Ontological Argument Defense

[swivel]

Swivel:

Does not containment imply container? When one discusses a void "containing" anything, this seems to imply spatial extension. Yet if it is a void, it is meaningless to consider it having spatial extension, no? As space itself is not a property of "void".

Moreover, can we speak of an absence of something as rightfully producing a consequence? For does not this require something acting in relation to nothing? How can one react to nothing? Isn't that "not reacting"?

Consider also that an acausal cause of causation implies causality prior to its establishment. Accordingly, it would seem that if causality exists, it exists eternally, for it to come into existence requires it to be caused.

You are thinking of things taking place in an empty universe, with time rolling along, it seems. You are taking the ideas of causality that we know to be true from within our universe, and applying them to a non-universe. This is jarringly illogical to me.

All hypothetical, but logically consistent:
There is nothing in the void. There is no time elapsing. The first thing that ever happens, the first moment, is the sudden creation of matter. This happens as a result of the incredible (let's call it "Sucking Power") of the void. That doesn't mean that anything is IN the void. That would be like saying that there must be something in a vacuum region since it has Sucking Power on its surroundings. The Void is the same type of a thing. It is nothing, but it has properties. One of these properties is obviously that it contains nothing. Another property is that time does not elapse. Let's say that another property is that the incredible Sucking Power of the Void is so great that it sucks matter out of nothingness. Not "from" somewhere. Not "into" anywhere. It is just ex-nihilo. The power of the Void is so great that matter must rush into being, with space (and time, naturally) right along with it.

That is the logical creation event that I posit. Why is this superior to an eternal creator? Simple: It gets rid of the logical contradiction of an eternal past. It also gets rid of the need for a chain of causality. It seems obvious to me that there must have been a time when nothing existed. But this state wasn't eternal, because there was no time elapsing. So the first moment was instantaneous, a necessity, a foregone conclusion. And the clock has been winding down ever since.

Why does it seem obvious to me that there must have been a time of nothingness? Why couldn't there "always" have been matter around? Because that assumes a *fulfilled* infinite past, which is impossible. And even if it were possible (which I stress, it isn't), matter would have run out by now. We would have a cold-death of the universe already. Why? Because if energy and matter can NOT be created ex-nihilo, then nothing could replenish the energy lost due to entropy over an infinite past. Even with oscillations of big bangs and big crunches.

The only way around this makes it even worse, you have to posit infinite matter and energy to go along with your infinite past (again, impossible). But if there was infinite matter which existed in a way that it has the ability to interact (needed to replenish the losses due to entropy), couple this with an infinite past, and we would have had the final collapse of everything an infinite amount of time ago.


There is no way around creation lore, both secular and parochial, unless you toss causality out the window. So, start there and see where it leads you.

 

[Sarkus]

The difference would not be there, unless we can prove that God would also have a personality as opposed to just being existence.

And this is something the OA does not do, unless I am missing something.

So - if God is just "existence" - why call it God?
But if God is more than mere "existence" - where's the proof / argument for it?

 

[Prince_James]

Swivel:

Again, I'd attack the notion of something whichis nothing yet has properties. "Sucking power", for instance. If the thing is litterally the absence of anything, how could it have "sucking power"? What aspect of this "sucking power" could produce matter from it? You also say "there is no time", yet if there is no time, however does the sucking power act?

That is the logical creation event that I posit. Why is this superior to an eternal creator? Simple: It gets rid of the logical contradiction of an eternal past. It also gets rid of the need for a chain of causality. It seems obvious to me that there must have been a time when nothing existed. But this state wasn't eternal, because there was no time elapsing. So the first moment was instantaneous, a necessity, a foregone conclusion. And the clock has been winding down ever since.

Well obviously, you know my position in regards to eternal time (as we've made clear). So I shall disagree with you there, though I think any notion of progress in that debate will require a major new argument from one of us that simply isn't developing on either of our parts, unless you've thought of a good one recently.

So as that is friutless, I'll critique this only on this foundation:

Yuo cannot provide a justified conclusion of this "sucking void". You cannot demonstrate the necessity and indeed, seem to even postulate that such things as necessity, causality, et cetera, don't even come into play.

Why does it seem obvious to me that there must have been a time of nothingness? Why couldn't there "always" have been matter around? Because that assumes a *fulfilled* infinite past, which is impossible. And even if it were possible (which I stress, it isn't), matter would have run out by now. We would have a cold-death of the universe already. Why? Because if energy and matter can NOT be created ex-nihilo, then nothing could replenish the energy lost due to entropy over an infinite past. Even with oscillations of big bangs and big crunches.

This would only be true if such oscillations weren't themselves reverse entropy processes. It would seem that something which could recondense the universe to a singularity would necessarily have brought all energy back to a useful state.

The rest of your post shares the fruitless-aspect of the time debate. We have gone over it to no point where we can make any headway of progress.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

I agree. The term "God" can be misleading in the Ontological Argument. Unless the argument is extended to specific God-like qualities, such as personality. However, it does lead the way to the rationalization of omnipotence, omnipresence, et cetera, which at least makes the claims of some of the attributes of God reasonable.

 

[Sarkus]

I agree. The term "God" can be misleading in the Ontological Argument. Unless the argument is extended to specific God-like qualities, such as personality. However, it does lead the way to the rationalization of omnipotence, omnipresence, et cetera, which at least makes the claims of some of the attributes of God reasonable.

I disagree with the last statement.

It is not a case of the OA saying "Properties of God = Properties of Existence + X, but only the Properties of Existence can be rationalised through the OA".

The OA is saying that "there is something above which there is nothing greater. For the time being lets call it God."
If the answer turns out to be "God = Existence" then one can NOT add in additional properties and say God = Existence + X, as this would be "greater" than God = Existence, and would thus have been established by the OA.

So either one accepts the OA, in which case God = Existence (in which case why call it God?), or one accepts that the OA can not be used as an argument for God, period.

 

[Enterprise-D]

But it is not the greatest thing - as the thing that continues to exist is greater than that which doesn't. And existence exists... etc.
A "Fleem" that doesn't exist after 43 seconds is not as great as one that exists for 44, or 45 etc - and then it will depend on how you measure "greater".

All arguments for the flaws in the OA.

I was just pointing out that "God" as the theists imagine that exists 'infinitely' via the ontological argument is not as powerful as my imagined Fleem with finite existence but with the power to end infinite existence, therefore is not the greatest being that can exist (as an example of the OA flaw). Of course the Fleem with further existence would be 'more perfect', but then to go on and on (as you pointed out) is fruitless.

The OA is necessarily a function of imagination...hence a totally illogical argument, however eloquent it might sound.

Enterprise-D:
Show me how it is coherent to be able to destroy an eternal being, and we can discuss Fleem.

By the same token theists don't care how an infinitely existent, omnipotent being is at all coherent in the first place, I don't have to care or justify about how my Fleem is possible.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

However, you forget the "greatest thing which can exist/be imagined".

This necessitates analysis of what this implies.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but rational theists have been trying to prove the coherence of a divinity for a long time.

See: "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas for the most well known example.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but rational theists have been trying to prove the coherence of a divinity for a long time.

See: "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas for the most well known example.

PJ...please note the distinctions you had to make (rational??? by whose definition?), and not to mention "trying" to prove. None of these people have come close to proving anything of worth, especially after having resorted to such desperation as the OA.

Thus far I have used the ontological argument successfully to illustrate its never ending paradox. It is a useless argument that has been debunked years ago.


By the way, are you questioning my faith in the almighty Fleem? When he re-energizes you may not be spared destruction, and I will continue on in the deathless paradise he leaves in the wake of his 43s cleansing!

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

What paradox, exactly, does it produce?

And rational by the definition of "seeking proof through philosophical reasoning". St. Thomas Aquinas was not a fideist.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:

What paradox, exactly, does it produce?

And rational by the definition of "seeking proof through philosophical reasoning". St. Thomas Aquinas was not a fideist.

Um...hasn't this been beaten to death? The OA is a function of imagination, therefore the 'greatest being' will always be subject to perspective and individuality. I.E. there'll always be someone who'll ascribe various and differing characteristics to 'greatness', superior in his mind to the last definition.

"Philosophical reasoning" as a method of proof is escapist, to say the least, fraudulent to add a little weight...philosophical reasoning adds no more than barely educated guesswork (like the OA) to claims that already exist and await proof. Unfortunately though the term 'rational' is broad enough to preclude logic or empiricism where necessary to support the wielder of an argument or so called "proof".

This reminds me of the famous saying by Calvin...of Calvin and Hobbes: "Isn't it sad how some peoples grip on their lives is so precarious that they'll embrace any preposterous delusion rather than face an occasional bleak truth?".

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Um...hasn't this been beaten to death? The OA is a function of imagination, therefore the 'greatest being' will always be subject to perspective and individuality. I.E. there'll always be someone who'll ascribe various and differing characteristics to 'greatness', superior in his mind to the last definition.

Not at all. Logical extremes are common to all men. One cannot coherently put forth the idea of something "larger than infinite in size".

"Philosophical reasoning" as a method of proof is escapist, to say the least, fraudulent to add a little weight...philosophical reasoning adds no more than barely educated guesswork (like the OA) to claims that already exist and await proof. Unfortunately though the term 'rational' is broad enough to preclude logic or empiricism where necessary to support the wielder of an argument or so called "proof".

Empiricism has no role in the discussion of necessary things. Necessary things are a priori and analytic. Empiricism can only discuss the contingent, sensory world.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:
Not at all. Logical extremes are common to all men. One cannot coherently put forth the idea of something "larger than infinite in size".

One can however put forth levels of greatness that exceed other definitions. The christian god was of no help against "iron chariots". Whether this was literal iron or some sort of cosmic element "superium", the christian god was hardly perfect according to the bible itself. In this regard, someone else can come up with a concept that eludes the "iron chariots" weakness.

Empiricism has no role in the discussion of necessary things. Necessary things are a priori and analytic. Empiricism can only discuss the contingent, sensory world.

True, however theisms are trying to make an entirely unprovable entity an axiom. Pi, e, are measurable provable axioms. God is not. The proponents of the OA seek to deftly insert a new a priori standard without having to answer for it.

I put it to you that god must necessarily fall under the classification a posteriori IF such a creature exists. Existence exists is a priori. Existence dependant on a starting force might arguably be a priori. The starting force IS god....cannot be considered a self-evident irreducable truth.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

One can however put forth levels of greatness that exceed other definitions. The christian god was of no help against "iron chariots". Whether this was literal iron or some sort of cosmic element "superium", the christian god was hardly perfect according to the bible itself. In this regard, someone else can come up with a concept that eludes the "iron chariots" weakness.

Which is why scripture is useless.

True, however theisms are trying to make an entirely unprovable entity an axiom. Pi, e, are measurable provable axioms. God is not. The proponents of the OA seek to deftly insert a new a priori standard without having to answer for it.

Actually, the concept of God is given a definition in the OA: That which cannot be conceived of which is greater. This necessitates certain things, such as existence both in intellectu and in re.

I put it to you that god must necessarily fall under the classification a posteriori IF such a creature exists. Existence exists is a priori. Existence dependant on a starting force might arguably be a priori. The starting force IS god....cannot be considered a self-evident irreducable truth.

Actually, if existence is necessary, then its necessity is certainly based on a priori truths. The absurdity of nothingness producing existence would seem to point to the truth of this view.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:
Which is why scripture is useless.

We're getting somewhere lol

Actually, the concept of God is given a definition in the OA: That which cannot be conceived of which is greater. This necessitates certain things, such as existence both in intellectu and in re.


Actually, if existence is necessary, then its necessity is certainly based on a priori truths. The absurdity of nothingness producing existence would seem to point to the truth of this view.

Yet more of the multitude of problems with the OA.

1. What makes you think the postulation "existence is necessary" is accurate as opposed to existence just being?
2. Applying the OA to god itself; the existence of god necessarily requires a starting force since god is a complex being (ie greater than everything else, inclusive of the universe as a functioning whole). Where do you stop going backwards trying to find a starting point PJ? It is absurd to think nothingness produced the "most complex, unbeatable, greatest entity forever and ever".

 

[Enterprise-D]

I challenge anyone here to put all of this BS into a form that can actually be understood as leading to something relevant to anything.

In other words, WTF are you guys talking about???

Unfortunately superluminal, more logical folk thought the ontological argument was put to rest before. Evidently it's like a zombie...always coming back for more lashes to the head with the proverbial shovel. I'm happy to play the Buffy against that zombie.

The ontological argument simplified assumes god exists because a great force is necessary (to catalyze existence) and theists/philosophers can imagine no greater necessity or greater power than "god". In other words super...it is complete BS and totally irrelevant.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

1. What makes you think the postulation "existence is necessary" is accurate as opposed to existence just being?

If nothingness creating anything is absurd, than existence must be eternal. What is necessary but eternal?

2. Applying the OA to god itself; the existence of god necessarily requires a starting force since god is a complex being (ie greater than everything else, inclusive of the universe as a functioning whole). Where do you stop going backwards trying to find a starting point PJ? It is absurd to think nothingness produced the "most complex, unbeatable, greatest entity forever and ever".

Agreed - ergo God/existence must be necessary, not a progressive evolution or an instantneous creation from existence.

The ontological argument simplified assumes god exists because a great force is necessary (to catalyze existence) and theists/philosophers can imagine no greater necessity or greater power than "god". In other words super...it is complete BS and totally irrelevant.

The OA doesn't speak of the prime mover. That's Aristotle's teleological argument.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:
If nothingness creating anything is absurd, than existence must be eternal. What is necessary but eternal?

Please expound

Agreed - ergo God/existence must be necessary, not a progressive evolution or an instantneous creation from existence.

This is crap; another, more believable theory is that there is no god to begin with. Simply because the OA imagined god up as a premise does not allow for such a being's existence, far less for its necessity.

The OA doesn't speak of the prime mover. That's Aristotle's teleological argument.

Touche, my bad superliminal...the ontological argument tries to put god as an unexplainable truth that is axiomatic and unchallengable, something like the value of Pi or e. It is an assumption by theists/philosophers that the greatest being that can be conceived must necessarily have existence as a property, because existence is greater than non-existence.

Despite PJs correction, the OA is still a product of and dependant on imagination, and therefore illogical, circular and a mess of a postulation, that proves nothing in the end.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Please expound

That which is eternal has "always been and always will be". That which is necessary "has always been and always will be". The terms "eternal" and "necessary" are thus equivalent in this context.

This is crap; another, more believable theory is that there is no god to begin with. Simply because the OA imagined god up as a premise does not allow for such a being's existence, far less for its necessity.

You and I agree that nothingness is an absurd starting point for anything. Ergo, there must be one necessary thing at least, and we seem to have affirmed that existence corresponds to this.

If you want to call this God, it is quite appropriate tio start off with, as it satisfies both the necessity of existence and eternity right off the bat. Of course, we haven't gone down into the attributes to see what else it has that can be deduced analytically.

Touche, my bad superliminal...the ontological argument tries to put god as an unexplainable truth that is axiomatic and unchallengable, something like the value of Pi or e. It is an assumption by theists/philosophers that the greatest being that can be conceived must necessarily have existence as a property, because existence is greater than non-existence.

No, it is a necessary truth. For if something is held to be "the greatest" then it obviously it cannot be deficient in such a thing as "not existing outside outside the intellect". This would be a major deficiency to say the least and as it can be coherently put forth...

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D:

That which is eternal has "always been and always will be". That which is necessary "has always been and always will be". The terms "eternal" and "necessary" are thus equivalent in this context.

Crapulence. Necessity does not mean eternal existence. Necessity can begin anywhere within a timeline of existence, and end anywhere within. The dependencies of a necessary entity will also end of course but that is irrelevant. You have defined necessity as equal to eternal and this is not the case.

You and I agree that nothingness is an absurd starting point for anything. Ergo, there must be one necessary thing at least, and we seem to have affirmed that existence corresponds to this.

PJ, I never said I agreed with you. What I meant was it was ridiculous of you to think that nothingness is the producer of god. Especially considering that you yourself consider nothingness is an absurd starting point for anything.

No, it is a necessary truth. For if something is held to be "the greatest" then it obviously it cannot be deficient in such a thing as "not existing outside outside the intellect". This would be a major deficiency to say the least and as it can be coherently put forth...

PJ, the OA postulates a greatest being that may or may not exist. This is why it is a circular argument. Saying something exists as the greatest being then saying it must exist because the greatest being can't not exist...is insanity.