Person w/ Narcolepsy?weebs42October 5 2005, 06:37:55 UTC
Your point gets at the root of why the argument is unsound. But if one understands the modal definition of necessity, it can be inferred that God is, in fact, not a necessary being, regardless of each individual's beliefs. Case-in-point: Necesarry things must exist in every possible world (i.e. every world that can be conceived without contradiction). Therefore, if God is necessary by definition, he must exist in every and all possible worlds. But anyone can conceive of a world without contradiction that does not have God in it. For example, I can conceive of a world in which there exists only a ballpoint pen. Without contradiction, I have conceived a possible world that exists without God. Therefore God does not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore God is not a necessary being.
As long as I'm still riding off of my Tuesday night philosophy buzz, consider Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's the most convincing argument for existence that I've heard so far.
(1) God is, by definition, a being that than which no greater can be conceived. (2) Atheists understand God by the definition in (1), but they perceive him only as an object in their minds, not in reality. (3) Things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist in the mind. (4) Therefore, if God is the greatest possible being, he must exist in reality. ------------------------------ (5) Hence, God exists in reality.
Re: Nort sor farstweebs42October 5 2005, 17:16:57 UTC
First off, we have to accept that the proof is out to prove a certain thing. While we may have deep, reflective discussions queued to James Taylor songs about God being a leaf, that is not what this proof is aiming at. In fact, this proof is not really aiming at "God" at all, if your definition of God is different than "greatest conceivable being." In this case, scrap the idea of God, and let's just talk about "greatest conceivable being" (though I would assert that the common Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God might, at minimum, include "greatest conceivable being" in their description). This proof is not out to prove the creator aspect of God, which is also a primary facet of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept. But Anselm was a busy man, and he only had time for that than which no greater can be conceived.
(1+3) It is very difficult to refute the premise that greatness can be measured by reality. If I offered you one real dollar, or one million imaginary dollars, chances are you'd take my imaginary dollars, because you're a moron. But you SHOULD take the one real dollar, because it is greater in reality. The same works for pretty much every imaginary thing in comparison to its real counterpart. (2) Anselm used the term "fool," not atheist. He bases it on the Psalmist: "the fool hath said in his heart 'there is no God'." It doesn't matter what we want to call them, simply as long as they don't believe in this "greatest conceivable being." This is an important aspect in terms of the argument's validity, as Anselm is using a reductio ad absurdum form: he makes a proof by pointing out a contradiction. The person who does not believe in a "greatest conceivable being" has a contradiction in his thinking. Since things are greater in reality than in one's mind, but the "fool" in his mind has a concept of "greatest conceivable being," than there are things in reality that are greater than the "greatest conceivable being" in the fool's mind. There is a contradiction here. It can't be the "greatest conceivable being," if one can conceive of something in reality that is greater. The only way to trump this contradiction is if there actually was, in reality, a greatest conceivable being.
The proof is a lot more valid than you give it credit for. After accepting its validity, though, an appropriate place for attack might be the fact that, if this proof works, you can generate a lot of crazy shit into existence.
But it's all contrived and philisophical, anyway. What matters is how I feel when I pick up the leaf, when I bow before the leaf, that elation I get when I sing songs to the leaf. I feel it, man! It feels real!
Case-in-point:
Necesarry things must exist in every possible world (i.e. every world that can be conceived without contradiction). Therefore, if God is necessary by definition, he must exist in every and all possible worlds. But anyone can conceive of a world without contradiction that does not have God in it. For example, I can conceive of a world in which there exists only a ballpoint pen. Without contradiction, I have conceived a possible world that exists without God. Therefore God does not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore God is not a necessary being.
As long as I'm still riding off of my Tuesday night philosophy buzz, consider Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's the most convincing argument for existence that I've heard so far.
(1) God is, by definition, a being that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) Atheists understand God by the definition in (1), but they perceive him only as an object in their minds, not in reality.
(3) Things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist in the mind.
(4) Therefore, if God is the greatest possible being, he must exist in reality.
------------------------------
(5) Hence, God exists in reality.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(1+3) It is very difficult to refute the premise that greatness can be measured by reality. If I offered you one real dollar, or one million imaginary dollars, chances are you'd take my imaginary dollars, because you're a moron. But you SHOULD take the one real dollar, because it is greater in reality. The same works for pretty much every imaginary thing in comparison to its real counterpart.
(2) Anselm used the term "fool," not atheist. He bases it on the Psalmist: "the fool hath said in his heart 'there is no God'." It doesn't matter what we want to call them, simply as long as they don't believe in this "greatest conceivable being." This is an important aspect in terms of the argument's validity, as Anselm is using a reductio ad absurdum form: he makes a proof by pointing out a contradiction. The person who does not believe in a "greatest conceivable being" has a contradiction in his thinking. Since things are greater in reality than in one's mind, but the "fool" in his mind has a concept of "greatest conceivable being," than there are things in reality that are greater than the "greatest conceivable being" in the fool's mind. There is a contradiction here. It can't be the "greatest conceivable being," if one can conceive of something in reality that is greater. The only way to trump this contradiction is if there actually was, in reality, a greatest conceivable being.
The proof is a lot more valid than you give it credit for. After accepting its validity, though, an appropriate place for attack might be the fact that, if this proof works, you can generate a lot of crazy shit into existence.
But it's all contrived and philisophical, anyway. What matters is how I feel when I pick up the leaf, when I bow before the leaf, that elation I get when I sing songs to the leaf. I feel it, man! It feels real!
Reply
Leave a comment