Ontological Argument - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

asaris · 07-31-2003, 08:17 AM

Firefly--

yes, the argument you mentioned is one version of the Ontological Argument. As you might also notice, that version can only prove "if God exists, he exists". The version I gave is a different version.

CSflim

Because in the commonly accepted semantics for explaining what 'possibly' and 'necessary' mean, 'possibly' means 'true in at least one possible world', and 'necessary' means 'true in all possible worlds'.

Moonduck

Read that post closer. The omniscient horse was only the first part of my counter-objection. The second part dealt with a horse exemplifying horse-ness.

The problem with defining things into existence other than God more generally is that most concepts do not entail existence. The argument seeks to show that the concept 'God' does entail existence. Not that it includes existence, because then the argument would be circular.

Moonduck · 07-31-2003, 01:04 PM

"you're kind of assuming the human mind is capable of telekinesis."

Absolutely. However, if firefly can posit a Brain-in-a-Vat, I can certainly posit telekinesis. Still, omniscience is knowing everything, all knowledge. If one can accept the idea of omniscience, would it not therefore be less of a stretch to accept telekinesis?

Moonduck · 07-31-2003, 01:09 PM

"Read that post closer. The omniscient horse was only the first part of my counter-objection. The second part dealt with a horse exemplifying horse-ness."

As I said, I was nit-picing. I felt that the "most perfect horse" example was flawed, especially when it was extended by the idea that the "most perfect horse" would possess all perfections. I was perfectly aware of the "horseness" portion of the argument, just felt that the extension of the logic was not quite right. Again, I said I was being nit-picky.

cliche · 07-31-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moonduck
If one can accept the idea of omniscience, would it not therefore be less of a stretch to accept telekinesis?

No problems accepting telekinesis, but you're demanding that omniscience always leads to telekinesis so your BIAV can always assure itself of a beer supply. Omniscience and omnipotence are two different things. Whilst anything omnipotent could know anything (after all, it can do anything so no problems gaining any old knowledge) I don't see why it would work the other way round. You can know things without being able to do them!

CSflim · 07-31-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by asaris

CSflim
Because in the commonly accepted semantics for explaining what 'possibly' and 'necessary' mean, 'possibly' means 'true in at least one possible world', and 'necessary' means 'true in all possible worlds'.

Commonly accepted sematics does not make reality.

Defining somehting does not make it exist in any real world. We can "say" that it exists as a concept...but that is only a sematic argument, and hence pointless.
If somehting exists only as a concept it does not actually exist...ANYWHERE. In any reality.

Furthermore...something that exists "necessarily", exists necessarily WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR world.

This "ontological argument" is one of the silliest things I have ever argued against in my life. Granted it is very difficult, but that is due to purposeful and malicious misuse of language, and blatant anti-logic.

cliche · 07-31-2003, 02:07 PM

CSFlim - if something is necessarily true, it is true across the entire range of possible worlds which accept the axioms you're currently dealing with. I know the argument under discussion is full of holes, but the one you're aiming at isn't such a hole as it looks. Because the argument (wrongly) deduces the existence of God from no axioms other than those that we assume are present in all possible worlds, it therefore would hold in all those worlds.

Totally with you there on the "it is silly", but it's definitely the case that if something is necessarily true then it is true in all possible worlds. That's the definition of 'necessarily' as people have been using it previously.

Moonduck · 07-31-2003, 02:07 PM

"No problems accepting telekinesis, but you're demanding that omniscience always leads to telekinesis so your BIAV can always assure itself of a beer supply. "

Really? I said that omniscience always leads to telekinesis? I could've sworn that I didn't when I rerad my post a second or two ago. =)

I will reiterate this once more. It is a ludicrous argument. It is ludicrous because it contains such elements as omniscience, omnipotence, and a brain-in-a-vat what desires a brewski. It is, however, wonderful exercise to mentally work on these things, so why not?

Let's say that you are omniscient. You, by definition, know everything. Everything is a lot. A whole lot (Having written that, I feel like Dave Barry). Let's aslo assume, since you dislike the idea, that knowing everything about the human mind doesn't automatically allow you to untap portions of unused potential relating to telekinesis and telepathy. No sweat, right?

Knowing everything presumes that you know things far beyond the ken of mortal, modern man. Now, let's look at the odds. The universe is a damned big place. Really big (there's that Dave Barry feeling again). Mathematically, do you think we're the only planet with advanced life on it? Positing an infinite universe is standard fare these days, and, mathematically, one should find it easy to accept not only other advanced life, but life with culture, science, etc far in advance of ours. Returning to you and your omniscience, you know all about this advanced life and every other advanced lifeform, and everything about its' society and culture. An infinite universe is pretty much guaranteed to have a society what has taught itself the mighty powers of the mind. You now have that knowledge. You teach yourself TK and never have to get up to grab a PBR again.

You are on the right track in saying that omnipotence may lead to omniscience, but I'm not sure how you can accept one without it leading to the other. Omniscience is an absolute, thus it is a pretty big concept. You say that you can know things and not be able to do them. I say that if you know everything, you will know some way to do whatever it is you want to do.

Personally, I find both to be boring. What fun is it to know everything or to be able to do everything? Takes the challenge out of life.

Still, you might want to reread my post. I don't see it as demanding anything. More of having a sort of light bantering tone...

cliche · 07-31-2003, 02:18 PM

moonduck - OK, not demanding

and I see your point about everything getting silly - but I think that's philosophy for you!

The only bit I have a problem with is the "An infinite universe is pretty much guaranteed to have a society what has taught itself the mighty powers of the mind. You now have that knowledge. You teach yourself TK and never have to get up to grab a PBR again." - I don't like the assumption that just because you know how other people are able to do amazing stuff means that you should be able to yourself.

I mean, I'm quite aware of the processes by which a woman goes through the delightful process of giving birth - but I don't think (even if I knew a lot more) I could actually do so! I could modify myself, you say - but you've added in an extra stipulation. It's not simply the knowledge which would allow me to do something like that, but knowledge plus something else. And that's where I have a problem with your BIAV. Personally, I reckon it's going to remain bored and sober

CSflim · 07-31-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cliche
CSFlim - if something is necessarily true, it is true across the entire range of possible worlds which accept the axioms you're currently dealing with. I know the argument under discussion is full of holes, but the one you're aiming at isn't such a hole as it looks. Because the argument (wrongly) deduces the existence of God from no axioms other than those that we assume are present in all possible worlds, it therefore would hold in all those worlds.

Totally with you there on the "it is silly", but it's definitely the case that if something is necessarily true then it is true in all possible worlds. That's the definition of 'necessarily' as people have been using it previously.

FINE! If THAT is what your definition for necessarily is then no.7 seven CANNOT possibly be true. Much less does it logically follow from the previous facts.

7. But then God exists necessarily in that possible world.

Nope...God simply "exists" in that possible world.

And as I already stated, he does not even literraly "exist" in that world at all....becasue that is a hypothetical conceptual world...which doesn't exist!

You cannot keep redefinign words as it suits you so as to aid your argument.

Moonduck · 07-31-2003, 05:56 PM

"OK, not demanding and I see your point about everything getting silly - but I think that's philosophy for you!"

Absolutely! And I personally feel that engaging in Sophistry such as this is good practice for the real thing.

"I don't like the assumption that just because you know how other people are able to do amazing stuff means that you should be able to yourself."

Well, if you know how to do it, you should be able to do it. If you cannot do it, you, by definition, know some way to get to the point where you are capable of doing it.

"I mean, I'm quite aware of the processes by which a woman goes through the delightful process of giving birth - but I don't think (even if I knew a lot more) I could actually do so! I could modify myself, you say - but you've added in an extra stipulation."

How is it an extra stipulation? I gave no such limitations as saying that pure knowledge alone would allow you to do whatever you want. By design, perfect knowledge, in this particular iteration of the argument, does not equate to action, it merely equates to the potential for taking the correct action. An extra step is necessary in any action, and that is the act in itself.

"It's not simply the knowledge which would allow me to do something like that, but knowledge plus something else. And that's where I have a problem with your BIAV. Personally, I reckon it's going to remain bored and sober "

Why? If it knows how to get what it wants, why does it not simply take the steps necessary? Frankly, if you are omniscient, it is not so much a stretch to simply posit that you know what actions to take to attain the level of omnipotence (instant gratification omnipotence) that you are thinking of.

Lastly, of course it won't remain sober. It's a Brain-in-a-Vat, it has lackeys!

cliche · 08-01-2003, 01:07 AM

CSFlim - the point about step 7 is that if (and I appreciate this is a big if, and a load of rubbish etc) you accept all the way to step 6 - which has been generated a priori, then you have to accept step 7; that it's true in all possible worlds. I am completely in agreement with you that the earlier steps are a a load of rubbish, but the step from 6 to 7 isn't. If you can prove something a priori then it holds in all possible worlds, as the proof does not depend on the world - only the axioms of the logical system you're using. Hence 'necessary'. We haven't redefined the word during the course of the argument; it has exactly the same meaning throughout - and a very specific one which it takes on when being used in modal logic.

ie, the fact that steps 1 to 6 are a load of arse doesn't affect step 7. If the earlier ones are true, it must be. If you still don't understand, try googling "Kripke" "modal logic" or "S5 semantics". S5 is one of the stronger modal systems (greatest number of equivalence relations between possible worlds) - if I have time I may copy out part of one of my essays. Does anyone know how to get the symbols for possibly (diamond) and necessarily (square) in TFP?

cliche · 08-01-2003, 01:12 AM

Moonduck - I think this is our sticking point:

Quote:

Well, if you know how to do it, you should be able to do it. If you cannot do it, you, by definition, know some way to get to the point where you are capable of doing it.

You're making the assumption (I won't argue if it's right or wrong, merely that it is an assumption) that there is some way to get to the point of being capable of doing it. If we get totally ridiculous about this (and I know you love getting silly really

) then imagine an omniscient piece of dust - it might know all, but it may also know that there is no way for it to pour itself a beer. Something being impossible doesn't affect the omniscience; the omniscient dust/BIAV/God is allowed to know that it is impossible. Only if it is also omnipotent do we allow it to do it. So again, I really don't agree with you that omniscience always leads to omnipotence.

cliche · 08-01-2003, 01:38 AM

From Tilted Nonsense, but thought it might lighten the tone for those who haven't seen it yet!

Proofs of God's existence

asaris · 08-01-2003, 08:23 AM

I like 26.

CSflim · 08-01-2003, 01:42 PM

Thank you cliche. Your link explains what I think of the ontological view point in a far clearer way than I ever could!

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

CSflim · 08-01-2003, 03:15 PM

Does anyone here actually believe that the "Ontological Proof" actually holds any weight? Are are we just debating for the hell of it?

Anyway, I shall use the same line of logic that is used in the ontological proof to prove the non-existence of God.

The "Ontological" Proof of the non-existence of God.

Let X be the perfect proof that God does not exist.
1. X is, by definition, the greatest possible proof on the subject of the existence or not of God.
2. As the greatest proof, it has all perfections. (That is, all properties which it is better to have than not to have -- logic, completeness, etc.)
3. It is better to exist than not to exist.
4. Therefore, X has the property of existence, and has it necessarily.
5. Objection -- Actually, all that proves is that if X exists, it exists necessarily.
6. X possibly exists. Let's cash this out as "There is a possible world in which X exists."
7. But then X exists necessarily in that possible world.
8. So X exists in all possible worlds.
9. The actual world is a possible world.
10. Therefore, X exists in the actual world.
11. X is a proof of the non-existence of God
12. Therefore God doesn't exist.

nietzsche · 08-01-2003, 03:52 PM

CSflim, your "The "Ontological" Proof of the non-existence of God."
argument as well as cliche's unicorn idea lack one major point. "x" and "unicorns" have no intrinsic maximums (as explained on the same site you quoted earlier). There is nothing to gauge the greatness of X.

Moonduck · 08-01-2003, 03:56 PM

"So again, I really don't agree with you that omniscience always leads to omnipotence."

*shrug* I think it does, and I agree that we are at a sticking point. With sufficient knowlegde and work, anything is possible.

cliche · 08-01-2003, 04:18 PM

CSflim - I hope you don't intend to take that proof to its logical conclusion and prove all of us out of existence

Careful, it's a powerful tool (or hideously flawed as I think all of us have decided during our discussions over the last few days)

cliche · 08-01-2003, 04:22 PM

nietzsche - so we just have to define our concept with a few intrinsic maxima. Though your point does throw up an interesting possible objection to the ontological argument - that unless all the properties we use to judge God's "perfection" have intrinsic maxima, the whole thing falls flat...

nietzsche · 08-01-2003, 07:53 PM

Again I am mostly paraphrasing this response from the following website: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ont-arg.htm

The ontological argument is specific to the case of our so called "being which no greater can be conceived". Read into Gaunilo's Criticism in which he tries to use the o. argument to prove that since we can imagine a greatest possible island it must therefore exist. The problem lies here: with what do we gauge the greatness of this island? Its abundance of fruit? There is no intrinsic maximum to which we can associate with fruit abundance--we can always imagine a greater abundance. In the case of a so called god we assign him properties/perfections such as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent we can define in our own minds what these mean. Omnipotent, simple to understand, power over everything. If a being is unable to exert power in any situation it obviously does not hold the status of being omnipotent.

Secondly, it should be mentioned that St.Anselm developed to Ontological argument. The first uses the claim that existence is a property, that is it is greater to exist in the mind and reality than to just exist in the mind. Anselm himself realized a problem with this argument, which Kant would later explain, in that existence is not a property merely "a metaphysically necessary condition for the instantiation of any property". So his second version, the one quoted earlier by asaris, uses necessary existence as a property.

Nice to see such active participation on this thread, thanks!

CSflim · 08-02-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nietzsche
CSflim, your "The "Ontological" Proof of the non-existence of God."
argument as well as cliche's unicorn idea lack one major point. "x" and "unicorns" have no intrinsic maximums (as explained on the same site you quoted earlier). There is nothing to gauge the greatness of X.

X has no intrinsic maximum? Says who? How does a "being" have an absolute and universal gague of greatness, and an argument does not?

nietzsche · 08-02-2003, 04:41 PM

How can X have intrinsic maximum? The context alone in which you use 'x'--as a proof--shows that it does not have intrinsic maximum. A proof can not possess intrinsic maximum.

You tell me what we are gauging the greatness of "X" by.

The ontological argument is extremely application specific. It was designed as an answer to the existence of the greatest possible being which no greater can be conceived. With that title this being is immediately associated with the properties of ominpotent, omniscient..etc. These are the attributes that have intrinsic maximum.

If you claim x to be omniscient, omnipotent etc. then x is merely a place holder for god (a + 2 = 4, a still equals two regardless of what you call it). For by definition the greatest possible being which no greater can be conceived is god.

08-02-2003, 05:15 PM

You can try to explain God through the eye of flesh or the eye of mind all you want, but it will not work. It is like trying to do a math problem using the 5 senses.

cliche · 08-03-2003, 01:15 AM

nietzsche - the proof, however, works so long as your concept is defined by all and only properties with intrinsic maxima (I'm not sure that our concept of God fulfils this, but never mind). So all CSFlim has to do is define a concept which fulfils this, ensuring that "existence" is in some way included, and instantly has a "proof" that it exists.

nietzsche · 08-03-2003, 06:50 AM

cliche--when St. Anselm uses the term "a being which no greater can be conceived" his concept of God possesses all and only properties with intrinsic maximums. Personally Im an atheist so I do not agree with any definition of what his or anyone else's god is. But since Anselm defines what he means by god his argument stays sound.

True if CSflim can think of an ojbect/concept that possess all intrinsic maximums then, yes, he can use the Ontological argument to prove its existence. My question is this: what is that object/concept?

cliche · 08-03-2003, 09:51 AM

nietzsche - I think CSflim's object needs simply to be composed only of intrinsic maxima (one of which must be, or include existence); I'm sure we can come up with something without falling into the "but that's God then" trap.

But my main argument with Anselm is that he is, as you say, defining God using only properties with these maxima - but you have to be very careful to only specify properties with these maxima; the moment you specify something else the argument falls apart like searching for "the largest number". So I'd like to see Anselm's "God" specified a bit more exactly.

nietzsche · 08-03-2003, 06:29 PM

If anyone can think of an object that is defined only by properties which have intrinsic maximum, and more importantly possess the intrinsic maximum of these properties please let us know.

The Ontological Argument was put forth by St. Anselm in a work entitled "Proslogium", I have not read this work. It;s possible that St. Anselm goes into greater detail in defining his concept of God.

Marburg · 08-03-2003, 10:27 PM

I was thinking about the omniscient brain in a vat situation.

If the biav really was omniscient (aka knows everything) then it would know "how to get a beer if you were a brain in a vat." Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient.

Therefor omniscient infers omnipotence, because you would know how to accomplish anything in any situation with any amount of resources.

This whole 'Ontological Argument' discussion had made believe that concepts such as 'perfect' and 'omni~' are just barely concepts, let alone anything applicable.

cliche · 08-03-2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

it would know "how to get a beer if you were a brain in a vat." Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient

Marburg - my point is that it might know that it's impossible for it to get a beer. I mean, assuming we take the laws of thermodynamics as given (if not, substitute your own favourite unbreakable law of maths/physics/anything), but the brain would know that "you can't get (and keep - for those who want to talk about vacuum energy) energy out of nothing". It doesn't make physics professors any less knowledgeable that they know something cannot be done.

However, if you believe that there is no unbreakable law then you and Moonduck are right - but then think about a BIAV that wants to make 2+2=5 or something!

Brdd99boy · 08-04-2003, 06:18 AM

I think Paley's teleological argument is stronger (not withstanding Gaunilo's "perfect island" reply)

cliche · 08-04-2003, 06:40 AM

Brd99boy - what do you like about the teleological argument?

For those that haven't heard of it, it's the "the universe is complicated so there must be a creator, just as a complicated watch must have been made by a watchmaker". Doesn't strike me as particularly strong bearing in mind things like fractals - who would have thought something as beautiful as the Mandelbrot set would have come from something as simple as z -> z*z+c?
Gaunilo's "perfect island" is what we've been discussing for a bit (as "perfect horse", CSflim's interesting "perfect proof for the non-existence of God")

Brdd99boy · 08-04-2003, 06:53 AM

your example just further supports the telelogical argument - the universe is far more complicated than a watch which means it is even more unlikely to have happened without design

Brdd99boy · 08-04-2003, 07:20 AM

cliche
I made an error when I said Gaunilo's "perfect island" was the reply to Paley. Wormsley Glen (where everyone had an alarm clock with the exact time for each individual to awake) was the reply to Paley

Moonduck · 08-04-2003, 07:42 AM

Cliche, how many times in the history of man have we come up with some axiom based on empirical observation, only to rpove much later that it was a false assumption, and that what was observed was innaccurate? Aristotle'sclassification work was accepted whole cloth for quite some time until some bright boy postulated a better system (I'm no scientist to recall who came with the modern genus/order/species/etc system, and far too lazy to look it up).

Simply because our inherently limited persepective sees something as impossible, why would you assume that an entity whose perspective infinitely exceeds ours would not also see what we think of as impossible is actually simply difficult, or perhaps even easy? Again, I say that when one brings in such absolutes as omniscience, one cannot rationally limit said concept. Knowing everything is fairly unlimited after all.

cliche · 08-04-2003, 09:16 AM

Moonduck - I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of things that would seem possible now that might be in the future; I just don't agree with your assertion that anything is possible, by an individual, regardless of situation (even lacking arms etc). What if "the way" for the BIAV to 'unlock the telekinetic potential of its mind' involved use of a tinfoil hat. The BIAV could sit quite happily knowing it could have telekinesis, except for the lack of hat. (or insert more palatable example, you can see where I'm going)

All I am saying is that knowing that something is impossible is a form of knowledge. You said earlier that the BIAV must 'know how to do X' because 'Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient' - but what if it simply knows that it can't be done.

I agree that we can be limited, and that things we currently consider impossible might one day be realised to be so - but you seem to be making the very strong claim that not only is nothing impossible, but that everything is possible for everyone.

Alternatively, it could be that you have found a flaw with the concept of omniscience:

assumption 1 - 'x is omniscient' means that for all actions A, x knows how to do A (aka Moonduck's assumption

)
assumption 2a - there exists at least one action, B, and one person, y, such that is impossible for y to do B (aka cliche's weak assumption)
- or -
assumption 2b - there exists at least one action, B, such that for all persons y, it is impossible for y to do B (cliche's strong assumption)

(I like this bit because we get to use our ideas together rather than arguing as we have been doing

):

Combining 1 + 2a : it is impossible for y to be omniscient; for if we claim he knows everything we fall into the trap you mentioned earlier: 'Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient'

Combining 1 + 2b (my favourite) : omniscience is impossible

What do you think?

cliche · 08-04-2003, 09:21 AM

Brdd99boy - not convinced; are you claiming that 'z -> z*z+c' is complicated? Or are you claiming that God made the equation work out in that beautiful way - that God is above the realm of logical possibility rather than 'only' physical possibility. In short, that God could make 2+2=5 (OMG, potential major arguments/debate starting here!

)

Also, any chance you could spell out the Wormsley Glen argument? I'm not sure if I've heard it.

asaris · 08-04-2003, 11:20 AM

The question would then arise, cliche, what it means for B to be an action, if it is such that there is no agent who can perform B. It seems to me that for some x to be an action, there has to be a possible agent y who can perform x. To put it slightly differently, I would want to maintain that, for all actions x, there is a possible agent y, such that y can perform x.

nietzsche · 08-04-2003, 03:38 PM

I agree with asaris, for x to be even considered an action there MUST be a person(s) capable of performing that action.

With this reasoning we can assume that walking down the street is a logical action while walking perpendicular up a wall, without any aid, is not, or at least not until someone is able to accomplish it.

In my opinion, omniscient and omnipotent are completely independent. Say I am omniscient (yay go me) and I know that a country is about to launch a nuclear weaopn at another. This knowledge does not in itself give me the power to stop this attack, unless you want to go into the somewhat gray area that mankind hs not yet unlocked a power in his brain to control objects/people through thought. I don't want to bring the realm of supernatural powers into this philosophical debate.

My point is omniscience does not infer omnipotence.

Brdd99boy · 08-04-2003, 08:09 PM

cliche
Wormsley Glen (the name of a village)
A person like Paley visited Wormlsey Glen and he noticed that everyone had an alarm clock that was preset and everyone in the village had an alarm clock that was set to go off at the exact time to enable every one to get up eat breakfast and get to work on time. Every one went to work at a different time. The villagers explained that they found a pile of alarm clocks that someone (apparently God) had put there and amazingly everyone had picked the right alarm clock that went off at the exact time they needed.
He concluded that was too much of a coincidence to be random and it was by magnificant design. But what he did not know was there were only 200 people living in Wormsley GLen at that time but there had been 200,000 people living there when they found the pile of alarm clocks and 99.9% of the people picked up alarm clocks that did not go off at the right time and they got to work at the wrong time and got fired and starved to death. What he saw was only what remained after the 199,800 had died off.
Many say that when we see what appears to be a perfectly designed universe, they don't realize that there are many imperfections in the universe but the imperfections don't survive and we don't see all the imperfecton.

07-31-2003, 08:17 AM	#41 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Firefly-- yes, the argument you mentioned is one version of the Ontological Argument. As you might also notice, that version can only prove "if God exists, he exists". The version I gave is a different version. CSflim Because in the commonly accepted semantics for explaining what 'possibly' and 'necessary' mean, 'possibly' means 'true in at least one possible world', and 'necessary' means 'true in all possible worlds'. Moonduck Read that post closer. The omniscient horse was only the first part of my counter-objection. The second part dealt with a horse exemplifying horse-ness. The problem with defining things into existence other than God more generally is that most concepts do not entail existence. The argument seeks to show that the concept 'God' does entail existence. Not that it includes existence, because then the argument would be circular. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

07-31-2003, 02:07 PM	#46 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	CSFlim - if something is necessarily true, it is true across the entire range of possible worlds which accept the axioms you're currently dealing with. I know the argument under discussion is full of holes, but the one you're aiming at isn't such a hole as it looks. Because the argument (wrongly) deduces the existence of God from no axioms other than those that we assume are present in all possible worlds, it therefore would hold in all those worlds. Totally with you there on the "it is silly", but it's definitely the case that if something is necessarily true then it is true in all possible worlds. That's the definition of 'necessarily' as people have been using it previously. __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

07-31-2003, 02:18 PM	#48 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	moonduck - OK, not demanding and I see your point about everything getting silly - but I think that's philosophy for you! The only bit I have a problem with is the "An infinite universe is pretty much guaranteed to have a society what has taught itself the mighty powers of the mind. You now have that knowledge. You teach yourself TK and never have to get up to grab a PBR again." - I don't like the assumption that just because you know how other people are able to do amazing stuff means that you should be able to yourself. I mean, I'm quite aware of the processes by which a woman goes through the delightful process of giving birth - but I don't think (even if I knew a lot more) I could actually do so! I could modify myself, you say - but you've added in an extra stipulation. It's not simply the knowledge which would allow me to do something like that, but knowledge plus something else. And that's where I have a problem with your BIAV. Personally, I reckon it's going to remain bored and sober __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-01-2003, 01:07 AM	#51 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	CSFlim - the point about step 7 is that if (and I appreciate this is a big if, and a load of rubbish etc) you accept all the way to step 6 - which has been generated a priori, then you have to accept step 7; that it's true in all possible worlds. I am completely in agreement with you that the earlier steps are a a load of rubbish, but the step from 6 to 7 isn't. If you can prove something a priori then it holds in all possible worlds, as the proof does not depend on the world - only the axioms of the logical system you're using. Hence 'necessary'. We haven't redefined the word during the course of the argument; it has exactly the same meaning throughout - and a very specific one which it takes on when being used in modal logic. ie, the fact that steps 1 to 6 are a load of arse doesn't affect step 7. If the earlier ones are true, it must be. If you still don't understand, try googling "Kripke" "modal logic" or "S5 semantics". S5 is one of the stronger modal systems (greatest number of equivalence relations between possible worlds) - if I have time I may copy out part of one of my essays. Does anyone know how to get the symbols for possibly (diamond) and necessarily (square) in TFP? __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-01-2003, 01:38 AM	#53 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	From Tilted Nonsense, but thought it might lighten the tone for those who haven't seen it yet! Proofs of God's existence __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

07-31-2003, 01:04 PM	#42 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"you're kind of assuming the human mind is capable of telekinesis." Absolutely. However, if firefly can posit a Brain-in-a-Vat, I can certainly posit telekinesis. Still, omniscience is knowing everything, all knowledge. If one can accept the idea of omniscience, would it not therefore be less of a stretch to accept telekinesis?

07-31-2003, 01:09 PM	#43 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"Read that post closer. The omniscient horse was only the first part of my counter-objection. The second part dealt with a horse exemplifying horse-ness." As I said, I was nit-picing. I felt that the "most perfect horse" example was flawed, especially when it was extended by the idea that the "most perfect horse" would possess all perfections. I was perfectly aware of the "horseness" portion of the argument, just felt that the extension of the logic was not quite right. Again, I said I was being nit-picky.

07-31-2003, 02:07 PM	#47 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"No problems accepting telekinesis, but you're demanding that omniscience always leads to telekinesis so your BIAV can always assure itself of a beer supply. " Really? I said that omniscience always leads to telekinesis? I could've sworn that I didn't when I rerad my post a second or two ago. =) I will reiterate this once more. It is a ludicrous argument. It is ludicrous because it contains such elements as omniscience, omnipotence, and a brain-in-a-vat what desires a brewski. It is, however, wonderful exercise to mentally work on these things, so why not? Let's say that you are omniscient. You, by definition, know everything. Everything is a lot. A whole lot (Having written that, I feel like Dave Barry). Let's aslo assume, since you dislike the idea, that knowing everything about the human mind doesn't automatically allow you to untap portions of unused potential relating to telekinesis and telepathy. No sweat, right? Knowing everything presumes that you know things far beyond the ken of mortal, modern man. Now, let's look at the odds. The universe is a damned big place. Really big (there's that Dave Barry feeling again). Mathematically, do you think we're the only planet with advanced life on it? Positing an infinite universe is standard fare these days, and, mathematically, one should find it easy to accept not only other advanced life, but life with culture, science, etc far in advance of ours. Returning to you and your omniscience, you know all about this advanced life and every other advanced lifeform, and everything about its' society and culture. An infinite universe is pretty much guaranteed to have a society what has taught itself the mighty powers of the mind. You now have that knowledge. You teach yourself TK and never have to get up to grab a PBR again. You are on the right track in saying that omnipotence may lead to omniscience, but I'm not sure how you can accept one without it leading to the other. Omniscience is an absolute, thus it is a pretty big concept. You say that you can know things and not be able to do them. I say that if you know everything, you will know some way to do whatever it is you want to do. Personally, I find both to be boring. What fun is it to know everything or to be able to do everything? Takes the challenge out of life. Still, you might want to reread my post. I don't see it as demanding anything. More of having a sort of light bantering tone...

07-31-2003, 05:56 PM	#50 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"OK, not demanding and I see your point about everything getting silly - but I think that's philosophy for you!" Absolutely! And I personally feel that engaging in Sophistry such as this is good practice for the real thing. "I don't like the assumption that just because you know how other people are able to do amazing stuff means that you should be able to yourself." Well, if you know how to do it, you should be able to do it. If you cannot do it, you, by definition, know some way to get to the point where you are capable of doing it. "I mean, I'm quite aware of the processes by which a woman goes through the delightful process of giving birth - but I don't think (even if I knew a lot more) I could actually do so! I could modify myself, you say - but you've added in an extra stipulation." How is it an extra stipulation? I gave no such limitations as saying that pure knowledge alone would allow you to do whatever you want. By design, perfect knowledge, in this particular iteration of the argument, does not equate to action, it merely equates to the potential for taking the correct action. An extra step is necessary in any action, and that is the act in itself. "It's not simply the knowledge which would allow me to do something like that, but knowledge plus something else. And that's where I have a problem with your BIAV. Personally, I reckon it's going to remain bored and sober " Why? If it knows how to get what it wants, why does it not simply take the steps necessary? Frankly, if you are omniscient, it is not so much a stretch to simply posit that you know what actions to take to attain the level of omnipotence (instant gratification omnipotence) that you are thinking of. Lastly, of course it won't remain sober. It's a Brain-in-a-Vat, it has lackeys!

08-01-2003, 08:23 AM	#54 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I like 26. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

08-01-2003, 01:42 PM	#55 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Thank you cliche. Your link explains what I think of the ontological view point in a far clearer way than I ever could! ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) I can conceive of a perfect God. (2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence. (3) Therefore, God exists. __________________

08-01-2003, 03:15 PM	#56 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Does anyone here actually believe that the "Ontological Proof" actually holds any weight? Are are we just debating for the hell of it? Anyway, I shall use the same line of logic that is used in the ontological proof to prove the non-existence of God. The "Ontological" Proof of the non-existence of God. Let X be the perfect proof that God does not exist. 1. X is, by definition, the greatest possible proof on the subject of the existence or not of God. 2. As the greatest proof, it has all perfections. (That is, all properties which it is better to have than not to have -- logic, completeness, etc.) 3. It is better to exist than not to exist. 4. Therefore, X has the property of existence, and has it necessarily. 5. Objection -- Actually, all that proves is that if X exists, it exists necessarily. 6. X possibly exists. Let's cash this out as "There is a possible world in which X exists." 7. But then X exists necessarily in that possible world. 8. So X exists in all possible worlds. 9. The actual world is a possible world. 10. Therefore, X exists in the actual world. 11. X is a proof of the non-existence of God 12. Therefore God doesn't exist. __________________

08-01-2003, 03:52 PM	#57 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	CSflim, your "The "Ontological" Proof of the non-existence of God." argument as well as cliche's unicorn idea lack one major point. "x" and "unicorns" have no intrinsic maximums (as explained on the same site you quoted earlier). There is nothing to gauge the greatness of X. __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-01-2003, 03:56 PM	#58 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"So again, I really don't agree with you that omniscience always leads to omnipotence." shrug I think it does, and I agree that we are at a sticking point. With sufficient knowlegde and work, anything is possible.

08-01-2003, 04:18 PM	#59 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	CSflim - I hope you don't intend to take that proof to its logical conclusion and prove all of us out of existence Careful, it's a powerful tool (or hideously flawed as I think all of us have decided during our discussions over the last few days) __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-01-2003, 04:22 PM	#60 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	nietzsche - so we just have to define our concept with a few intrinsic maxima. Though your point does throw up an interesting possible objection to the ontological argument - that unless all the properties we use to judge God's "perfection" have intrinsic maxima, the whole thing falls flat... __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-01-2003, 07:53 PM	#61 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	Again I am mostly paraphrasing this response from the following website: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ont-arg.htm The ontological argument is specific to the case of our so called "being which no greater can be conceived". Read into Gaunilo's Criticism in which he tries to use the o. argument to prove that since we can imagine a greatest possible island it must therefore exist. The problem lies here: with what do we gauge the greatness of this island? Its abundance of fruit? There is no intrinsic maximum to which we can associate with fruit abundance--we can always imagine a greater abundance. In the case of a so called god we assign him properties/perfections such as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent we can define in our own minds what these mean. Omnipotent, simple to understand, power over everything. If a being is unable to exert power in any situation it obviously does not hold the status of being omnipotent. Secondly, it should be mentioned that St.Anselm developed to Ontological argument. The first uses the claim that existence is a property, that is it is greater to exist in the mind and reality than to just exist in the mind. Anselm himself realized a problem with this argument, which Kant would later explain, in that existence is not a property merely "a metaphysically necessary condition for the instantiation of any property". So his second version, the one quoted earlier by asaris, uses necessary existence as a property. Nice to see such active participation on this thread, thanks! __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-02-2003, 04:41 PM	#63 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	How can X have intrinsic maximum? The context alone in which you use 'x'--as a proof--shows that it does not have intrinsic maximum. A proof can not possess intrinsic maximum. You tell me what we are gauging the greatness of "X" by. The ontological argument is extremely application specific. It was designed as an answer to the existence of the greatest possible being which no greater can be conceived. With that title this being is immediately associated with the properties of ominpotent, omniscient..etc. These are the attributes that have intrinsic maximum. If you claim x to be omniscient, omnipotent etc. then x is merely a place holder for god (a + 2 = 4, a still equals two regardless of what you call it). For by definition the greatest possible being which no greater can be conceived is god. __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-02-2003, 05:15 PM	#64 (permalink)
mepitans Guest	You can try to explain God through the eye of flesh or the eye of mind all you want, but it will not work. It is like trying to do a math problem using the 5 senses.

08-03-2003, 01:15 AM	#65 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	nietzsche - the proof, however, works so long as your concept is defined by all and only properties with intrinsic maxima (I'm not sure that our concept of God fulfils this, but never mind). So all CSFlim has to do is define a concept which fulfils this, ensuring that "existence" is in some way included, and instantly has a "proof" that it exists. __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-03-2003, 06:50 AM	#66 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	cliche--when St. Anselm uses the term "a being which no greater can be conceived" his concept of God possesses all and only properties with intrinsic maximums. Personally Im an atheist so I do not agree with any definition of what his or anyone else's god is. But since Anselm defines what he means by god his argument stays sound. True if CSflim can think of an ojbect/concept that possess all intrinsic maximums then, yes, he can use the Ontological argument to prove its existence. My question is this: what is that object/concept? __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-03-2003, 09:51 AM	#67 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	nietzsche - I think CSflim's object needs simply to be composed only of intrinsic maxima (one of which must be, or include existence); I'm sure we can come up with something without falling into the "but that's God then" trap. But my main argument with Anselm is that he is, as you say, defining God using only properties with these maxima - but you have to be very careful to only specify properties with these maxima; the moment you specify something else the argument falls apart like searching for "the largest number". So I'd like to see Anselm's "God" specified a bit more exactly. __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-03-2003, 06:29 PM	#68 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	If anyone can think of an object that is defined only by properties which have intrinsic maximum, and more importantly possess the intrinsic maximum of these properties please let us know. The Ontological Argument was put forth by St. Anselm in a work entitled "Proslogium", I have not read this work. It;s possible that St. Anselm goes into greater detail in defining his concept of God. __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-03-2003, 10:27 PM	#69 (permalink)
Marburg Crazy Location: Nova Scotia, Canada	I was thinking about the omniscient brain in a vat situation. If the biav really was omniscient (aka knows everything) then it would know "how to get a beer if you were a brain in a vat." Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient. Therefor omniscient infers omnipotence, because you would know how to accomplish anything in any situation with any amount of resources. This whole 'Ontological Argument' discussion had made believe that concepts such as 'perfect' and 'omni~' are just barely concepts, let alone anything applicable. __________________ Ask a simple question... get pain.

08-04-2003, 06:18 AM	#71 (permalink)
Brdd99boy Banned Location: kyle	I think Paley's teleological argument is stronger (not withstanding Gaunilo's "perfect island" reply)

08-04-2003, 06:40 AM	#72 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	Brd99boy - what do you like about the teleological argument? For those that haven't heard of it, it's the "the universe is complicated so there must be a creator, just as a complicated watch must have been made by a watchmaker". Doesn't strike me as particularly strong bearing in mind things like fractals - who would have thought something as beautiful as the Mandelbrot set would have come from something as simple as z -> zz+c? Gaunilo's "perfect island" is what we've been discussing for a bit (as "perfect horse", CSflim's interesting "perfect proof for the non-existence of God") __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)*

08-04-2003, 06:53 AM	#73 (permalink)
Brdd99boy Banned Location: kyle	your example just further supports the telelogical argument - the universe is far more complicated than a watch which means it is even more unlikely to have happened without design

08-04-2003, 07:20 AM	#74 (permalink)
Brdd99boy Banned Location: kyle	cliche I made an error when I said Gaunilo's "perfect island" was the reply to Paley. Wormsley Glen (where everyone had an alarm clock with the exact time for each individual to awake) was the reply to Paley

08-04-2003, 07:42 AM	#75 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	Cliche, how many times in the history of man have we come up with some axiom based on empirical observation, only to rpove much later that it was a false assumption, and that what was observed was innaccurate? Aristotle'sclassification work was accepted whole cloth for quite some time until some bright boy postulated a better system (I'm no scientist to recall who came with the modern genus/order/species/etc system, and far too lazy to look it up). Simply because our inherently limited persepective sees something as impossible, why would you assume that an entity whose perspective infinitely exceeds ours would not also see what we think of as impossible is actually simply difficult, or perhaps even easy? Again, I say that when one brings in such absolutes as omniscience, one cannot rationally limit said concept. Knowing everything is fairly unlimited after all.

08-04-2003, 09:16 AM	#76 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	Moonduck - I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of things that would seem possible now that might be in the future; I just don't agree with your assertion that anything is possible, by an individual, regardless of situation (even lacking arms etc). What if "the way" for the BIAV to 'unlock the telekinetic potential of its mind' involved use of a tinfoil hat. The BIAV could sit quite happily knowing it could have telekinesis, except for the lack of hat. (or insert more palatable example, you can see where I'm going) All I am saying is that knowing that something is impossible is a form of knowledge. You said earlier that the BIAV must 'know how to do X' because 'Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient' - but what if it simply knows that it can't be done. I agree that we can be limited, and that things we currently consider impossible might one day be realised to be so - but you seem to be making the very strong claim that not only is nothing impossible, but that everything is possible for everyone. Alternatively, it could be that you have found a flaw with the concept of omniscience: assumption 1 - 'x is omniscient' means that for all actions A, x knows how to do A (aka Moonduck's assumption ) assumption 2a - there exists at least one action, B, and one person, y, such that is impossible for y to do B (aka cliche's weak assumption) - or - assumption 2b - there exists at least one action, B, such that for all persons y, it is impossible for y to do B (cliche's strong assumption) (I like this bit because we get to use our ideas together rather than arguing as we have been doing ): Combining 1 + 2a : it is impossible for y to be omniscient; for if we claim he knows everything we fall into the trap you mentioned earlier: 'Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient' Combining 1 + 2b (my favourite) : omniscience is impossible What do you think? __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-04-2003, 09:21 AM	#77 (permalink)
cliche Rookie Location: Oxford, UK	Brdd99boy - not convinced; are you claiming that 'z -> zz+c' is complicated? Or are you claiming that God made* the equation work out in that beautiful way - that God is above the realm of logical possibility rather than 'only' physical possibility. In short, that God could make 2+2=5 (OMG, potential major arguments/debate starting here! ) Also, any chance you could spell out the Wormsley Glen argument? I'm not sure if I've heard it. __________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

08-04-2003, 11:20 AM	#78 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	The question would then arise, cliche, what it means for B to be an action, if it is such that there is no agent who can perform B. It seems to me that for some x to be an action, there has to be a possible agent y who can perform x. To put it slightly differently, I would want to maintain that, for all actions x, there is a possible agent y, such that y can perform x. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

08-04-2003, 03:38 PM	#79 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	I agree with asaris, for x to be even considered an action there MUST be a person(s) capable of performing that action. With this reasoning we can assume that walking down the street is a logical action while walking perpendicular up a wall, without any aid, is not, or at least not until someone is able to accomplish it. In my opinion, omniscient and omnipotent are completely independent. Say I am omniscient (yay go me) and I know that a country is about to launch a nuclear weaopn at another. This knowledge does not in itself give me the power to stop this attack, unless you want to go into the somewhat gray area that mankind hs not yet unlocked a power in his brain to control objects/people through thought. I don't want to bring the realm of supernatural powers into this philosophical debate. My point is omniscience does not infer omnipotence. __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-04-2003, 08:09 PM	#80 (permalink)
Brdd99boy Banned Location: kyle	cliche Wormsley Glen (the name of a village) A person like Paley visited Wormlsey Glen and he noticed that everyone had an alarm clock that was preset and everyone in the village had an alarm clock that was set to go off at the exact time to enable every one to get up eat breakfast and get to work on time. Every one went to work at a different time. The villagers explained that they found a pile of alarm clocks that someone (apparently God) had put there and amazingly everyone had picked the right alarm clock that went off at the exact time they needed. He concluded that was too much of a coincidence to be random and it was by magnificant design. But what he did not know was there were only 200 people living in Wormsley GLen at that time but there had been 200,000 people living there when they found the pile of alarm clocks and 99.9% of the people picked up alarm clocks that did not go off at the right time and they got to work at the wrong time and got fired and starved to death. What he saw was only what remained after the 199,800 had died off. Many say that when we see what appears to be a perfectly designed universe, they don't realize that there are many imperfections in the universe but the imperfections don't survive and we don't see all the imperfecton.