The Fool Says in his Heart...

CoIin: The atheist often accuses the theist of being irrational. She doesn't usually elaborate on exactly how this is the case, but I suppose she is alluding to acceptance of fundamental doctrines (existence of God, miracles, salvation, etc) in the absence of "sufficient" evidence to justify the belief.

In this thread I'd like to turn the tables on the atheists and ask "If the existence of a perfect being could be rigorously proven using logic, would you put your rationality where your mouth is and believe?"

In particular, what I have in mind is the famous/infamous "Ontological Argument" dating all the way back to St. Anselm in the 11th century, rejected by Aquinas, rehashed in various forms throughout the ages by Descartes and others, "improved" by Leibniz, subsequently refuted by heavyweights like Kant (a religious man himself - he just thought the logic was flawed), and still advocated in modern times by the likes of Alvin Plantinga.

What distinguishes this argument from the other classical arguments for the existence of God is that it is non-empirical, i.e. we don't have to infer the existence of God from what we see around us (scripture, apparent design in nature, first causes, etc); it is a matter of pure logic.

Note that this argument does not purport to prove the existence of any particular deity and the various attributes ascribed to Him/Her/It by different religions. It is a non-partisan argument claiming that the existence of a "perfect being" is a logical necessity.

(Consider the statement "There is no integer so large that it cannot be made larger by adding one to it". The person who starts counting to prove this to herself just doesn't get it. It's not an empirical matter. It's a logical certainty. )

The current consensus seems to be that the argument fails, but let's imagine that it is reformulated and that all logicians agree the argument is sound. It's as certain as 2+2=4.

What do you do now?

CoIin: Hmm, this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere . Change of tact then...

Boobies and willies!!

CoIin: "Tack vs. tact

Tact is sensitivity in social situations. A tack is a course or an approach (the word has nautical origins). When switching courses or taking a different approach, one changes tack, not tact.

Tact often appears in place of tack. Presumably some people think of it as short for tactic, which is synonymous with tack in some contexts. This is understandable given how rare tack is, but tact is not conventionally short for tactic, and, fairly or not, phrases like change tact are generally considered wrong by people who pay attention to these things."


Thank God I spotted it before people who pay attention to these things did

Zanjan: You're dead wrong! A tack is a short nail with a broad, flat head, used to affix something to another thing.

Whereas, tact is not merely social sensitivity - crying is social sensitivity. Tact is polite language used to convey an observation of something that might cause embarrassment to another.

An example of tact (gentleness) would be to say to a guy, in a personal situation, "you're flying low".or "the barn door is open" or 'would you like a tack to pin the tail on the donkey?

Zanjan: Logic:
I think; therefore, I am........... a Being.
God thinks: therefore, God IS.........a Being

Logic:
Since one cannot create their own self, their being has come into existence by a fashioner who is greater and more knowledgeable than its creature. This fashioner must know more about the creature than it can ever know of itself.

We refer to this fashioner as God, the greatest, smartest and most powerful of all thinking Beings. There is no other to match this level of intelligence.

Logic:
When measuring intelligence, one cannot measure an intelligence greater than his own; thus, one cannot fully comprehend the being with the higher intelligence.

Yet the higher intelligence always comprehends the lower intelligence, since the lower is part of its own.

LiptonCambell: Well Colin, it looks like no one with any real input has anything to contribute....

CoIin:

Sherlock Holmes thinks; therefore Sherlock Holmes is .... a Being

Zanjan: Without Watson, he'd a been a loser.

Zanjan: It's ok to be a fool - every village needs one.

Zanjan: The fool hath said in his heart: (aka 'famous last words'

“ I’m the exception to the rule”

“No one will notice”

“ You can’t catch me”

“ I’m smarter than you”

“ I will never…..”

“You don’t understand me”

“I know what I’m doing”

“I’m the boss”

"you can't do that"

"Not even God can sink this ship"



Feel free to add your own foolish experiences to the list

DawnGurl: Two aspects of your question bother me Colin. The first is "perfect being." As you well know that is a value-laden phrase which can mean just about anything someone wants it to be. For me a perfect being would cook lasagna for me on command and be a sushi chef. So your perfect being is just about useless. Even if you mean an exaggeration of all the "best" human qaulties you run into trouble. Which qualities? Maybe some "undesirable" qualities may be very "good" under the right circumstances. Hardness and strict discipline in an army led by our martially inclined god would be "good" in a battle, but unwanted elsewhere.

The second is "proven." Thats a harsh word. Watches dont say 'water proof,' they say 'water resistant.' Under extreme circumstances our much beleaguered watch would indeed leak water into the inner mechanism; dropping it down to the continental shelf might do the trick. We can prove very little in reality, and tobacco companies used this argument for a long time saying that since not _everyone_ who smoked has been tested, then their detractor's conclusions "prove" nothing. They merely suggest. The evidence "strongly suggests" perhaps, but unless every conceivable variation of a given event can be tested, it will never be proved.

So Colin, pour me a malt scotch and we'll listen to "Ole Blue Eyes" a while.

CoIin: ^^^^

Scotch? You got it. I'd cook lasagne and sushi for you too if I knew how (I don't even make toast these days since I lost the recipe )

Re - perfect being

Yeah, it's a puzzling concept. One crucial assumption of the ontological argument in its various forms is that existence is superior to non-existence. i.e. if two beings X and Y are identical in every respect, but X exists while Y doesn't, then X is the greater (more perfect).

The proponents of the argument seem to find this so obvious that it requires no separate argument of its own. I must say, I don't find it obvious at all. Do you?

As far as I can perceive, those who refute the argument tend to ignore this point, or simply grant it, because the argument suffers from a much more fatal flaw.

Zanjan: You've forgotten the cookie cutter principle. You must use the original cutter to create a form that follows the pattern of the original; even so, the cookie will never be identical to the cutter.

Should you use the cookie as the guideline for the next cut, the result will barely resemble the first cookie. Thus, all created things are not perfect copies.

Perfection is a superlative - you cant have less or more perfection, you can only have excellence relative to creation. Perfection is the original Source.

DawnGurl: If X=Y and X=X but Y=/ Y then X=/Y then how is X>Y? Explain please. And do be generous with the scotch Colin you cheapskate.

DawnGurl: Perfection like beauty is a construct; its an idea only. If you want to call the original "perfection" I guess no one will stop you (except Colin or maybe Corvin) but no two things are ever identical since the molecules that make up 1 thing are not the same as its copy, no matter how "perfect" the copy is. Where the hell is this going by the way? Maybe we should all pray for Colin's threatened sanity.

Zanjan: Dawngurl, perfection points to the least number of flaws in something until zero is reached - it's not an idea, it's a discovery, somewhat like math. Perfection has nothing to do with individuality.

Where is it going? The point is that something has to precipitate even the first IMperfection, no matter how insignificant.

You cant establish existence of thing by your own limitations - your experience of never having seen it is not the basis for reality. Even with a solid record that no one ever has seen it, that isn't the basis for reality either.

If we didn't think perfection existed, no one would ever pursue excellence. How relative is relative? The chase has always been on for the condition with the least amount of flaws.
True Perfection is a fixed state that cannot be surpassed, a line that cannot be crossed.

For example, the state of perfection exists in the height of trees - we know it exists because no living tree on earth can grow so tall it reaches outer space. Locating that exact point of distance from the ground, is a different venture.

In creation, this point may change once every million years but it's still a point that nothing can beat during that span of time. Perfection in the physical world is merely moving from one spot to another.

Whereas absolute perfection is pre-existance - that is, existing beyond and outside the created universe. This dimension we can never know and will never be able to step into.

Reason and logic has brought us to know the relationship between cause and effect. All we can determine by that knowledge is that anything in the pre-existant dimension has always existed and always will exist.This, is the condition of God, the absolute, the omniscient Creator.

CoIin: @ Zanjan - Thanks for your kind response. I'll waste no time reading it

But seriously, I don't mean to be impolite, but you've demonstrated time and time again on these Forums that you are to logic what Spock is to romance. Instead of asserting vacuous slogans, non sequiturs, and other assorted inanities with your usual implacable and misplaced confidence, why not do yourself and everyone else a favor by reading a book (or two) about it? Until then, your comments do not merit further response.


@ DawnGurl

I don't think we need to worry about molecules since I don't think anyone claims God consists of them. Or do they? Anyway, it's kinda besides the point.

Here's roughly how Anselm's original argument goes:-


Ans : Can you conceive of a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". Is the phrase intelligible to you?

Fool : Yes

Ans : Does such a being exist in reality?

Fool : No

Ans : Then you are indeed a fool for you contradict yourself

Fool : This is an outrage . Explain yourself, cad

Ans : Well, you say you can imagine a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, yet you claim it is nothing more than a mental object. But an even greater being CAN be conceived, viz., a corresponding being which exists in reality. So the being that you conceive is NOT a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.


Let's say we define Superman. We list all his attributes:- male, can fly, very strong, not keen on Kryptonite, silly underwear, sings better than Sinatra, good jumper, etc. You can even add molecules to the mix and stipulate his exact molecular structure if you like. Pack in anything you like; it's your definition after all.

When you've finished the packing, Anselm might ask you if this Superman (Superman1) actually exists? You say no. Anselm would then claim that his Superman (Superman2), who has exactly the same attributes as your Superman1, but with one extra - existence - is greater, or more perfect if you prefer.

Now, the critical difference between Superman (or any other being) and God, according to Anselm, is that God is perfect, Superman is not. There is therefore no contradiction in saying that Superman does not exist. But to deny the existence of a perfect being which you claim to be able to conceive is to contradict yourself - if it doesn't exist then it's not perfect.

Zanjan: Colin: " why not do yourself and everyone else a favor by reading a book (or two) about it?"

About what? You remember Spock got married, don't you?

Or did you mean the book: " Asserting vacuous slogans & non sequiturs for Dummies'?

Zanjan: As for Superman, what an absurd notion! God is not a physical being so cannot be represented by a physical construct or anything that has been created.

One cannot *conceive* of a thing greater than, equal to or similar to himself. At best, he can only imagine something that is exceedingly lower than himself; there's much less of a chance he can actually bring into reality anything he can imagine.

If something exists, there will be a sign of its existence - it will independently leave a trail of evidence behind it, without observance of its presence.

Whereas, thought projections leave only alpha/beta waves behind them; while those waves can signal the physical presence of a thought, they give no indication what the actual thought is. So can we say a thought doesn't exist because we can't detect its details and form?

By the way, did you notice I plunked my cup of coffee on the desk? My cup is no longer there. I know it was here, in that spot, not because I remember it was, but by the coffee ring stain on the desk. A fool in his heart says "That cup no longer exists".

calybonos: I can conceive of the perfect headache coming on....if im successful.


I can imagine two threads here. Thread X,which exists here in the cyber reality on a computer screen, and thread Y, existing only in the perception of a cyber reality in my "cranial reality".(I know,cool word huh?) Okay,thread X is said to exist with,or without our presence.(by way of popular opinion) It simply "is". Thread Y,on the other hand (real or metaphorical hand,reader's choice) requires an imperfect being,with an individual set of reality rules "proven" to them by examples of agreement. (observable inevitabilities which concur with a previously agreed upon result)

Both threads exist,both can "die".
One thread depends on technology,the other depends on pyschology.
Neither can imagine,or describe a perfect,or greater image without agreeing on what perfection,or greater is to begin with.(in which case,they would not be imagining,but reflecting on pre-existing beliefs). An impossible task for an imperfect creature that makes up the very rules which define it's reality and it's existence.

Me,I like thread Y better..............why?
Because thread Y cannot be deleted by God,Superman,Kriptonite or the Robot Butler.

And because thread Y needs me.......
I like being needed,it makes me feel like a......like a God! (without a kriptonite allergy)

I can also imagine a thread Z,where real people are sitting behind real computers,in a real reality,and imagining that this post was a perfect example of an imaginary imagination.

CoIin: LOL Caly

Since Alselm ins't able to stand up for himself, I'll try to respond for him. Apologies if I butcher this, Saint Anselm, coz these waters do get very muddy.

We grant that humans do not and cannot have an adequate comprehension of perfection. This does not defeat my argument. We don't have an adequate understanding of infinity either, but for any integer you name, I can name a larger one. Likewise for any "perfect" being you conceive of, yet claim does not exist, I claim that a greater being CAN be conceived of, i.e. a corresponding being with the attribute of existence.

We cannot know or comprehend all the attributes of a perfect being, but no matter what else, the attribute of existence is NECESSARY. A being which is perfect must exist necessarily. That is to say, it cannot be conceived NOT to exist. (just as a triangle cannot be conceived NOT to have three angles).

All your threads, X, Y and Z, can be conceived not to exist. My perfect being, insofar as it is conceptually necessary, cannot.

(The above echoes Anselm's response to his contemporary, Gaunilo, who like Calybonos, accused Anselm of defining entities into existence. Gaunilo, however, used the more pedestrian example of a "lost island" rather than a Wireclub thread. )

CoIin: "the [ontological] argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."

- Bertrand Russell

calybonos: The mirror of truth is but a childs game.

Peek-a-boo!
You see you.

Zanjan: Colin: " for any integer you name, I can name a larger one."

It's still an integer, numbers zero to 9......repeated. Something doesn't become greater just because it's larger or expands. The USA's national debt of gazillions of bucks is a low point in their money management system; the larger the debt gets, the stupider their leaders appear.

This thread is moving towards the old argument of whether or not God exists. I thought it was about fools. A fool can't see anything.

near50ohoh: or a fool sees everything and misunderstands it, but thinks he's an expert and says so

chronology: Hey Colin. Ref the shot of malt you promised someone, do they have 'auto drinks dispensers' where you are?. Am told in most busy Bars in the U.S. these days you ask for a drink, and the Bar keep pulls up a tube and punches some buttons in a touch screen, next thing 'wham' your drink comes down the tube. Pretty freaky hey? I said to one Guy this must give a taste of the drink that came before it, but he says 'no, there is no aftertaste'. If you order a chilled California wine, then a Jack Daniels, there must be a flavour on the Black Jack from the wine if they are following each other down the tube. Maybe in Las Vegas they could dispense drinks like that with auto dispenses, I just don't see how you can get a whole flavour drink in an average Bar in Atlantic City or Philly.