The argument also appears in contemporary dress
in Alvin Plantinga's The Nature of Necessity,
Oxford University Press, the early 80s, I think.
The way I see these things, if the inferences
follow and the premisses are true, the sucker
works! I do, of course, appreciate that people
are having this thing appear out of the blue,
and it takes some thinking about. But at the end
of the day, there's no substitute for finding
a fallacy--if not this day, another.
My point isn't that arguments like these
matter terribly in religion, but that the intellectual case
for theism is much stronger than many
people realize.
For Jim Stone: Proof that Unicorns Exist
-
peeplj
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: forever in the old hills of Arkansas
- Contact:
Actually, I don't see how it follows that if God exists, then it is a necessity for God to exist.
That premise seems to be based on a human understanding of what God would be, and on a (of course limited) human understanding of what God did do / does / would do.
I still think Russell was right: these arguments boil down to bad grammar.
--James
That premise seems to be based on a human understanding of what God would be, and on a (of course limited) human understanding of what God did do / does / would do.
I still think Russell was right: these arguments boil down to bad grammar.
--James
-
adamm
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:15 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: New York City
Douglas Adams
Has anyone considered that maybe this has all been resolved already?
Consider this, from Douglas Adams...
"The Babel fish... is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on the brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for God.'
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
..."
Consider this, from Douglas Adams...
"The Babel fish... is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on the brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for God.'
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
..."
dittos, bloomie!
or should that be dittoes? i'm too lazy today to change it.
but nevertheless: dittoes! alasdair macintyre rocks. he has two other fine books, which may be a little more accessible (IMO, his writing style does not rock): one is something like "an enquiry into three rival visions of morality" (i have it at home), and the other is his short aquinas lecture on first principles (in which he quotes gilson's "thomist realism and the critique"). he addresses not only the difficulty of communication across the ages, as it were, but also communication between contemporaneous but rival visions (or is that versions?).
yo, antstastegood, you raise an interesting point:
that in a way addresses what i was trying to do by coming up with paraphrases and neologisms or whatever, like "is-ing." back in the middle ages there was an iranian philosopher who worked in a kind of mixed neoplatonic-aristotelean pastiche (based on material he and others got from syrian christians and jews). in the latin west he was known as avicenna, but i think his proper name was ibn sina. Anyway...
he was probably best known for his contention that existence is an accident, meaning: that it is a quality, the last perfection added to a possible which makes it an actual. thomas of aquino vehemently disagreed, while recognizing the difficulty of even speaking about existing (is-ing) without reifying it (speaking of it as if it were a thing).
this is, as is now recognized, the foundation of thomas' famous 5 ways series of proofs for god: existence, he says, is not a something that is added to another something; it is simply the act of being which brings into existence an existent which has no prior being. existing is not something that comes to a possible "adventitiously" or from outside itself. it is the most inner act of an existing thing, and yet... no existing thing, by its own nature, can explain the fact that it actually is.
avicenna's way of speaking is, in fact, very convenient and common, but it leads to great difficulties (aside from its clear impossibility). it illustrates clearly how the human mind tries to reduce all reality to a format that it can handle conveniently--even when, in the case of existing, there really is no applicability. (cf. gilson's "being and some philosophers" for full, very full, details.)
i think you can see that there are real similarities between anselm and avicenna. in fact, virtually every philosopher in the overall platonic tradition (which means virtually every philosopher west of india) came up with some version of the ontological "proof."
but nevertheless: dittoes! alasdair macintyre rocks. he has two other fine books, which may be a little more accessible (IMO, his writing style does not rock): one is something like "an enquiry into three rival visions of morality" (i have it at home), and the other is his short aquinas lecture on first principles (in which he quotes gilson's "thomist realism and the critique"). he addresses not only the difficulty of communication across the ages, as it were, but also communication between contemporaneous but rival visions (or is that versions?).
yo, antstastegood, you raise an interesting point:
or something pretty close to that.a necessary condition of perfection is existence.
that in a way addresses what i was trying to do by coming up with paraphrases and neologisms or whatever, like "is-ing." back in the middle ages there was an iranian philosopher who worked in a kind of mixed neoplatonic-aristotelean pastiche (based on material he and others got from syrian christians and jews). in the latin west he was known as avicenna, but i think his proper name was ibn sina. Anyway...
he was probably best known for his contention that existence is an accident, meaning: that it is a quality, the last perfection added to a possible which makes it an actual. thomas of aquino vehemently disagreed, while recognizing the difficulty of even speaking about existing (is-ing) without reifying it (speaking of it as if it were a thing).
this is, as is now recognized, the foundation of thomas' famous 5 ways series of proofs for god: existence, he says, is not a something that is added to another something; it is simply the act of being which brings into existence an existent which has no prior being. existing is not something that comes to a possible "adventitiously" or from outside itself. it is the most inner act of an existing thing, and yet... no existing thing, by its own nature, can explain the fact that it actually is.
avicenna's way of speaking is, in fact, very convenient and common, but it leads to great difficulties (aside from its clear impossibility). it illustrates clearly how the human mind tries to reduce all reality to a format that it can handle conveniently--even when, in the case of existing, there really is no applicability. (cf. gilson's "being and some philosophers" for full, very full, details.)
i think you can see that there are real similarities between anselm and avicenna. in fact, virtually every philosopher in the overall platonic tradition (which means virtually every philosopher west of india) came up with some version of the ontological "proof."
elendil
I also like the Alisdair M book.
It may be helpful to take the word 'God' out of the
argument. It's just an
abbreviation for 'the greatest being possible' or 'a being
greater than which no other can be conceived.'
The argument works just as well.
If you take out the word 'God' and substitute what it abbreviates,
it may be clearer what Anselm is up to.
Must run. Thanks to all for the discussion. Jim
It may be helpful to take the word 'God' out of the
argument. It's just an
abbreviation for 'the greatest being possible' or 'a being
greater than which no other can be conceived.'
The argument works just as well.
If you take out the word 'God' and substitute what it abbreviates,
it may be clearer what Anselm is up to.
Must run. Thanks to all for the discussion. Jim
-
antstastegood
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:48 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Seabiscuit's stomping ground.
- Contact:
Then, I can conceive of a being with infinite wisdom, knowledge, benevolence, etc. And that would be God. But then someone like David Hume would say that it is impossible to have an idea of anything infinite.jim stone wrote:It's just an
abbreviation for 'the greatest being possible' or 'a being
greater than which no other can be conceived.'
Stimulating conversation.
Unreasonable person,
ants
|___|)____________O___O___O___o__O___O_____|
ants
|___|)____________O___O___O___o__O___O_____|
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
I think the difference between an idea and the thing itself is important. Also, I think it's important to consider the fact that there are more ways of knowing than intellect or logic, some of which may defy logic and language.
For example, the idea of a strawberry is not the same as an actual strawberry, and no amount of explanation can prepare one for the taste of a strawberry. I could write a book about the taste of strawberries, but if you've never tasted one, you would have no way of confirming whether what you had was actually a strawberry. This is something the intellect and language simply can't do. The only way to know what a strawberry tastes like is to taste one. God, I think, is like a strawberry.
Best wishes,
Jerry
For example, the idea of a strawberry is not the same as an actual strawberry, and no amount of explanation can prepare one for the taste of a strawberry. I could write a book about the taste of strawberries, but if you've never tasted one, you would have no way of confirming whether what you had was actually a strawberry. This is something the intellect and language simply can't do. The only way to know what a strawberry tastes like is to taste one. God, I think, is like a strawberry.
Best wishes,
Jerry
-
antstastegood
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:48 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Seabiscuit's stomping ground.
- Contact:
-
Sunnywindo
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Earth
<img src="http://www.maskiflynn.co.uk/smileys/blush1.gif" alt="" border="0" />Walden wrote:Sara and I may be infected of different viri, but I will gladly admit this, I have conversed with her quite a bit in the forums and in the C&F chatroom, and I can quite honestly say that she has always been one of the most consistent and wholesome people there.Sunnywindo wrote:peeplj wrote: That's true, but I think it's because religious thought, like a computer virus of the mind, is actively contagious and spreads by contact.
I don't have condescention toward the mainstream religious, rather I try to have toleration, motivated in large part by a healthy amount of respect and a knowledge that no one, including me, is ever really safe from what they carry.
--James
*sneezes in the general direction of peeplj*
Sara (one of the many happily "infected"....)
Thanks! That's sweet of you to say. It's always nice to chat with someone who is as honest and as faithful to their beliefs as you are. Even if we are both "infected" with different "viri".
Which reminds me I haven't been to Chiffy Chat much in a while. Been busy. Well, one of these evenings....
As for all this talk... if God doesn't exist, then this... if He does exist, then that.... Well, it rather reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail. Also reminiscent of something I read about the ever shifting, distorted philosophies of man... in the end so much benifiting nothing. At the end of the day, I will still gratefully hold to that which I believe is true. I've already put it to trial... and now hold the "proof" in my very soul. It's something that can't be proven to those who have already made up their minds long ago to not believe. God is hardly going to stand there and let all of mankind take their scientific scans and readings... that would be too easy and contrary to God's plan. But it does make for an interesting conversation all the same.
Sara'I wish it need not have happend in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
-LOTR-
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
-LOTR-
-
Tak_the_whistler
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Japan
I think that the concept utilised in the phrase of Mr Freeman "the idea of a strawberry is not the same as an actual strawberry," I believe, may properly be applied also to "You don't study love when you're in love."
There's a talk about "Wag the Dog". Well hey, there's nothing new under the sun.
It's said that "A fool said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"; however, I also believe that there are alot of fools who say in their hearts, 'there is no Man,' or, 'there is no words'. For to deny the validity of reason is to kill oneself; it leads, ultimately, to the world'S famous merry-go-round minus the merry.
There's a talk about "Wag the Dog". Well hey, there's nothing new under the sun.
It's said that "A fool said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"; however, I also believe that there are alot of fools who say in their hearts, 'there is no Man,' or, 'there is no words'. For to deny the validity of reason is to kill oneself; it leads, ultimately, to the world'S famous merry-go-round minus the merry.
<><
Tak
---------------------------------------
<b>"Nothing can be yours by nature."</b>
--- Lewis
Tak
---------------------------------------
<b>"Nothing can be yours by nature."</b>
--- Lewis
-
Ridseard
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Contact:
Anselm's ontological argument does not prove that God exists unconditionally. Instead, he proves (or attempts to prove) the conditional proposition: If God is possible, then God exists. It is by no means self-evident that God is possible. I can, for example, imagine a world in which there are an infinite number of (supernatural) beings, all of whom can be arranged in a list B1, B2, B3, ... such that B2 is greater than B1, B3 is greater than B2, B4 is greater than B3, etc. In this situation a greatest being is not possible. (It's wise to be wary of superlatives wherever there is the possibility that an infinite number of items are being compared. Mathematicians learn this early on.)
-
antstastegood
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:48 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Seabiscuit's stomping ground.
- Contact:
I have always liked the idea that there is no reasonable argument attacking the validity of reason.Tak_the_whistler wrote:For to deny the validity of reason is to kill oneself; it leads, ultimately, to the world'S famous merry-go-round minus the merry.
Unreasonable person,
ants
|___|)____________O___O___O___o__O___O_____|
ants
|___|)____________O___O___O___o__O___O_____|
infinity again
ridseard wrote
the same problem arise with the idea of an infinite regress in time, if we define time--with aquinas and einstein--as a measure of motion (taken in the broad sense of "change").
the series you postulate (i think this is math talk?):
at any given point in the series, there is always a specific, definite, finite number of beings. each instance in the series = one being. there can never, by definition be an infinite number of finite beings, no matter how many you add up: 1+1+1+1... never adds up to an actual infinity because "infinity" in this sense can only mean "indefinite, undefined" and no series of definite numbers can add up to an indefinite number. in the same way, there can never be an actual infinity of time (and here we encounter issues of perspective and relation, but those are really side issues).
i believe you can say you can imagine such a world, but i don't believe you really can imagine such a world. in a way, i think you align yourself with anselm here.
sorry for all the repetition. this is what i was trying to say about number being a description of limitation--speaking not mathematically but in a thomist existential sense, speaking of existing, not of conception.
are you really suggesting the possibility of an infinite number of actually existing beings? each of those beings would be 1 being, correct? i mean, B1 = 1 being, B2 = 1 being, ... together they are two beings = a finite number. however many beings you have, there will always be a finite number of them. another example: what would an infinite number of pencils look like? every finite being is, by definition, one. therefore there can never be an infinite number of finite beings, no matter how large the number.I can, for example, imagine a world in which there are an infinite number of (supernatural) beings
the same problem arise with the idea of an infinite regress in time, if we define time--with aquinas and einstein--as a measure of motion (taken in the broad sense of "change").
the series you postulate (i think this is math talk?):
looks to me like what should be called a potential infinity; a series that continues indefinitely into the future, like time. nevertheless...B1, B2, B3, ...
at any given point in the series, there is always a specific, definite, finite number of beings. each instance in the series = one being. there can never, by definition be an infinite number of finite beings, no matter how many you add up: 1+1+1+1... never adds up to an actual infinity because "infinity" in this sense can only mean "indefinite, undefined" and no series of definite numbers can add up to an indefinite number. in the same way, there can never be an actual infinity of time (and here we encounter issues of perspective and relation, but those are really side issues).
i believe you can say you can imagine such a world, but i don't believe you really can imagine such a world. in a way, i think you align yourself with anselm here.
sorry for all the repetition. this is what i was trying to say about number being a description of limitation--speaking not mathematically but in a thomist existential sense, speaking of existing, not of conception.
elendil
-
Ridseard
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Contact:
elendil, do you have trouble with Xeno's paradoxes? I fire an arrow at a target 100 ft away. It must pass the 1/2 point to the target, then the 3/4 point, then 7/8, then 15/16, then 31/32, etc. No matter where the arrow is, it still has to cross the halfway point between its location and the target. This will be a 'potential infinity' of events, each of which is short of the target. Therefore, it can never reach the target. 
Maybe an infinite number of beings seems far-fetched, but no more so than the concept of a God, all of whose attributes are superlatives.
By the way, very little can be done in the area of mathematical analysis without dealing with infinities of various sorts. For example, there are an infinity of numbers sandwiched between 1 and 2, and there are plenty of occasions when this and similar facts must be used. Of course, one can't visualize all these numbers at once, but that doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Maybe an infinite number of beings seems far-fetched, but no more so than the concept of a God, all of whose attributes are superlatives.
By the way, very little can be done in the area of mathematical analysis without dealing with infinities of various sorts. For example, there are an infinity of numbers sandwiched between 1 and 2, and there are plenty of occasions when this and similar facts must be used. Of course, one can't visualize all these numbers at once, but that doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Hi, Ridseard,
Anselm would respond I think: consider the great-making
properties of a being greater than which none other
is conceivable. It would be omniscient--for if it were
ignorant of something we could think of a greater being.
For similar reasons it would be omnipotent, eternal,
perfectly good and loving. Now some properties are
a matter of degree--two people might be tall but one
is taller than the other. Some properties are all or nothing,
however. One can't be a little bit pregnant.
On the face of things, God's great-making properties
aren't a matter of degree; they're all or nothing.
If a being is omniscient, there can't be a more knowledgeable
being. If it's omnipotent, there can't be a more powerful
being. If it's eternal, there can't be a being that lasts
longer. If it's perfectly good and loving, there can't
be a better being. God's great-making properties have
the feature that, for every one of them, if something
has it, there can't be a being that has it more.
There might be less good beings, but there
can't be a greater one. Therefore it's not the case
that God is impossible because there's an infinite
series of still greater beings.
To put it another way, 'the highest number possible'
picks out no possible number, so no possible number is the highest
number possible, so the highest number possible is
impossible. But 'the greatest being possible' picks out a possible
being such that in truth there couldn't be a greater one.
If God is impossible, therefore, it must be for another
reason.
Some philosophers have argued, by the way,
that there is an infinite series of better and better possible
worlds, so that no possible world is the best. Whatever
world God created, therefore, he could have created an
infinity of better ones. Either he would create no world
or he had to create one vastly less good than one he
could have made. Therefore the fact that we can
readily imagine a much better world than this one
provides no reason to deny the existence of
a perfectly benevolent, omniscinet, all powerful
creator. This has been offered as a solution to
the problem of evil. Best, Jim
Anselm would respond I think: consider the great-making
properties of a being greater than which none other
is conceivable. It would be omniscient--for if it were
ignorant of something we could think of a greater being.
For similar reasons it would be omnipotent, eternal,
perfectly good and loving. Now some properties are
a matter of degree--two people might be tall but one
is taller than the other. Some properties are all or nothing,
however. One can't be a little bit pregnant.
On the face of things, God's great-making properties
aren't a matter of degree; they're all or nothing.
If a being is omniscient, there can't be a more knowledgeable
being. If it's omnipotent, there can't be a more powerful
being. If it's eternal, there can't be a being that lasts
longer. If it's perfectly good and loving, there can't
be a better being. God's great-making properties have
the feature that, for every one of them, if something
has it, there can't be a being that has it more.
There might be less good beings, but there
can't be a greater one. Therefore it's not the case
that God is impossible because there's an infinite
series of still greater beings.
To put it another way, 'the highest number possible'
picks out no possible number, so no possible number is the highest
number possible, so the highest number possible is
impossible. But 'the greatest being possible' picks out a possible
being such that in truth there couldn't be a greater one.
If God is impossible, therefore, it must be for another
reason.
Some philosophers have argued, by the way,
that there is an infinite series of better and better possible
worlds, so that no possible world is the best. Whatever
world God created, therefore, he could have created an
infinity of better ones. Either he would create no world
or he had to create one vastly less good than one he
could have made. Therefore the fact that we can
readily imagine a much better world than this one
provides no reason to deny the existence of
a perfectly benevolent, omniscinet, all powerful
creator. This has been offered as a solution to
the problem of evil. Best, Jim