Analysis of Hartshorne's (1962) Proof of the Existence of God

[AKG]

GD is just for fun, the philosophy forum isn't.

Because Owen Holden asked what people think about the example he posted about trying to justify the existence of "god". I told him I think it's pointless, and it is. No one is going to prove or disprove it.

If you're not posting in this thread "just for fun" or for no good reason, i.e. if you think your posts are really relevant, then why don't you bother to provide some sort of argument for your position? You might notice that "No one is going to prove or disprove it," is a rather strong epistemic claim, care to substantiate it? You also claimed that what Owen posted did not have enough substance to be discussed. Assuming you understand the argument he presented, why does it lack substance? You made some flippant comment suggesting that fairies, unicorns, and God are all the same. Care to justify that? As I suggested, God (in the context of this argument) refers to the greatest possible being, therefore, it is a necessary being. Unicorns aren't necessary beings, so clearly, they aren't the same.

As you observantly pointed out, this is the philosophy forum, not GD. But philosophy doesn't consist of throwing out random comments about fairies, exclamations of how pointless the topic is, and strong claims with no justification, it consists of making claims (strong or otherwise) and justifying them. If this is a pointless activity for you, don't do it, and don't waste space in the thread. Otherwise, please justify the claims you do make, and refrain from making other irrelevant comments.

 

[Integral]

My proof that god does not exist:

God is perfect,
Nothing that exists is perfect. (This could be seen as a result of HUP)
Therefore God Does not exist.

It certainly is up to the believers to prove the existence of their concept of god. First of all there are as many different concepts of god as there are religions. Which one are you talking about? The first step is to define what you mean by god. With out definitions all that follows is nonsense.

I have my concept of god, I am happy with that concept, it may well be meaningless to anyone else, so I keep my concepts to myself, unless specifically asked to share them. I only wish that others would have this same respect of personal believes.

The OP assumed his result the instant he writes \exists p

 

[Evo]

As I suggested, God (in the context of this argument) refers to the greatest possible being, therefore, it is a necessary being. Unicorns aren't necessary beings, so clearly, they aren't the same.

You say "Unicorns aren't necessary beings, so clearly, they aren't the same" Ok, prove it. Prove Unicorns aren't the most necessary beings. You can't and it's silly of me to ask you to do so.

Since you disagree so vehemently with me that discussing that formula as a proof of a god will end up being pointless, than why haven't you said what new proof or conclusions - what "point" there would be to discussing it? All you have done is attack me for admitting I see no merit in it. I already said why I think it's pointless in a previous post, if you disagree, then you need to say why. I do not see the formula as a basis for a meaningful philosophical discussion.

I will go further and say that I think any discussion of if there is one god or one hundred or none or whose god is better is pointless. Hey, if you think there is a point, you're free to post your opinion.

That's not to say a discussion of how religion affects an individual, or society, or is a belief in a diety good or bad or even necessary fall into that category, those discussions have merit and can bring about understanding.

 

[cronxeh]

There are 2 definitions for 'god' - one is based in real world and another in imaginary world.

god that created the universe is not the same god that lives in heaven. if you adopt _this_ idea - then I'm agnostic, but if your definition of god is the one of 'god' that lives in heaven and in life after death, that created heaven and the Earth and hell and evil and all that stuff - then I am definitely an atheist.

I think people in general need the two definitions to be in one 'god' - but this is impossible. There is no way to have created both the Universe and life after death 'world' - I can prove this to you with the most basic math

 

[arildno]

AKG:
You are indulging yourself in the fantasy:
Suppose there exists a being which necessarily exists. Hence it exists.
As Evo said, this is just pointless.

 

[honestrosewater]

AKG:
You are indulging yourself in the fantasy:
Suppose there exists a being which necessarily exists. Hence it exists.
As Evo said, this is just pointless.

I don't think that's what they're saying, and I don't think (p -> []p, .: p) is valid. Is it?
What does ".->" stand for- logical implication?

 

[DaveC426913]

My proof that god does not exist:
God is perfect,
Nothing that exists is perfect. (This could be seen as a result of HUP)
Therefore God Does not exist.

You jest, of course.

Neither of your premises can be taken as given.

 

[DaveC426913]

I ask this: If religion requires faith, that is believing in parts of it without physical proof, then why are people trying to justify it logically?

If it was completely provable, that would be using knowledge, not faith. So to those of us who are religious/spiritual/anything else that falls on faith, do you try to rationalize it to explain your view to others or to tell yourself you're right?

...

I have nothing against faith, I just wonder why people try to mix the categories of faith and logical/rational justification. To put these things together seems quite like a paradox.

This is the most sound argument I've heard so far, and very close to my owns beliefs. By definition, faith occurs without proof.

I also agree with cronxeh. We are technically all born as atheists. I don't see how you could argue we are born with a belief in God.

We are technically born not being able to conceive of oxygen, but it sure turns out to be an important thing to have in existence.


Eventually, we all come to realize we need air, whether told or not. Even of we are raised by wolves, and don't understand what oxygen is, we still need it.

 

[Integral]

We are all born ignorant. Does this imply a belief in god?

 

[hypnagogue]

I also agree with cronxeh. We are technically all born as atheists. I don't see how you could argue we are born with a belief in God.

We are not born with a belief in God, but evidence suggests that we are born with neural hardwire that is wired to create spiritual experiences, which are arguably the foundation of all religious frameworks. See for example the book Why God Won't Go Away.

There is the question of whether religious ideology is a high level human construct or whether its basis is, at some basic level, 'hard wired' into our brains. I think the evidence points to the latter. For instance, some epileptic seizures induce intense spiritual experiences. To me, this is rather strongly suggestive that the spiritual experience is not something we cogitate, but rather a fundamental kind of experience built into our brains, somewhat like vision. Of course, it is not as ubiquitously or as obviously active as vision. And, of course, religious ideologies and frameworks are largely the result of higher-order mental faculties. But the seeds of such frameworks seem to be found in something the brain is naturally built to do.

I found an interesting link relating to this subject, a transcript of a BBC program interviewing the authors of the book mentioned above. I haven't read over the whole thing, but it should come to bear directly on this topic. Here's the link.

 

[Evo]

We are not born with a belief in God, but evidence suggests that we are born with neural hardwire that is wired to create spiritual experiences, which are arguably the foundation of all religious frameworks. See for example the book Why God Won't Go Away.

The need in a belief system is so prevalent throughout human history I would tend to agree.

There is the question of whether religious ideology is a high level human construct or whether its basis is, at some basic level, 'hard wired' into our brains. I think the evidence points to the latter. For instance, some epileptic seizures induce intense spiritual experiences. To me, this is rather strongly suggestive that the spiritual experience is not something we cogitate, but rather a fundamental kind of experience built into our brains, somewhat like vision. Of course, it is not as ubiquitously or as obviously active as vision. And, of course, religious ideologies and frameworks are largely the result of higher-order mental faculties. But the seeds of such frameworks seem to be found in something the brain is naturally built to do.

I found an interesting link relating to this subject, a transcript of a BBC program interviewing the authors of the book mentioned above. I haven't read over the whole thing, but it should come to bear directly on this topic. Here's the link.

I saw a different show on tv about temporal lobe epilepsy, and all of the people thought they had spoken to God, or had some unique deeply religious episodes brought on by the epilepsy. It was very interesting.

 

[learningphysics]

As I suggested, God (in the context of this argument) refers to the greatest possible being, therefore, it is a necessary being. Unicorns aren't necessary beings, so clearly, they aren't the same.

How about a "necessarily existing unicorn"?

 

[saltydog]

There is the question of whether religious ideology is a high level human construct or whether its basis is, at some basic level, 'hard wired' into our brains. I think the evidence points to the latter.

Can it not be hard-wired because of selective favor through Darwinian evolution? I've read where some think, as do I, that religion is an advantage to survival and reproduction (See, "The Biology of Religion" by V. Reynolds). Thus those who entertained such would be favored and in so doing, would contribute to "general neural architecture" that would exhibit the symptoms you speak of.

 

[hypnagogue]

Can it not be hard-wired because of selective favor through Darwinian evolution? I've read where some think, as do I, that religion is an advantage to survival and reproduction (See, "The Biology of Religion" by V. Reynolds). Thus those who entertained such would be favored and in so doing, would contribute to "general neural architecture" that would exhibit the symptoms you speak of.

I don't see how that's very different from what I suggested.

As far as evolutionary concerns go, there's something interesting to consider here. I would generally agree that the kinds of social institutions enforced by religious frameworks are evolutionarily advantageous; however, I also think it's highly likely that the vast majority of religious believers throughout history and across the globe have never had a true 'spiritual experience' as described variously by e.g. epileptics, users of psychedelics, and dedicated practioners of meditative techniques. If that's the case, it would seem to undermine a straightforward evolutionary explanation, or at least complicate things.

One way to compensate for this might be to note that spiritual experiences seem to be triggered by rather extreme physiological conditions-- starvation, very high or low levels of CNS/brain stimulation, and in the case of out of body experiences, trauma and near death. Perhaps the experience arose directly as an evolutionary coping mechanism to comfort people in times of extreme biological stress, where it might otherwise be easy to just give up and die, and the establishment of religious institutions and the like was just an indirect (and also beneficial) side effect that this experience had when it happened to certain charismatic individuals (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc).

It's also possible that something like spiritual experience is at work in most religious believers, but just at a much less intense level than in the extreme cases. However, I tend to think that most religious believers turn out that way primarily because of high level social factors. It's the extreme and surprising experiences of the people who are variously viewed as blessed, prophetic, or insane that I think find a strong basis in 'hard wired' neural architecture.

 

[AKG]

You say "Unicorns aren't necessary beings, so clearly, they aren't the same" Ok, prove it. Prove Unicorns aren't the most necessary beings. You can't and it's silly of me to ask you to do so.

What does the term "God" mean? Many people will say that, "by definition," it would refer to some being that would be the greatest possible or conceivable being, and it can be argued that this entails that if it exists, it exists necessarily, i.e. it is not contingent on any other being or thing. It's not a matter of proving that unicorns aren't necessary, it is, at this stage, just a matter of definition. That God is a necessary (non-contingent) being is something that follows from definition in the context of this argument. What does the term "unicorn" mean? Does any part of its definition suggest that it is non-contingent? I don't think so.

All you have done is attack me for admitting I see no merit in it. I already said why I think it's pointless in a previous post, if you disagree, then you need to say why. I do not see the formula as a basis for a meaningful philosophical discussion.

No, I have attacked you for wasting space in a philosophical thread with pointless little comments, and some comments that had points but no justification.

Surely, you see natural language as the basis of a meaningful philosophical discussion. If someone explained the argument to you in plain English, would it suddenly become more meaningful? When the argument is simple enough that it can be clearly expressed symbollically in modal logic, then the fact that one does so doesn't make the argument less meaningful. Indeed, logic is just a way to clearly express the reasoning that would go in natural language if it had to. So all though you have something against these symbols, your claim that a symbolic argument for God is meaningless, is wrong.

I will go further and say that I think any discussion of if there is one god or one hundred or none or whose god is better is pointless. Hey, if you think there is a point, you're free to post your opinion.

Yes, you've claimed that no one can either prove or disprove. Nobody cares to read just your claims. Back that assertion.

AKG:
You are indulging yourself in the fantasy:
Suppose there exists a being which necessarily exists. Hence it exists.
As Evo said, this is just pointless.

I think you missed the entire point. There is no premise in the argument which states the being exists. It only says that if it exists, then it exists necessarily, that is, this being called "God" is defined as one that is not contingent on anything else. Any being that you find which exists contingently is not God. But, is there some being which is not contingent on any other thing? Well, the proof asserts as a premise that God possibly exists. It follows from these two premises that God does exist. It is not a circular, tautologous argument as you seem to think it is. It defines God such that if G = "God exists" then G -> []G (which is just a definition, so it can't really be disagreed with), and it assumes <>G, or that God possible exists, and concludes G, that God exists. The deduction is valid, and no more meaningless than an argument in natural language. The main point of contention is whether God, as it is defined, is in fact possible.

There is also the point that this argument shows (assuming <>G) only that a being with the property that it would have to exist non-contingently if it were to exist at all, does exist, but this "being" is not necessarily the Christian God, or any other God, but simply a being with the property that it has necessary existence, and that's all. It is in fact a largely vacuous proof, and I do indeed believe it has serious problems, but that it is tautologous (simply stating that an existing being exists), or meaningless just because it is symbolic, or that it applies to unicorns (nothing about our definition of unicorns says anything about them being necessary), or that it is pointless just because it talks about God, are all not problems with the argument.

 

[AKG]

How about a "necessarily existing unicorn"?

This unicorn would have to have a totally non-contingent existence. It must not be contingent, on, for example, space, so this being must exist even if there were no space. Since that doesn't make sense, any unicorn would be contingent, and thus a necessarily existing unicorn is not possible, and the argument fails, since the premise <>"necessarily existing unicorn exists" is false.

In some senses, it is not that simple. What exactly does it mean for a being to be contingent or necessary? If determinism is true, is everything necessary, or can we still speak of contingency, but just in a more relative sense? If contingency is just a relative thing, is it a meaningful term to use in relation to this argument?

 

[AKG]

Some theists have responded to the discovery of the "God module" in our brain as a "sign" of God's design. Whereas atheists use this to write off religious belief as something we just evolved to do, not something we reasonably choose to do, theists suggest that this is evidence that God designed us to believe in him. I wouldn't bet a penny on either hypothesis, at least not until there is scientific evidence presented.

 

[Evo]

What does the term "God" mean?

That's not the topic of the thread and it wasn't even brought up by the thread owner.

Many people will say that, "by definition," it would refer to some being that would be the greatest possible or conceivable being, and it can be argued that this entails that if it exists, it exists necessarily, i.e. it is not contingent on any other being or thing.

YOU are defining god and placing YOUR definition into the formula. There truly is no single definition of "god".

It's not a matter of proving that unicorns aren't necessary, it is, at this stage, just a matter of definition. That God is a necessary (non-contingent) being is something that follows from definition in the context of this argument.

You mean that this formula requires a "christian god" type in order to work? Yes, that's a major flaw. Gods throughout history do not necessarily fall into this definition. There are gods that are weak, that have very limited powers, have human vices, are killed by other gods, killed and wounded by humans.

I have attacked you for wasting space in a philosophical thread with pointless little comments, and some comments that had points but no justification.

Then you are wrong, but perhaps you are truly the Grand Poobah of philosophy and therefore you can decide what is or is not pointless, correct? Just because you can discuss something doesn't mean it has merit or is even worthy of being discussed.

There is also the point that this argument shows (assuming <>G) only that a being with the property that it would have to exist non-contingently if it were to exist at all, does exist, but this "being" is not necessarily the Christian God, or any other God, but simply a being with the property that it has necessary existence, and that's all. It is in fact a largely vacuous proof, and I do indeed believe it has serious problems, but that it is tautologous (simply stating that an existing being exists), or meaningless just because it is symbolic, or that it applies to unicorns (nothing about our definition of unicorns says anything about them being necessary), or that it is pointless just because it talks about God, are all not problems with the argument.

Ah, so you do admit the formula is seriously flawed and therefore it would be pointless to use it in a discussion of if there is a "god" or whatever.

I never said that it was "pointless just because it talks about a god", your mistake.

I asked you to show what merit using this formula would have in a discussion, not the formula itself, and you failed to do so. You have simply regurgitated the formula, inserted your personal opinions of what "god" is, and pointed out the formula is flawed anyway.

 

[Evo]

Hypnagogue, here is the transcript of the program I mentioned. The part that you'd want to read is about John Sharon. If you bring up the edit box, type in "John Sharon has temporal lobe epilepsy." and it will take you right to it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2812mind.html

John Sharon has temporal lobe epilepsy.

John's epileptic seizures are essentially an electrical storm in his temporal lobes when a group of neurons starts firing at random, out of sync with the rest of his brain.

NARRATOR: John had never been religious, yet the onset of his seizures brought on overwhelming spiritual feelings.

V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: It has been known for a long time that some patients with seizures originating in the temporal lobes have intense religious auras, intense experience of God visiting them. Sometimes it's a personal god, sometimes it's a more diffuse feeling of being one with the cosmos. Everything seems suffused with meaning. The patient will say, "Finally I see what it's really about, Doctor. I really understand God. I understand my place in the universe, in the cosmic scheme." Why does this happen and why does it happen so often in patients with temporal lobe seizures?

V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: Now, why do these patients have intense religious experiences when they have these seizures? And why do they become preoccupied with theological and religious matters even in between seizures?

One possibility is that the seizure activity in the temporal lobes somehow creates all kinds of odd, strange emotions in the person's mind...in the person's brain. And this welling up of bizarre emotions may be interpreted by the patient as visits from another world, or as, "God is visiting me." Maybe that's the only way he can make sense of this welter of strange emotions going on in his brain. Another possibility is that this is something to do with the way in which the temporal lobes are wired up to deal with the world emotionally. As we walk around and interact with the world, you need some way of determining what's important, what's emotionally salient and what's relevant to you versus something trivial and unimportant.

How does this come about? We think what's critical is the connection between the sensory areas in the temporal lobes and the amygdala, which is the gateway to the emotional centers in the brain. The strength of these connections is what determines how emotionally salient something is. And therefore, you could speak of a sort of emotional salience landscape, with hills and valleys corresponding to what's important and what's not important. And each of us has a slightly different emotional salience landscape. Now, consider what happens in temporal lobe epilepsy when you have repeated seizures. What might be going on is an indiscriminate strengthening of all these pathways. It's a bit like water flowing down rivulets along the cliff surface. When it rains repeatedly there's an increasing tendency for the water to make furrows along one pathway and this progressive deepening of the furrows artificially raises the emotional significance of some categories of inputs. So instead of just finding lions and tigers and mothers emotionally salient, he finds everything deeply salient. For example, a grain of sand, a piece of driftwood, seaweed, all of this becomes imbued with deep significance. Now, this tendency to ascribe cosmic significance to everything around you might be akin to what we call a mystical experience or a religious experience.

 

[Chronos]

Interesting. But God, by definition, is not constrained by human logic. We can argue whether it is logical to believe in God, but not the existence of God. The proposition is neither provable or unprovable.

 

[Evo]

We can argue whether it is logical to believe in God, but not the existence of God. The proposition is neither provable or unprovable.

That's what I said two pages ago. Watch out, you will be criticized by AKG for "wasting space in a philosophical thread with pointless little comments".

trying to justify the existence of "god". I told him I think it's pointless, and it is. No one is going to prove or disprove it.

 

[honestrosewater]

So how does one argue that some object- any object- O possibly exists? If O does exist, O possibly exists, yes? Failing that O is known to exist, how else can one conclude that O possibly exists? Is it enough to show that O could exist without contradiction? Or must it be impossible for O to not exist? Etc.

 

[hypnagogue]

So how does one argue that some object- any object- O possibly exists? If O does exist, O possibly exists, yes? Failing that O is known to exist, how else can one conclude that O possibly exists? Is it enough to show that O could exist without contradiction? Or must it be impossible for O to not exist? Etc.

Showing that O could exist without necessarily entailing logical contradiction would amount to showing that it's logically possible (perhaps 'metaphysically possible' too, though I'm not very clear on what the difference between logical and metaphysical possibility is supposed to be). To show that something is possible in our world (nomologically possible), we'd minimally have to show that it doesn't contradict known physical laws and principles (although this is an imperfect method, as our knowledge of physical law is imperfect-- for instance, prior to the advent of QM some existent physical phenomena would have failed this test).

If we try to show that it is impossible that O does not exist, then we're making a stronger claim-- not that it is possible that O exists, but that it is necessary that O exists.

 

[honestrosewater]

If we try to show that it is impossible that O does not exist, then we're making a stronger claim-- not that it is possible that O exists, but that it is necessary that O exists.

Oh, right, that makes sense. Thanks.

I see no justification for <>G

Why not? I guess you can't show that assuming <>G leads to a contradiction (I imagine you would say so otherwise)? I'm just curious. I haven't learned modal logic yet, and I can't see where you would run into difficulties proving either <>G or <>~G (still assuming G => []G).

 

[AKG]

honestrosewater

It's not a matter of proving <>G or <>~G. <>G is asserted as a premise, it is not a theorem of modal logic. The argument I've seen for <>G is that God is defined as "the greatest possible being" so, prima facie, <>G. However, just putting the word "possible" in a description doesn't mean that it refers to a possible being. Even if we describe a number X as the greatest possible integer, such an X is impossible, i.e. calling it "possible" doesn't make it possible.

Also, it can be said that there is a difference between "logical possibility" and "metaphysical possibility". Just because it is concievable that God exists, that may not mean that it is really possible. Note that the characteristic property of God given here that G -> []G leads to fact that <>G & <>~G is contradictory. Normally, we say things like aliens possibly exist, and possibly they don't, so if A = "aliens exist", then we normally have it that <>A & <>~A. Because of God's necessary existence, this conjunction would be contradictory, so whereas with aliens, we have no problem assuming <>A since we can just take it from <>A & <>~A, we don't have <>G & <>~G, so we can't just assume <>G.

YOU are defining god and placing YOUR definition into the formula. There truly is no single definition of "god".

It may surprise you to learn that Owen didn't make up this argument, it's a rather old, and rather famous argument. This argument was originally put forth by St. Anselm, and an integral part of this argument is the definition of God, which he gives as the one I gave. I didn't just choose that definition, it's the one that goes with the argument. I also think many people might be inclined to agree with the definition.

I never said that it was "pointless just because it talks about a god", your mistake.

You said, specifically: "I will go further and say that I think any discussion of if there is one god or one hundred or none or whose god is better is pointless." You've also said that no person will prove either way whether God exists or not. Of course, you make this strong claim but won't back it up. You have essentially said that any discussion on the existence of God is pointless. You have said that discussions of God and religion from a sociological perspective have merit, but you have said the argument is pointless because it talks about the existence of God, and you have given no reason for anyone to believe this. This is the philosophy section, you are supposed to give arguments for your positions. If, as you claim, and discussion on the ontology of God(s) is pointless, tell us why? If not, please don't post here.

Ah, so you do admit the formula is seriously flawed and therefore it would be pointless to use it in a discussion of if there is a "god" or whatever.

You claim that since it is a formula, or since it talks about God's existence, it is pointless to discuss. Nobody cares if this is what you think if you're not going to bother justifying it. I claim that this argument for God is flawed, and it's definition of God is somewhat vacuous. I claim that the argument has flaws, and I point them out, and justify why I think they are flaws. You don't even understand "the formula" (you mean argument, not formula), as far as I can tell. Perhaps people who argue in Chinese are also just engaging in pointless discussion because I don't understand Chinese.

Assuming that you don't understand the argument, you are in no position to point out flaws with the argument itself, but you might have a case in saying that the whole exercise is futile from the outset. That God, by most common definitions, is something that is unprovable, and so discussing arguments for or against God can't possibly be fruitful. You could present an argument for this, but since you don't, I have to assume you stumbled into the philosophy forum not knowing where you were, not realizing that nobody wants to hear what you have to say if you don't have an argument to support it.

Then you are wrong, but perhaps you are truly the Grand Poobah of philosophy and therefore you can decide what is or is not pointless, correct? Just because you can discuss something doesn't mean it has merit or is even worthy of being discussed.

You missed the point. You don't provide justification for your claims, and so, they're essentially pointless. Unjustified claims are, for the most part, pointless in philosophy. Since you aren't providing justifications, I don't have to be a Grand Poobah to tell you that everything you've said in this thread is pointless. Look, I don't know if this is difficult for you or what, but all you have to do is take on of the points you've made, say, that god's existence can't be either proven or disproven, and justify it. That's the point of philosophy.

You mean that this formula requires a "christian god" type in order to work? Yes, that's a major flaw. Gods throughout history do not necessarily fall into this definition. There are gods that are weak, that have very limited powers, have human vices, are killed by other gods, killed and wounded by humans.

No, when did I say that? The argument requires some definition of God, and obviously, it does not set out to prove the existence of God according to every historical definition of God that ever existed. It may be a reasonable question to ask which God's fit under Anselm's definition. Another question one could ask is if the definition can be made more specific without creating problems elsewhere in the argument, etc.

I asked you to show what merit using this formula would have in a discussion, not the formula itself, and you failed to do so. You have simply regurgitated the formula, inserted your personal opinions of what "god" is, and pointed out the formula is flawed anyway.

I don't know what you're talking about. I have no real personal opinion of what "god" is, and yes, I pointed out the formula is flawed, but I did it with justification. I don't think I've "regurgitated the formula", I've made reference to it, but it's the topic of discussion, so why wouldn't I? What do you mean by "what merit it has in a discussion?" This thread is a discussion, isn't it? The argument presented is an argument for the existence of God. If someone wants to claim that they believe in God, then in a philosophy forum, they are expected to give reasons, and this argument can be one reason. We can discuss whether this argument is a good reason. Perhaps you're familiar with the "first cause" argument for God, or the telelogical argument which says that the design of nature suggests a purpose, and thus intelligent design, or the deontological argument which suggests God is necessary since without him, there is no moral standard, etc. These are various reasons for God, and in a discussion about whether God exists, one could present anyone of these arguments, and we would discuss whether these areguments are good or not. If they are, then they give a good reason to believe in God, and if not, then they don't give a good reason. The ontological argument (the one presented in this thread) is just like another one of these reasons. It, like the other arguments, I believe is flawed, but if the topic of discussion is one (or more) of these arguments, I won't just say it is flawed, I will also say why I think it is flawed. Perhaps you can do the same thing?

Now, you've wasted a lot of space on this thread trying to justify your presence on this thread, i.e. making excuses for why it's okay to post the unjustified assertions you continually post. This is a waste of time and space. Rather than making these excuses, justify your actual claims. Figure out what your claims are, express them clearly, and justify them to the best of your ability. Sure, you're "allowed" to post your opinion on what's pointless, etc. but nobody cares about your opinions. In the philosophy section, people, I hope, would expect to see arguments. If you just want to post your opinion, use your journal or something.

 

[learningphysics]

This unicorn would have to have a totally non-contingent existence. It must not be contingent, on, for example, space, so this being must exist even if there were no space. Since that doesn't make sense, any unicorn would be contingent, and thus a necessarily existing unicorn is not possible, and the argument fails, since the premise <>"necessarily existing unicorn exists" is false.

In some senses, it is not that simple. What exactly does it mean for a being to be contingent or necessary? If determinism is true, is everything necessary, or can we still speak of contingency, but just in a more relative sense? If contingency is just a relative thing, is it a meaningful term to use in relation to this argument?

I see. So it's <>G, and G -> []G, that are the critical parts.

I wonder why everyone jumped on Owen in this thread. He didn't present his argument as a proof for or against god. Everything he said was correct.

 

[honestrosewater]

Because of God's necessary existence, this conjunction would be contradictory, so whereas with aliens, we have no problem assuming <>A since we can just take it from <>A & <>~A, we don't have <>G & <>~G, so we can't just assume <>G.

Thanks, that's quite interesting.

 

[honestrosewater]

I see. So it's <>G, and G -> []G, that are the critical parts.

Minor point: If I understand it's "G => []G" instead of "G -> []G". (From OP: "(p => q) =df [](p -> q)") In propositional logic, "p => q" means that "p -> q" is a tautology. It seems the same is true for modal logic.

I wonder why everyone jumped on Owen in this thread. He didn't present his argument as a proof for or against god. Everything he said was correct.

Yeah, the "G" word usually has that effect.

 

[loseyourname]

On topic, indeed the argument is valid for any P, but the premise G -> []G (or some variant) is not true for all G. God, being defined as the greatest conceivable/possible being, is said to thus have the greatest possible existence, namely necessary existence. Because God is said to have necessary existence, then if he exists, he exists necessarily, hence G -> []G.

It is only medieval scholastic artifact to hold that a being that exists is greater than a being that doesn't exist, or even that a being that exists necessarily is greater than a being that exists contingently. This Aristotelian heirarchy of the relative greatness of properties has no basis in what is dictated by logic.

Any ontological argument runs into another problem. If we're going to buy into the scholastic idea that we can assign relative levels of 'greatness' to objects such that object A is greater than object B and so on, then we must accept that there exists some object that is the greatest of all. I don't see any reason at this point to accept that there is only one of these objects, but let us grant that for the sake of argument. So we have one object, Z, that is greater than all other objects. In order to prove that Z exists, we must accept the further scholastic notion that an object that exists is greater than one that does not. Fine, we'll do that. At this point, it has been proven that some object Z exists that is the greatest of all objects. Now I suppose we can arbitrarily call this object "God," if we feel the need to give it a name, but what have we really demonstrated? It is clear what Anselm and Aquinas hoped to demonstrate: that the Christian God exists and that He is Z. But why? What exactly can the proven fact that Z is the greatest of all objects tell us about Z? How many different secondary properties are entailed by the property of being the greatest of all objects? Must Z be able to run the 100M dash in world record time and slam dunk from halfcourt? Must Z have 1000 arms, because if not, then an object with 999 arms would be greater? Or does each of his individual properties not have to be greater than each of another object's individual properties? Is it only that the sum total of his properties must be greater than the sum total of any other object's properties? If we recall, the Christian God was tempted to evil by the devil when incarnated in human form. Would not a being completely incapable of evil - and thus incapable of being tempted to evil - be a greater being? The Christian God is also said to be jealous and vindictive. Would not a being unemcumbered by petty emotions be a greater being?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

If we recall, the Christian God was tempted to evil by the devil when incarnated in human form. Would not a being completely incapable of evil - and thus incapable of being tempted to evil - be a greater being?

-actually, that was the human part

What's your take on polytheism, where each god has his/her own duties and even the ones that have top deities can have more than 1 top deity? (I mean in terms of the "greatest being" framework) Which one is more logistically correct?