Where are they?
Anselm's Ontological Argument
1. If god doesn't exist then god is not the greatest being
2. God is the greatest being
Ergo,
3. God exists (1, 2 MT)
A Generalized Ontological Argument
4. If X doesn't exist then X is not the greatest
5. X is the greatest
Ergo,
6. X exists
X = the greatest island, the greatest woman, the greatest child, and so on.
Ergo, the greatest anything's got to exist.
That means, in my humble opinion, since it is apparent that, taking just one example, the greatest man doesn't exist on earth, he must exist on another planet!
[quote=Enrico Fermi (referring to aliens/ET)]Where are they?[/quote]
We're not alone! :chin:
1. If god doesn't exist then god is not the greatest being
2. God is the greatest being
Ergo,
3. God exists (1, 2 MT)
A Generalized Ontological Argument
4. If X doesn't exist then X is not the greatest
5. X is the greatest
Ergo,
6. X exists
X = the greatest island, the greatest woman, the greatest child, and so on.
Ergo, the greatest anything's got to exist.
That means, in my humble opinion, since it is apparent that, taking just one example, the greatest man doesn't exist on earth, he must exist on another planet!
[quote=Enrico Fermi (referring to aliens/ET)]Where are they?[/quote]
We're not alone! :chin:
Comments (96)
Kurt Gödel, no less, was convinced there was something to the ontological argument. He, I was led to understand, developed his own version of it. Google for more!
Bollocks. It is not inherent in the definition of the greatest man to exist. It is on the definition of god. the reason being that the greatest man need not be perfect so does not need to embody existence, whereas God due to his perfection does need to exist. See the refutation to Gaunilo's objection.
Quoting Agent Smith
Another wacky "ontological" argument to defend God's existence.
Why God has to be the "greatest" thing?
Quoting Tobias
This sounds so contradictory and even has no sense. Perfection needs to be connected to something that at least has existence because you can perceive it so accurately that you end up calling it "perfect"
So you agree that God needs to be perfect? The argument is flawed though because perfection is not connected to anything perceivable. Whether you can ascertain Go's perfection by perception does not matter one iota.
There is only one good argument fir the existence of gods. Only gods offer a reason for existence. The basics of the universe are too dumb to have brought themselves into existence. So eternal intelligences must have done that. Only when you think the universe is irrational, gods don't exist.
No, I have said that "something" needs to exists previously to be perfect. Because perfection is a characteristic we often use to describe some things or persons and these need to have existence.
For me, God is worthless. I mean I can't see why theists put on them so big characteristics.
You just killed all laws of physics, chemistry, maths, law, etc... in one flawed statement.
"God" is not a reason for existence neither a proof of knowledge. It is just a subterfuge based on faith. It is more simple than you believe
It is exactly the laws of physics I base the existence of gods on.
A proof of knowledge?
I respect your faith on God. But, please, don't mix up science with religion here. Both are incompatible
According to your own criteria:knowledge exists thanks to God...
That's wacky and flawed
Why?
One is based on knowledge and criticism (science) the other is based on faith and worship (religion). I think they're so incompatible.
The gods just created the basics of the universe. All our knowledge about these basics exists thanks to us.
Like I said, it's exactly physics I base gods on.
"Universe" is a complex astrophysical study which is based on laws of physics and mathematics. It takes years to understand what is going on there because it is so vast and it looks like unattainable for humans.
It sounds childish saying that the basics of universe comes from God.
OK. Prove God's existence through physics as you can prove the damn X-rays
Good one! :lol:
I took a years study on the origin. I have a working cosmological model, but it doesn't explain where the stuff the model describes came from.
Gods can't make themselves appear physically. That would destroy the natural order. Hidden variables could do the trick. Via the mind they could show up.
The child would be right though. I believed in god when a child. Physics took that away, and now I realize the child I was was right.
Another contradictory argument! You said you believe on him due to physics but, at the same time, you say God can't make appear physically
I am sorry someone brainwashed you. Nevertheless, it is not so late to take part in this issue and improve your critical thinking
It's you who's brainwashed by the critical though doctrine of science. Like I was. But if you would know fundamental physics, you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there.
Indeed. The universe is teeming with life. In virtually all planetary systems there are planets with life on them. There are more people up there!
If there is not an explanation of why the universe is there, then why you connect it with God's existence
Because I like to know why the universe is there. Why we are there. Gods offer an answer.
And the answer is...? Because you said previously that God doesn't appear physically but we do so.
Then, we have more evidence of existence about ourselves than God.
Why are you asking more when we already exist thanks to our knowledge?
Because I don't think we exist thanks to our knowledge that we exist. That's what I mean about the brainwash power of science, knowledge. It is the same as saying gods created the universe. Knowledge having created the universe makes no sense. The basics of the universe just popping into existence even less. So gods are left. And they had good reasons. They can show themselves via the mind, in dreams, astral projections, clouds, etc. They might even show up in double slit experiments, though i don't think they will do so.
They offer an answer to why the universe is there. The universe is there because they created the basics.
I think you are not getting the point properly. What I defend is that thanks to knowledge we can prove, at least, our existence. This is due to the act of reasoning. It is a Cartesian thought. I think, therefore I am. Knowledge is one of the most solid proofs of humankind's existence.
Note the first article given in the SEP entry on the ontological argument:
So, the question is, what could 'existence is a perfection mean'? Especially consider the manifestly imperfect nature of existence as we know it.
This refers back to the sense in which 'being' (or existence) is contrasted with absence or lack in ancient philosophy. I think that it depends on the intuition that being is an overall good (notwithstanding the problem of suffering); that it is better to be, than not to be. This is also linked to the intuition behind the 'pleroma', meaning 'the divine abundance', referring to the ever-fruitful nature of Creation which bears forth all nature's abundance (something more fully elaborated in gnostic mythology). In pagan iconography, this is depicted as the Goddess Fortuna bearing the 'horn of plenty' or Cornucopia signifying abundance or fertility.
That is the context in which 'being' is depicted as a good or a virtue, so that the absence of being or non-being constitutes a lack or deficiency.
I think it's important to call that out so as to make sense of the basic idea behind ontological arguments, although they don't make a lot of sense from a contemporary viewpoint.
You also said:
Quoting Hillary
Of course. And we don't even need knowledge for that. To live is to proof existence. But that offers no answer to the why question. Why does the universe and all life in exist in the first place? What is the reason?
Yes. And?
I would say that having found a modern, coherent cosmology furthers the case for gods.
The surprising fact here is that you are questioning both universe and human existence but you are blind towards God's one. That's the clue of our debate
That you sound so contradictory! :smirk:
The universe is there...
— Hillary
You also said:
you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there.
— Hillary— javi2541997
So, the universe is there and physics gives no explanation for it's existence. What's contradictory about that?
I know why the gods created the universe. And eternal intelligences don't need no reason to exists.
... what?
It is so contradictory from a realism argument. Physical objects and elements do exist. Simple. If the universe is there and it makes some effects, then it does exist.
Why, indeed, don't aliens try and get in touch with us?
Quoting Tobias
You maybe right, but I listened to a lecture in which a bona fide philosopher claimed that Anselm's notion of greatness is predicated on existence i.e. greatest [math]\to[/math] existence. I feel this is the keystone of his argument. Remove it and the ontological proof implodes.
:snicker:
Yes, physics describes and explains the stuff of the universe. But it doesn't explain how the stuff got there in the first place.
No? Are you aware of those theories of astrophysics which describes the beginning of out universe? What about Stephen Hawking's theories?
Like I said, I studied those theories and have a cosmological model incorporating the current universe in a wider framework which allows serial succession of big bangs. Question remains, where does that come from?
(1) And our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument.
(2) And this is to be proven, better than any demonstration through words [?????], from the observable [????????] itself.
Yes. And the observations show my model is right.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes.
This still is no answer or reason to where the basics as described by the model.
:snicker: This is not the first time you've killed my vibe! Knock some sense into me whenever you feel like it. Gracias.
Quoting Wayfarer
A coupla points:
1. A real woman is orders of magnitude better/greater than the best blowup doll money can buy. A real lion will kill you but a picture of one can't. Existence/Real > Nonexistence/Fiction.
2. Antinatalism is the only philosophy that takes issue with the perfection of existence (for reasons you alluded to in your post).
[quote=Alfred Lord Tennyson]'Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.[/quote]
[quote=Voltaire]If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.[/quote]
[quote=Mikhail Bakunin]If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him.[/quote]
[quote=Christopher Hitchens][God is a]...celestial dictator.[/quote]
Potential existence (perceived, valuable, improbable or attributed power)
Possible existence (absolute, imaginable, impossible or personally preferred)
Where does ‘God’ fit?
Possible existence: Entails no contradiction (not great)
Potential existence: In limbo between possible & actual (not great)
Actual existence: Existence proper (great-est)
God, as per Anselm, actually exists for the reason that existence contributes to greatness.
In none of them :wink:
I disagree. They fit in actual existent. The only in which they can exist! You can choose to ignore them, of course...
Quoting Hillary
How can you measure "God"? :yikes: so you have said this morning that measuring universe is wacky but at the same time time yeah, we can measure a subterfuge
Why you want to measure gods? They speak in dreams or minds.
You said:
Quoting Hillary
Actual existent: Actual existence (observed, measurable, inactive or changing)
And then you ask: Quoting Hillary
I don't know. This is what I should ask you: why do you want to measure gods?
Actual existent is not the same as measurable. If you want proof that bad, you can open your hart to them. And let them in. At least, the knowledge that they exist. Or you can look in quantum mechanical experiments.
I don't.
Why not? Measure is inside the characteristics of "Actual existent"
Quoting Hillary
Sorry but I do not understand this.
Hidden variables, a valid theory of QM, offer a means for gods to interact. But the effect is subtle. I saw them, the gods, busy in a dream. As if they told me their story.
I think you have very good arguments and a well refutation, but sadly, you end up defending God not matter the context or circumstances and that's weak
I think it's weak to deny them (and there are zillions!) if you have seen them and they spoke to you.
I never seen them and neither I want to. Pessimism and nihilistic context is more comfortable
Dear mother of god... ........
:lol:
A post of serious interest as a pleasant interlude in the knucklehead tennis match taking up most of this thread. Thanks for that.
Didn't you like our excited debate? :yum:
The temporally material universe (but eternally repeating) and life in it is a perfect copy of non-material eternal heaven. The creation of the divine matter, necessary to let life evolve, can be seen as a perfect intelligence of the gids, of which one is present in heaven for all forms of universal life. Even in-vitro people have their divine counterpart. So getting to know life is getting to know gods.
The lost generation. Gods have left the building!
Why is that an inane suggestion? It's far more probable they walk around than that we're alone.
Too many But I got over it. The problem lies in the connection of gravitons with space. String theory says that the vacuum is a condensate of closed strings, but obviously the background independence isn't achieved by this. So forget quantum gravity and look for a more modern solution. And even if it were accurate, where does the non-emergent predecessor of emergent thermodynamic time and 3d space come from?
False vacua are woowoo ad hoc. The question is where the quantum vacuum came from. There is the game with the central wormhole. If you let it have a Planck width, connect two 4d quantum vacua, the 3d confined matter, geometrical Planck structures itself, can emerge together with thermidynamic time. The 4d wormhole vacuum is eternal and timeless. It has to be created by the gods.
This statement is incoherent. Spacetime is emergent and "the question of where from" assumes space.
Dear mother of god... Now look here, ceramic conductor, the 3d space and accompanying thermodynamic time emerge on a higher dimensional pre-existing infinite quantum vacuum which itself is TD time-less. The question is where this came from. There is only one reason it exists. The specific geometrical structure including the fundamental virtual particles whirling in it, has only one reason that it exists: guess who deliver the reason?
Creationism is another doctrine. You really think they created us? Only the fundaments.
Which only goes to show that woowoo is told.
If the discussion were substantive, that would be fine, but...
...but it wasn't? Brother Clark, how substantial you want to get? The very existence of gods and the reason for existence was discussed... In one-liners, okay, thats true...
A great math guy but something of a nut case toward the end.
This thread is like a time travel back to the scholasticism of the 13th century using quantum theory to revive that ancient nonsense. String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources. :roll:
There's a resemblance, you know. The medieval debate was whether two immaterial intellects could occupy the same space. Nowadays the debate is about the meaning of super-position and how the same particle can be in two places at once. It ain't that remote. In future there will probably be scathing references to string theory as an example of the degenerate nature of 21st c physics. But, you are right, this thread is indeed a waste of electrons, over and out.
Quoting Wayfarer
It looks like @Hillary and me deserve to die because our friendly debate...
Now listen javitwofivefouroneninenineseven, just because we had a kind exchange doesn't mean we ?eserve to die! Dear sister of god...
Which is obvious nonsense! How can a particle be at two places together? It can't! Thats why an alternative QM is needed.
Quoting Wayfarer
The future is now. Strings are woowoo supreme.
I thought you might say that. :snicker:
[quote=Oscar Levant]There's a thin line between genius and insanity.[/quote]
Also, good ideas and good arguments are timeless in a manner of speaking. They're as relevant today as they were back then and they will stay so until better ones come along.
Did you know, no one's actually refuted the ontological argument to everybody's satisfaction. That speaks volumes, does it not?
:snicker:
Glitches in The Matrix aka miracles!
Pythagoras was attributed with mulitilocation (being in more than one place at the same time). That he had an identical twin was a well-guarded secret!
:snicker:
[quote=Agent Smith]How did he know about the quantum vacuum already back then?
— Hillary
He didn't.— T Clark
He didn't.
— T Clark
It looks as if though. Maybe the two are the same in disguise.— Hillary
The mind's natural habitat is the quantum world. Lao Tzu was onto something i.e. his mind did know about whatever the hell quantum vacuum is. Have you seen gravity (the dominant force at large scales) ever give a consciousness preferential treatment? On the other hand, wave function collapse is effected via consciousness.[/quote]
:snicker: I maybe right but I'm definitely not all right! WTF? Our minds matter at the quantum level (consciousness/observation - wave function collapse) but our minds can't parse it (superposition, :chin: )
I think our friend Lao Tao was indeed aware of the quantum vacuum. Why not? Every body literally wavers in it. Collapse can be objective, my dear brother Smith. Trust a brother in madness conveying this to you... Collapse is objective! Wheehaaaa!!! :lol:
:snicker: