some leeway, easily mathematize that in terms of,
1. The length of time a person spends listening to either Jane's or Jim's piano pieces.
or
2. How large the audience is each of their performances
or
3. How many times their performances have been viewed on youtube
.
.
.
so on and so forth
Anselm isn't using the mathematician's notion of "greater than" when he uses the phrase. You're equivocating.
None of these are a measure of a person's piano-playing ability.
Maybe God put all these ideas in your head. I can never understand the mindset of people who use logic to talk about the existence of God. God exists outside of the bounds of logic. God is a matter of faith, not logic. One believes or not. Or one has experienced miracles or not. But of course we all experience miracles every day, being alive, breathing the air. All the better if we have a roof over our head and we know where our next meal is coming from. If God didn't provide that, I'm a damned lucky fool. I don't believe in an anthropomorphised God, but I don't believe in an entirely mindless universe either. I'm an agnostic: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." That fits me to a T.
From where I'm sitting, it isn't necessary to invoke mathematics. As several folks have pointed out, the expression "greater than" must be based on some clear definition of "greatness" - and this definition must include some means/mechanism for comparing and deciding which of two "beings" is "greater than" than the other.
The ontological argument fails in this regard.
There are also many other equally valid reasons for rejecting the ontological argument that are mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the article you linked. I hope I'm not violating any forum rules by quoting:
Just as the ontological argument has been popular, a number of criticisms and objections have also been mounted. Its first critic would be Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm's. Gaunilo, suggesting that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything, uses the analogy of a perfect island. Such would be the first of many parodies, all of which attempted to show the absurd consequences of the ontological argument. Later, Thomas Aquinas rejected the argument on the basis that humans cannot know God's nature. David Hume also offered an empirical objection, criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel Kant's critique was based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate, arguing that "existing" adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being. Thus, a "supremely perfect" being can be conceived not to exist. Finally, philosophers such as C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are incompatible with others, rendering "maximally great being" incoherent.
I would be equivocating iff I use two different meanings of the word "greater". I'm not. The word "greater" is inherently quantitative. It even has its own mathematical symbol ">". All I did was take Anselm's "greater" and rendered it in mathematical terms. Since Anselm's God is "that than which nothing greater [...]", mathematically, that's infinity. So, if Anselm believes God exists, his claim boils down to one about the existence of an actual infinity which is not as cut-and-dried as we/I would have hoped.
As an analogy regarding the quantitative/mathematical nature of the word "greater", I'd like to mention an issue that's very sensitive for people who are obese - weight. If I say Tom's weight is greater than Eric's what I actually mean is Tom's weight, say 90 kg, > Eric's weight, 70 kg. I can't make it clearer than that I'm afraid.
Quoting EricH
See my reply to Michael above!
Thanks for the excerpt from the Wiki page about the ontological argument. I'm currently focused on my own refutation though. My argument differs from the rest because Anselm's argument is wholly predicated on the meaning of "greater" in "that than which nothing greater [...]"
To those interested
To tell you the truth though, this entire discussion is ultimately about the existence of actual infinities!
I thought of it that way too but if the set of points in a line segment is a completed infinity, it should be possible to make a list of them and...wait for it...the list should have a last entry. I'm afraid that's not possible. Actual infinities? :chin:
How do you go about conceiving infinity? If infinity doesn't exist(never conceived to completion), then God can be less than infinity and exist.
If they are controversial, how are you justified in asserting, without supporting reasoning, that they don't exist? Or, conversely, if they don't exist, how can they be controversial?
Relative to your belief system, please share what would make it sound (if you can) ?
Terrific question. I'm working on a response. I can make it simple but I can't make it short. Anything I write is going to be grossly off-topic to this thread. How do the assembled multitudes feel about that? I'll just go ahead and write up my response and post it here later or tomorrow, whenever it gets done. As far as being on topic, as I mentioned, Cantor thought that the ultimate ordinal was God. And maybe it is.
Quoting Cheshire
Take a class in set theory. Or just contemplate the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} that you learned about in grade school. Everybody believes in the natural numbers. So why would it be difficult to conceive infinity? We did it in grade school. "Name the biggest number." "A zillionty-zillion." "A zillionty-zillion plus one!" That's infinity. The sequence keeps going forever.
And the transfinite ordinals are what you get when you count through all the natural numbers and keep on going. I'll explain that in detail soon. Perhaps it should be in its own thread. I didn't realize we were in the ontological argument thread, this is definitely going to be a little off topic.
Did we really though? I think we conceived the conditions for an infinity. I can conceive 10s or maybe hundreds and infer about millions and billions, but saying I'm thinking about the impossible whole of infinity seems reaching.
I believe I may have found a problem with one of your premises though.
"Actual infinities don't exist," doesn't seem to follow from their being controversial.
You just need to stretch your imagination. Think of each of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... where you can always "add 1." Then think of all of these together in one place, what we call the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}.
Now I admit that this is not a very natural thing to conceive of. But if you spend enough time studying it, it does become second nature and you can conceive of it perfectly well. I tell you honestly that I have no problem conceiving of the set of natural numbers, because I spent enough time in school studying it.
"Conceive of" is a very weak standard of existence because it's subjective. What one person can't conceive of, another person finds commonplace.
It may be true that you personally can't conceive of the set of natural numbers, but I assure you that people who study math in college end up with a very clear picture of it in their minds. And far larger sets too.
Think about the real number line that they taught you in high school. It has points at all the integers like ---, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., going to infinity in both directions. Between each whole number are the rationals like 1/2 and 2/3 and 47/99, etc., which are three rational numbers between 0 and 1. And there are all the irrationals like sqrt(2) and pi and e and so forth. Each tiny little dimensionless point on the line is the location of some real number; and there are a whole lot of those, provably more of them than there are integers.
And you learned this in high school. So you learned it, but never really spent much time conceiving it.
My thesis is that if you had simply spent a few years studying the real line and its properties, you'd end up conceiving of it perfectly well.
Now I agree that this is far short of conceiving of the infinity of God or the infinity of the cosmos, or whatever. Mathematical infinity is a very limited kind of infinity, it's the one that we can talk about using symbolic logic. But still, it's infinity and lots of people do conceive of it.
TMF, I realize that it's your OP (and a good one), if 180 can't answer that question, I think it may mean that his particular belief system is in question.
I'm not sure he really understands the concept behind the ontological argument. But be patient, we'll see how he responds (if he does at all). And so at this point, I wouldn't take too much stock in his analysis (considering he generally struggles with his 'premises' from other threads).
Anyway, in layman's terms, unfortunately he's all bark and no bite. Just wanted to point that out; didn't want you to be misled... .
Good point! Your question takes me back a coupla weeks to this thread :point: Proving A Negative/Burden Of Proof.
Related stuff:
1. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
2. Pascal's Wager
Am I justified in inferring the nonexistence of actual infinities based on the fact that no actual infinities have been demonstrated to exist?
My argument would look like this:
1. There are actual infnities OR There are no actual infinities
2. We couldn't prove that There are actual infinities.
Ergo,
3. There are no actual infinities
The argument form employed is the disjunctive syllogism. The crucial question: [We couldn't prove that] There are actual infinities = There are no actual infinities???
When does the absence of proof of a proposition P imply the falsehood of P?
Imagine there's a book that contains every proof that's possible. A proof is what transform uncertainty (p v ~p) for a proposition p into certainty ( p, if not ~p).
Suppose now I go through this book from cover to cover and I find no proof for the proposition, There are actual infinities. In other words the proposition can't be proven which simply means the proposition (There are no actual infinities) can't be true (no proofs exist that demonstrate P).
If the proposition can't be true but it has to be true or false, it follows that the proposition must be assigned the truth value false i.e. There are no actual infinities!
However, the situation I'm in is different. The book of proofs I mentioned earlier isn't something I possess and so a handful of people failing to prove There are no actual infinities falls short of a thorough scan of the book of proofs. Thus the fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
However, if someone put a gun to my temple and say, "make the most logical choice given the following...or else...bang! bang!"
1. There are actual infinities or There are no actual infinities
2. Your opponent in the debate hasn't been able to prove There are actual infinities
My reasoning would proceed like this:
My opponent hasn't proved There are actual infinities. Insofar as my opponent and I are concerned, There are actual infinities can't be true [think of it like having gone through a certain number of pages in the book of proofs]. Since There are actual infinities hast to be either true or false, the most logical option is There are actual infinities is false i.e. There are no actual infinities.
The transcendental number pi is encoded in and manifest (instantiated) by every non-abstract, or concrete, circular object which makes it an uncountable actual infinity, no?
Might I approach it from a slightly physics direction. Assuming that maybe this “god” is the sum of all energy in the universe, god must be finite as the law of conservation of energy would dictate: cannot be created nor destroyed. Although finite in quantity, energy being the ability to do work one could say they must be infinite in quality - that is to say can transform from one form to the next. Cannot be destroyed cannot be created but ALWAYS changing
Just passing by late at night, not following the convo lately. The theory of eternal inflation is a speculative physical theory that posits a a multiverse in which time is infinite in the forward direction and there are an actual infinity of universes. This is as I say speculative, and the author of the theory no longer believes in it, or no longer considers it a useful theory. Nevertheless, speculative cosmologists do consider infinite theories these days. They're probably bullpucky, but they are out there. So clearly physicists aren't troubled by conservation of energy when scribbling out these kinds of theories.
Tim, you can ask me anything, though I’m not sure you’re emotionally stable enough to receive the information in a constructive manner :razz:
Anyway back to the atheist peanut gallery lesson. I’ll still query 180 to see if he can answer the question about a premise/conclusion being sound, but am losing faith in him considering he once again, prematurely threw in the towel. Nonetheless, his analysis of the Ontological Argument is misguided for the following reasons:
Anyone who understands what is meant by the term ‘God’ or supreme being would see that such an entity must exist. The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived. Since anyone can conceive or comprehend, a priori, that particular definition standard, one can conceive of a God. Just as important, 180’s notion of soundness similarly fails on the epistemic grounds of philosophical idealism. Not only can God be conceived as a concept in one’s mind, but can also exist in one’s reality. Reality exists as obscure things-in-themselves.
Equally important are the questions and resulting facts about the world of mathematical truth’s (a priori)and logical necessity, or logically necessary truths like the Ontological Argument. In physical science, using a priori mathematical truths to discover a something in the world of objects (seen or unseen), those something’s are essentially brute fact, yet exist as true abstract structures in the mind. For instance, 2+2 =4 is a fact that exists. (At some point, reality can only be described mathematically-beyond the usual categories of protons, neutrons, and electrons.) The Ontological Argument works in the exact same way. 180 is once again wrong that ‘soundness’ has anything to do with the conclusion reached from a priori logic/analytical propositions (like the Ontological Argument ).
That also leads to other questions about Atheist's and their motivations and belief systems. Is it based on the Ontological Argument not being true, and if so, how so and by what method (a posteriori)? Is thier disbelief based on the logically impossible Omni-3? If so, how does that square with consciousness and reality?
If those are too difficult to answer, one is left with another brute fact (pardon the pun) that the Atheist's belief system seems extremely flawed. As an important ancillary note which perhaps Tim or 180 could find it easier to answer, why do Atheists like to troll religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz:
Nice try, but woefully incorrect, hence:
"2nd Request: Please provide a coherent logico-deductive premise. So far, your atheism is:
I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in "Whatever"
Let be established that 180 Proof has not proved The Logic of Atheism as being coherent.
TKO in Round one I'm afraid. (Or go back, read yours and my comments, get a drink and some coaching from your corner :razz: )
I'll continue the debate if you do your homework on logico-deductive reasoning 180! Again, your belief in "Whatever" is not coherent."
Put in another quarter Timmy and try again .
LOL
I think you do a pretty good job on this forum.
There are very few existentialist religious people who post their views.
In fact,I do enjoy the angry atheist types getting all riled up with your calmness humour and your interesting observations.
I don't agree with all your views,but I appreciate your calm.
Your two main protagonists are essentially philosophical meatheads with anger issues.
From the outside its obvious who is closer to the truth,and it ain't those two!
God Bless you brother (if I'm allowed to say that).. . .You know, this kinda reminds me of a Keats quote:
Truth is beauty, beauty truth. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know. (That's from memory so I hope I got it right.) I appreciate your objective voice.
Anyway, well said. We all don't have to agree with one another either, no quarrel there. Actually here's another philosophical musing or concept. Sort of like the Taoist unity of opposites, I am more often than not inspired by protagonist behavior, if you know what I mean vern!
If nothing else, it's how NOT to be.
As far as Christian Existentialism, thanks it's kinda like politically, when I became a moderate independent. The sky opened up and revelation started. I felt liberated & free... . In a Greek moderation way, I realized that not only is it normal to draw from both sides (and other things in life designed to be hybrids and compromises/engineering, relationships, etc.), I have always realized that ultimately this is not my kingdom. And that speaks to the independent component. It's a win-win for me! And a peace of mind.
We need more moderate's in our political and religious institutions!!
Ah,that keats quote is one of my favourites!
I don't mind the god bless as its the intention that counts.
My views on god are unusual.
Materialism,however or philosophy without spirituality is a dud!
And yes definately more moderates needed in religion and elsewhere. But politics and institutions I have no faith in!
To me religion/spirituality/philosophy is personal/existential.
As you say,all else is vanity and fumbling!
I have watched the interactions closely,I trust my own judgement.
You are over emotional,as is 180.
Reread your post to 3017 about people of the lie and such like. That is some serious overemotional venting brother!
If you like rationality then what's with the vitriol and nonsense?
Thanks Pro! Indeed to all. You know, BTW, I throw them bones and olive branches on occasion just to help but they still don't get it. For instance, if you read what I said I suggested a posteriori kinds of knowledge (WJ religious experiences).
Oh well, like the late great George Harrison said: a lot of things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot. (I think I got that one right too, not sure though.) In any case, besides, over 75% of philosophical domains posit God, for some reason go figure!!
:razz:
I think both guys are searching for truth and you show your the bigger man by giving them olive branches.
One is not a philosopher or psychologist If one doesn't engage in a genuine existential critique of religion. Angry rants don't count!
And if you search for truth you will find divinity. Even if you find the divine is the human soul.
I have read posts on this forum for years before I joined,so I've read plenty of all three on this thread.
The recent debate was disappointing overall,but I blame
180 as he refused to engage because he knew he wasn't going to win. He's just too emotional and narrow minded.
If you two actually discussed properly with 3017 it would be good. I was looking forward to the debate.
Prove me wrong by debating with civility and style.
I love that last quote. Thank you for that inspirational message! Happy 4th!
I know, I was extremely disappointed too. I had all sorts of arguments lined up, as I hinted at in my opening statement.... .
If I read you correctly are you saying standard logic cannot prove things like conciousness and time which are obviously real,therefore the concept of God is like the reality of time and conciousness,and doesn't follow standard logic?
Well,it's obvious to me. Difference is I keep level headed about you disagreeing with me. And I don't demonise people just for a disagreement.
Well, generally speaking, that is one so-called tenet of my philosophy or truth as the case may be. More specifically, that overall argument refers to the nature of reality and/or existence, and how a priori logic cannot capture the 'truth' of those same realities. For example, mathematics (a priori mathematical truth's) themselves have limitations (Gödel/Heisenberg/Turing, Kant, self-referential propositions/paradox-liars paradox, etc. etc.) even when used by physicists... .
To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)
And? Is a moderator the standard for truth? I know what I see.
Lies! Just listen to your rhethoric!
Yes,that is what I saw in your opening debate post and its a pretty solid case,as standard logic breaks down at the practical ultimate level.
Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths?
Thank you for including me in the discussion. I was going through your post when I read the above line.
I tried to mathematize Anselm's exact words, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." My initial thoughts as outlined in this thread was that
1. The word "greater" as it appears in Anselms's ontological argument is essentially quantitative, it even has a mathematical symbol, ">", for it.
2. God as "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is, to my reckoning, infinity.
3. So, if God exists, an actual infinity should exist but, I argued, since no actual infinities exist, God too can't exist!
As I mentioned in one of my other posts, Anselm's argument is predicated on the existence of actual infinities and utlimately boils down to that precise mathematical issue.
I've now, luckily or not, changed my mind i.e. I find my refutation of the ontological argument to be flawed and therefore concede that Anselm's argument remains whole and unsullied.
Why?
:point: The Symmetry Argument/Method.
The Symmetry Argument/Method basically states that given the obvious truth of dualistic relationships (hot-cold, up-down, big-small, you get the idea) and how such a paradigm has been adopted and empirically verfied (e.g. electron-positron), it's safe, even necessary, to conclude that reality has dualistic symmetry (thing-antithing). Thus, if I know a certain thing exists, it's opposite, the antithing should also exist.
Ergo, I went on, since I TheMadFool am powerless, ignorant, and bad, The Symmetry Argument/Method implies that God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good) has to exist.
Back to the main page now. Actual infinities have to exist because actual finites do exist e.g. the numbers 2 and 4. This because of The Symmetry Argument/Method - the finite and infinity constitute a dualistic symmetrical pair.
Actual infinities exist. You might find it interesting to know that the mathematician Georg Cantor of set theory & infinity fame claimed God = Infinity. This seems to fit like a glove with Anselm's "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Ergo, since actual infinities exist, God is infinity, God exists!
Stop right there. It was agreed we would have an unlimited amount of time for responses. It doesn't matter now but I cannot let that pass without correction. If you want quotes I'll provide them. And it was two days without a response which was the weekend. Get it straight dude.
Anyway go back to your angry tirades :razz:
180 and I agreed to the following:
Title: Atheism is not Logical
1. No word limits per post.
2. No links to previous posts on TPF.
Take as much time as needed between posts.
I will start the debate with an opening argument(s).
I would love to clarify, why don't you start a new thread?
I am my standard of truth and all who make sense.
You do not make sense on this issue.
Seems to me you have a habit of demanding proof after proof for non sequitur reasons. And yet,said proofs don't mean much to you.
What is your standard of truth tim? A moderator?!
I followed the debate myself,I don't need your interpretations tempered with emotionality.
You should calm down and stop being so trigger partisan.
It's not really my thread type. I'm asking because I couldn't quite understand what you said in that last paragraph.
I'm more a psychology thread type of guy!
TMF!
Thanks for your reply I want to give your thoughtful post the same thoughtful consideration so let me monder it and get back to you!
Okay I'll explain in a bit...btw, I love psychology.... Probably why I'm more of a continental philosopher!!!
Excellent! You should post your views to my thread or start some psychology and continental philosophy threads to get some decent discussions going!
Okay any idea of what I should call the new thread/OP? I'm open to any ideas....
1)The existential psychology/philosophy of religion.
(Like William James varieties of religious experience)
2)Religion and continental philosophy.
(Their connections)
3)Platonism and religion.
Hey TMF!
With the holiday weekend upon us I'm going to try my best to get to your supposition (s), but have to ask quickly for a couple qualifiers if you will:
1. By infinity would you accept the term or concept of eternity as one in the same?
2. The concept of infinities and finites, can they be analogous to (or treated like) temporal time/space time and eternal time as a unity of opposite concept?
I'm afraid your facts are fictions. Generated by wish fulfillment.
I don't need your selective quotes. I have followed and read the whole debate.
I also have read numerous posts from all three of you.
Wishful thinking Tim.
You and 180 are habitually debating emotionally and selectively. You can't wish religious feelings and truths away Tim. Nor can you logic them away. Your and 180s failure illustrates this clearly. Instead of just being a critic give us YOUR worldview.
It's easy to pick holes in words Tim,why don't you be constructive instead?
What I meant by the following:
"To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)"
...is, that that was referring to similar abstract structures that comprises our intellect. For example, we have this logical side and we have this feeling side (the will) that is a dumb and blind 'feeling' or impulse or energy that needs logic to make cognition work the way we understand it to work (and cognize). Refer to my profile I did an OP/thread years ago on Voluntarism.
And within that description of cognition, we are able to perceive abstract entities. Abstract structures or entities include but are not limited to the following: mathematics, music/music theory, aesthetics (the feelings one feels when they perceive colors, objects, etc.-see Kant), the Will itself-Schop., the feeling of Time/time itself, and even Love and other metaphysical concepts and phenomena that are innate to conscious existence and the world of perception and sense experience.
There's much more to parce but does that help any...
It does help...But continue. This is very interesting!
Look dude if you want to debate me one on one, then propose something. Otherwise I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.
Now continue with your angry tirades if you must :razz:
Thanks!
I got to take care of some personal things at the moment P. Let me get back to you later K?
Of course. No rush. In your own time.
Such a great question. Thank you for the inspiration. I didn't want to hijack this thread with my lengthy exposition, so I posted it in the Math section over here ....
Greater in what way? Since you (and Anselm) don't say in what way, should we assume in every way possible? If so, that would include greater in height, greater in ability to eat pies in a pie-eating contest, greater in armpit smelliness, and a whole lot of other greaters.
Well, yes. My concept of God now is of a very tall dude who can eat more pies than anyone else and has smellier armpits than anyone else. I often wondered what God was like. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Problem is what standard of evidence do you uphold?
All I see from you is impatience,defensiveness,pedantry and finally ad homineum.
Your analogies and badgering are terrible.
Fact is you can't refute 3017 and thus you resort to emotionality and nonsense.
How to Deal with a Passive Aggressive Person
There is nothing to get.
You are a narrow minded bigot and pretentious.
A bit early here.
The classic refutation of the argument is of course that existence is not a predicate. This came up a week or so ago in another thread, but I can't locate my relevant posts. The idea is roughly that logic does not permit the deduction of the existence of an individual. ?(a) is not well-formed.
I'm not familiar with Collingwood. If the notion is that the existence of individuals is supposed in the formation of the language used to discuss them, then I agree. The error in the ontological argument is supposing that a certain predication - "...is a greater than which cannot be conceived" - leads to the deduction of the existence of that individual. As Russell pointed out, it's finding where this occurs that is tricky.
Again, the problem is that the argument seeks to demonstrate the existence of an individual - "God exists" looks like it ought be parsed in first-order logic as "?(a)", but of course that is not well-formed. Hence any argument in which the conclusion is ?(a) is invalid in first-order logic. It remains open for the theist to insist that the ontological argument uses a different sort of logic in which ?(a) is well-formed; and indeed, it may be prima facie not unreasonable to suppose such, since we can say things such as that London exists or that Unicorns do not. But as argued elsewhere, the way "exists" is used here is not the same as the way it is being used in the ontological argument.
I wonder what you make of the debate here. Events that occurred a few weeks before you joined.
Edit: Ah, leave it. I see you have already responded.
If god is self-contradictory then god renders himself unavailable for discussion.
(p & ~p)?q
If god is self-contradicting, anything follows, and so anythign can be asserted. Conversation ends; truth becomes falsehood.
Hence, if you assert that god is, and is self-contradictory, you are not worth talking to.
Are you referring to Cantor's absolute infinite? The point is that the class of all ordinals is not a set. Well that's not my point, it's just a fact that Cantor and others discovered, Burali-Forti in particular. But I'm not sure exactly how to relate this to your post to me here. Apologies, I'm a bit lost.
I think I'm not being very clear; I watched old Dr Who episodes until the wee small hours last night and my head isn't that clear.
Perhaps I can make the point more clearly, but without mathematical exactitude. There's this capacity to add to any group - take 1, add another 1, get 2, add another, get three...
Then one realises that this process can go forever. Infinity is uncovered.
Then Cantor finds he can add to infinity... and add to each subsequent infinity, and so on
Subsequent mathematicians found that they could add even to that...
Hence, is it that there is no number, a greater than which cannot be conceived? That for any number of which on conceives, there is a greater?This as a lay version of your point at
The upshot being that, so far as the analogy of god to infinity posited in the OP goes, there is no being a greater than which cannot be conceived?
TMF was saying in *reality* there is no actual infinity. I assume he knows we can think of infinity in terms of numbers
1. Temporal infinity is, to me, a type of infinity.
2. Why not? I took a finite 15 minutes to finish my tea while the future is infinite.
You say that as if it were helpful.
There are:
1) actual infinity of things
2) abstract infinity of numbers
3) quasi-infinity of the past
4) essential nonnumerical infinity of the ground of being
I'm not sure reason can decide which of it's concepts must conform to reality is they are not processed through the senses
TMF said there is no actual infinity in reality but God is not a numerical infinity so this doesn't apply to God I say in response.
No, don't worry. I'm not that interested.
What's your point?
Well, I suppose it is that I don't get your point, here:
An infinity of numbers does not prove an infinity in what's real but nor does it prove a highest being can't exist which was your point
Many facts are subjective.
Much of science is speculative nonsense, witness many worlds theory and the big bang.
@180 Proof
At this point your like a parrot of cliches and well worn out tropes.
Ranting is not truth or wisdom.
Yes. The a priori argument posits greatest in everything and in everyway possible. It's based on logically necessary truth's.
Quoting Herg
Sure. Absurdity qualifies also. (Pure reason has those effects... . Yet another reason why A-theism is not logical)
3017amen : What 180 is about to say is false.
180 Proof: 3017 has just spoken truly.
What other logical question would you like me to answer? Rematch to avenge your loss?
If you're scared, say you're scared :razz:
LOL
Paul Davies writes: Turning to the scientific position on the origin of the universe one can again ask about the evidence that there actually was an origin. It is certainly possible to conceive of the universe of infinite duration and for much of the modern scientific era following the work of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, scientists did in fact generally believe in an eternal cosmos. There were however some paradoxical expects to this belief.
Do you think that notion (of infinite) is reminiscent of Einstein's relatively, speed of light, and eternity?
An idea regarding infinity I’d like your feedback on, since you’re far more knowledgeable regarding mathematics:
“Infinity” is fully synonymous to “unlimitedness”. All mathematical infinities (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, … infinity) are bounded by being other than what they are not (e.g., 0, -1, -2, -3, … infinity) and so are bounded infinities, or infinities limited to that subject of contemplation addressed. There is always something other relative to such infinities which demarcates them as such. Here, infinities are quantitative.
Boundless, or complete, or absolute infinity, however, (though I’m not certain if this is in line with Cantor’s works) is not limited nor bound by anything; it is the same as absolute unlimitedness. It is therefore nondual in every conceivable sense of the word: there is nothing other relative to it. Hence it is not, nor can it be, numerical, for it is not quantitative. Nor can it be a quantitative understanding of “greatest” for this always stands in contrast to that which is lesser as other, as can be exemplified by X > Y, which limits the greater to X by excluding Y as the lesser other.
(In terms of the overall thread: Other than boundless infinity’s possible correlation to the notion of omnipresence, I don’t see how this can make the case for God as typically conceived: e.g., the greatest being among all other beings.)
“Infinity” is fully synonymous to “unlimitedness”. [/quote]
One hears this a lot since it's a dictionary definition. But it's not the mathematical definition. In math, a quantity is infinite if it can't be put into one-to-one correspondence with some natural number like 1, 2, 3, ...; or else it's infinite if it can be placed into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
Now that's mathematical infinity. There's also physical infinity, the question of whether anything in the world is actually infinite. And there's metaphysical infinity, God, the absolute, the everything of the everything. Those aren't mathematical infinity.
Quoting javra
Yes, I agree. Mathematical infinity is the most limited or constrained or trivial kind of infinity, because it's the one we can reason symbolically about. And you are right, the set of natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ... is infinite, but it doesn't contain any ocelots or pomegranates. So it's infinite but it's not everything. That's why I agree with you that the mathematical infinity is a very trivial and limited kind of infinity.
Quoting javra
Yes, agreed. In fact just the even numbers alone, 2, 4, 6, 8, ... are infinite in number, yet missing all the odd numbers. A poor excuse for infinity. I agree. But we still have a fascinating mathematical theory of infinity, which doesn't tell us anything at all about the universe or God.
Quoting javra
I don't know anything about God or whether the physical universe is infinite, so I can't say. I agree with you though that mathematical infinity is subject to the constraint of being limited to mathematical objects only, and doesn't tell us anything about God or the physical universe.
And even Cantor's absolute infinity was a mathematical infinity, it was just the class of all ordinal numbers. So I don't even know how he got God from that. Probably why his theological ideas are long forgotten.
Quoting javra
I don't know anything about boundless or metaphysical infinity, only mathematical infinity. As a sign I once saw on a math prof's door said: Good sense about trivialities is better than nonsense about things that matter!
Quoting fishfry
:up:
I don't assert that God is. 'God is imaginary' means the same as 'there is no God'. So any assertion about an imaginary God is talk about nothing, and it doesn't matter what it asserts.