The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on November 30th, 2017, 8:45 pm 

Neri -

When you know what someone is going to say before they say it, its likely time you stopped talking to them - at least until they say something that surprises you.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby mitchellmckain on November 30th, 2017, 10:21 pm 

BadgerJelly » November 30th, 2017, 7:41 pm wrote:Mitch -

If you'd read Heidegger's Being and Time it would have been much easier to understand.


I suppose you mean if I read it AND understood it, rather than tried to read it and gave up as quickly as I did.

While I am not completely uneducated in philosophy, it is not my primary field of expertise. So for the works of some philosophers, all I was required to understand was someone's predigested interpretation/explanation. Exceptions include Aristotle, Plato, Camus, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Augustine, Marx, Whitehead, and Charles Sanders Pierce. I read some of the things these people actually wrote (and for those originally written in a language other than English that means I read a translated version of their work).

(Sorry for the late alteration. I was interrupted while writing it the addition.)
Last edited by mitchellmckain on November 30th, 2017, 10:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on November 30th, 2017, 10:39 pm 

mitchellmckain » December 1st, 2017, 10:21 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » November 30th, 2017, 7:41 pm wrote:Mitch -

If you'd read Heidegger's Being and Time it would have been much easier to understand.


I suppose you mean if I read it AND understood it, rather than tried to read it and gave up as quickly as I did.


Hahaha!! Fair enough. I ploughed through it with distain! There were some useful points, but what I took away from it the most was that the kind of things I were stopping myself from writing were no where near as convoluted as his writings.

I've returned to it a couple of times looking for a succinct definition of what he meant by "dasein". I've been left wanting each time.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on November 30th, 2017, 11:54 pm 

Forgive the need I feel to talk about this in an epistemic way (I guess?). I have been meaning to get into the psychologism debate for some time, so keep that in mind too.

Lomax -

I'll attempt to translate this passage and see what you think. Then return the question you asked.

[quote](1) Quantities are the convenience of the human condition (or rather they are the human condition), (2)all we "know" we know about we know about, in our "aboutness", in an emotional context (human context). (3) The physical is taken on as apodictic in an objective manner and it functions well enough for method to arise and science to stand above subjectivity even though it is itself merely a bracketing of subjective being, not in anyway a holding of noumenon in a positive sense, but set up in such a manner as to appear to be positive noumenon and to make an equivalence between "positive noumenon" and "physical reality"[quote]

Take into account my phenomenological tilt.

1) The only term here I was not happy about was "convenience". I just meant that being human means we've come to know things by measuring them, especially in this age. This has come to the fore more in human tradition because we place a distinct line, an imaginary one, between the world and our physical limits about (meaning both surrounding the world, and being surrounded by it) the world. We have a tendency to view the world as surrounding us rather than us surrounding it (from a phenomenological perspective neither of these are held to, they're just useful or "convenient" for mapping our narrative.)

In terms of the "table" example, the quantifiable properties of the table are irrelevant to a large degree in terms of the "table" as a narrative position. The underlying "form" of the table is how it is put to use, the meaning is how it is put to use, the "it" is how we place part of the world as "surrounding" us and make it "surrounded" by us.

note: I don't think this is too hard a thing to grasp? I think the ease of understanding this is precisely what makes it, initially, easy to pass over.

2) I expected this to be a problem. All that we know about we know about in an "aboutness", in an emotional context. I am guessing this already makes more sense given the above? If not ...

First the "emotional" part. Everything (or rather every "entity" - I say this meaning to bracket out the difference between something imagined and something experienced) is known to us as an emotional object. The "table" or even "stone" are about us (you can read "about us" in two different ways and I mean both of them!), meaning they "exist" as "table" or "stone" representational of humans, not as representations of "stones" or "tables", but existent as an object manifested by us and then viewed as surrounding us.

This may be quite harder to understand? Basically I am reducing the opposing appearances of the world as external and internal. The object manifest is us manifest. We act upon/within the world emotionally.

So "all we know about", meaning apodictically know (take as true - "bracketing" in order to limit our field of play), "we know about", meaning we "know" apodictically as a relation of limits set out - by "bracketing" - as objects about each other, "in an 'aboutness'", meaning we're always "surrounding" and "surrounded" and that this is "in an emotional context", meaning the logical appeal is an emotional appeal.

To further hammer this home (if needed?) the objective position is irrefutably an intersubjective position.

3) To be fair ... I better wait for clarification of the above.

If you have the time please try and reiterate what I've said at least.

Thanks
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 1st, 2017, 4:15 am 

And, yeah, punctuation failed me! Sorry about that I missed a comma.

SO it should read .... all we "know" we know about, we know about, in our "aboutness", in an emotional context (human context).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby mitchellmckain on December 1st, 2017, 5:35 am 

So....

I refreshed myself by rereading my predigested interpretation/description of Heidegger (text on the history of philosophy by Stumpf). My objection to Heidegger is this: reality is captured by multiple perspectives rather than a singular one. We can look at reality where man is one of the collection of things including animals, and we can look at man as the subject of the human experience of existence. Not only is this quite possible but it is in fact something we do all the time because although we only know ourselves from the inside we also know others from the outside. From my existentialist leanings I often use the word "existence" or "human existence" for the former -- what Heidegger calls "Desein." More often I would include this in the division between the subjective and objective apprehension of reality. I believe that I capture much of what Heidegger complains about when I remind people that human life cannot be conducted by objective observation alone, but requires subjective participation. I would see attempts to be purely an objective observer as largely consisting of pretense which is not only being inauthentic, but is frankly outright delusional.

For many of us it is difficult to follow the writing of a philosopher when we do not accept the premises of their thinking -- without which the logical coherence is lacking. I suspect this is part of why I cannot follow Heidegger in his writing.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
dandelion liked this post


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 1st, 2017, 7:25 am 

I can appreciate some of his work, but the issue remains that the premise of "Dasein" is never coherently defined. He builds everything on that singular undefined term, which after first reading the full thing I had a vague idea of, but when I looked back he doesn't make any definitive presentation of what he means and several of his attempts are completely contradictory.

It has since been realized that most of the ideas that are attributed to Heidegger are in fact lifted directly from Husserl. That said he certainly pursued the whole linguistic tangle, but seemed to take the idea Husserl had lain down as a linguistic issue not one of phenomenal experience - that said some of his terminology is interesting, and I am far from being in a position to deny his work outright having only read Being and Time.

And I can thank that work for giving me the confidence to realise my own thoughts weren't quite so out there as I first thought they were.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby Braininvat on December 1st, 2017, 1:40 pm 

I would see attempts to be purely an objective observer as largely consisting of pretense which is not only being inauthentic, but is frankly outright delusional.


I seem to remember a chat years ago where I pointed out that only a rock can be an objective observer. It doesn't filter out the effects of its environment or spin interpretations. If the sun shines on it, it gets warm. If it's compressed under a bed of sedimentary rock, it's atoms crowd closer together. And so on. If you shine light of 400 nm on it, its electrons jump a certain way. If you shine light of 700 nm on it, the electrons jump another way. All rocks like it respond the same way. They are objective, because they only function in the world as objects.

The question I raised was a Chalmers-esque one: what if the rock had some very basic residue of consciousness? Would it be the most objective "mind" possible? Because it cannot attempt anything, it is without pretense.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby mitchellmckain on December 1st, 2017, 4:24 pm 

If observation means no more than simply collecting data then although a rock is an extremely poor observer we can turn instead to a camera or other recording machinery and agree that these collect data rather objectively. They do not perceive in the sense we do and have no beliefs to alter or even attach meaning to the data recorded.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 3rd, 2017, 11:02 pm 

Mitch -

You can sum up everything about Heidegger in the last two pages of Being and Time:

... Our goal is to work out the question of being in general. Our thematic analytic of existence needs its turn in the light from previously clarified idea of being in general. That is especially true if the statement expressed in our introduction is retained as a standard for every philosophical investigation: Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology, beginning with a hermeneutic of Da-sein which, as an analytic of existence, has made fast the guideline for all philosophical questioning at the point where is arises and to which it returns.

- Heidegger (translated by Joan Stambaugh), Being and Time, p.397


The bold is my emphasis. It shows how Heidegger was mostly concerned with interpretation of a term, which I repeat, he has NOT ONCE explicitly defined. He appears, at least to me, to be saying "the being", I am, yet he seems to think that by saying "being there" (basic translation of "Da-sein") he can then understand being as a non-existing being, and simply by playing with words he completely avoids any kind of direct explication.

TO ALL -

The entire point of me posting here was to uncover Neri. You can see by my very first reply to the OP what his problem is.

He dismisses the premise of meaning. He is a radical physical materialist. "Value" is not "objective". That, as he put it, it is not possible to make a distinction between two different values.

It is also insane to argue in any way about something existing independent of the mind when you have already dismissed the idea of dualism. The mind body distinction is taken up here in order to back up the claim of the minds non-existence. It is most definitively sloppy thinking.

It is complete nonsense to say if something cannot be measured it doesn't exist. Literally everything imaginable is measureable. That which is not imaginable is noumenon in the "positive sense". Any singular conceptual item cannot be measured against itself, we cannot measure COLOUR, but we can measure A COLOUR.

Lomax -

I don't understand how you can say that an Ontological Proof is not a question of existence and being? The ontological question is explicit in every single question, and the "question" is our direct human involvement with this task.

I also have to comment that this is not merely something I am throwing out there as an opinion of mine. A more modern proof put forward was by Godel who focused on the question regarding existence and took up a phenomenological stance (in the Husserlian sense of phenomenology, not the kind of post modern word-play that I would accuse Heidegger of sparking off.)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby Lomax on December 4th, 2017, 10:26 am 

I didn't say it wasn't a question of existence. It isn't a question of what existence is. An ontological argument is as opposed to, say, a teleological argument (an argument that God has some particular plan).
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3502
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 4th, 2017, 12:30 pm 

Lomax -

Fair enough. It would be a bit weird to talk about the being of existence. haha! An unavoidable issue is the description of "god" in use. I am not sure of he use of "purpose" and "beginning", it is the use of the terms "ontology" and "teleology" that may too easily slip into different fields of thought and confuse matters.

I do praise Heidegger for at least setting to work upon the two important concepts "being" and "time".
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby Lomax on December 4th, 2017, 8:27 pm 

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I haven't read Being and Time yet (being allergic to opaque texts) so all I really know about Heidegger is that he was a Nazi and he thought we should spend more time in graveyards. One out of two ain't bad I guess.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3502
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 4th, 2017, 11:32 pm 

Just noticed a mistake I made. Looks like I am saying something I am not really saying!

It is complete nonsense to say if something cannot be measured it doesn't exist. Literally everything imaginable is measureable. That which is not imaginable is noumenon in the "positive sense". Any singular conceptual item cannot be measured against itself, we cannot measure COLOUR, but we can measure A COLOUR.


I was NOT saying "colour" is "positive noumenon", only that many people take up positive noumenon to mean something like this. "colour" is measured within language, so essentially when we say "positive noumenon" we are referring to something as concept that cannot be referred to! It is a completely contrary concept, yet it is how we stop ourselves from knowing as if with an omnipotent view - hence Kant referring to noumenon as use only in the negative sense (limiting).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby mitchellmckain on December 5th, 2017, 3:49 am 

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote:Mitch -

You can sum up everything about Heidegger in the last two pages of Being and Time:

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology, beginning with a hermeneutic of Da-sein which, as an analytic of existence, has made fast the guideline for all philosophical questioning at the point where is arises and to which it returns.

- Heidegger (translated by Joan Stambaugh), Being and Time, p.397



I am just as opposed to any claim that a statement like this has any objective validity as I am to similar statements about religion in general. Each religion and philosophical perspective likes to define "religion" or "philosophy" as a premise for the ideas they are pushing. This is merely what Heidegger found meaningful in the work of philosophy. Others find meaning in philosophy in quite a different way.

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote:The entire point of me posting here was to uncover Neri. You can see by my very first reply to the OP what his problem is.

I will not comment on whether your analysis of Neri is accurate, but I will respond to the particular issues you raise with my own personal perspective.

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote:He dismisses the premise of meaning.

I have encountered this philosophical perspective before (that meaning does not exist) and my response is that logically it is meaningless, and therefore not worthy of any consideration as far as I am concerned.

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote: He is a radical physical materialist. "Value" is not "objective". That, as he put it, it is not possible to make a distinction between two different values.

Although I am a physicalist with respect to the mind-body problem, I am clearly not a physicalist in the more general sense of the word and thus certainly not a physical materialist.

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote:It is also insane to argue in any way about something existing independent of the mind when you have already dismissed the idea of dualism.

I do not see how this logically follows. One can dismiss dualism while acknowledging that there are differences and distinctions in the universe. One can distinguish the body and the mind just as one distinguishes sun and moon. The point is that relationships in general are founded on both similarities and differences. Thus the rejection of dualism is deny that the relationship of body and mind is one of difference only with no commonality.

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote: The mind body distinction is taken up here in order to back up the claim of the minds non-existence. It is most definitively sloppy thinking.

In response to this I can only reiterate my affirmation that we have excellent evidence that an objective aspect to reality does exist. BUT we do not have good evidence or objective evidence that reality is exclusively objective or that reality can be restricted within some other sort of declared bounds (other than logical consistency).

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote:It is complete nonsense to say if something cannot be measured it doesn't exist.

I quite agree. To restrict reality to the measurable in effect restricts reality to what can theoretically be manipulated or controlled. I cannot help but think that such a restriction points to habit of thought which only concerns itself with what can be manipulated/controlled.

BadgerJelly » December 3rd, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote: Literally everything imaginable is measureable.

Not unless you change the meaning of the word measurable from its objective meaning in science to something quite different -- something more like conceptually tangible. If it is imaginable then we can talk about it. But this is not what is usually meant by "measurable." Like we have discussed before, the things we talk about can be logically inconsistent that thus shown to be non-existent. We can talk about the solution to the system of equations x+y=3 and 2x+2y=5. But a logical inconsistency means such a solution does not exist.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2017, 4:15 am 

Mitch -

In last, you understood. I was viewing the meaning of "measuring" differently. I was hinting at the more abstract use that would be one more like "comparisons" of seemingly uniquely distinguishable concepts. So I would say that "to talk about something" is a means of measuring it (although I am using the term more freely here and I am guessing you got that hint by the manner you replied?) That is not to say I am happy to bend words around so they become so distorted as to become meaningless. The point being that when we say "measure" we are enclosing meaning within a very particular theoretic view of the world as being a physically measureable and accurately verifiable item - and that it not to dismiss the obvious benefits reaped by this scientific procedure!

My qualm above was with how Neri seems to unwittingly slip into the convenience of more dualistic distinctions when it suits his cause and then riles against such distinctions when he doesn't. I would make an attempt at a fresh analogy and say it is something like shooting someone dead with a gun and then insisting they can be imagined back to life again, yet also insisting that shooting someone with an imaginary gun does nothing.

I was in no way suggesting any philosophical perspective is useless, only that to understanding its context of use makes a huge difference as to how you can apply it. Just like in the political sphere I can appreciate that a more left or right leaning view has its use, but I woul dnot simply hol dto one side of the argument in every situation dogmatically, and understand that each human case under scrutiny benefits more from one position than another. T oput it another way more simplistically, any virtue taken to an extreme inevitably becomes a vice.

note: There a "quantum foam" point of language I will not delve into. That is where the mystics go and the post modernists attempted to bring something verbally measureable back as if "material", or simply in order to deconstruct all meaning (something violent and dangerous.)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby wolfhnd on December 5th, 2017, 7:10 am 

BadgerJelly » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:45 am wrote:Neri -

When you know what someone is going to say before they say it, its likely time you stopped talking to them - at least until they say something that surprises you.


How about this>

We should be more worried about the post modernists than if God exists.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2017, 10:43 am 

Wolfhnd -

And be careful we're not just labelling someone as "post-modernist" because we don't understand them.

I may be completely wrong about Heidegger. I am just voicing what I think and what I have found. Maybe I am just too stuck in my own views to recognize his?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby hyksos on December 6th, 2017, 2:58 am 

Does G = P ?
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 6th, 2017, 3:39 am 

Hyksos -

Just spit out whatever it is you wish to say. Otherwise, I don't know what you really mean by G or P because you didn't explicate what we're meant to make of "perfect" compared to "source" (which you seemed to be happy to frame as a physical proof).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby wolfhnd on December 6th, 2017, 4:12 am 

BadgerJelly » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:43 pm wrote:Wolfhnd -

And be careful we're not just labelling someone as "post-modernist" because we don't understand them.

I may be completely wrong about Heidegger. I am just voicing what I think and what I have found. Maybe I am just too stuck in my own views to recognize his?


I think you know my position has always been that your ideas should correlate with experience. Western philosophy was damaged by Plato's proposition that the idea of a horse is more real than the horse itself. I'm not denying that abstractions are real, perhaps in some sense more real than our concept of physical reality. I wouldn't even argue that the post modernists infinite regression is bad philosophy. I'm making an argument against the utility of debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. I don't think you need to "prove" angels aren't "real" to make the point. Reversing the argument I don't feel I have to prove objective reality to discount post modernist type philosophies.

As it relates to the thread at hand the need to dissect theories on the existence of God can be discounted on purely practical or consequential grounds. It is up to the theists to demonstrate that the experience of God correlates with something other than abstract reality. The consequences of the death of God have been clearly laid out by Nietzsche and testify to the reality of abstractions but that I believe is another topic.

Don't expect sound philosophy from me it's not my thing, I'm just offering the heretic's point of view. Essentially I'm saying that religion is the low hanging fruit of bad ideas. When you remove religion equally bad ideas crop up to take it's place. It would seem that that would justify the point of the OP but just as the post modernists would argue that there are an infinite number of valid positions there are an infinite number of bad ideas to replace religion. It comes down to the unsatisfying position of the bad infinite. Evidence and reason seem to indicate that there are a limited number of plausible reasons that correlate with experience.

Just because something is logical doesn't mean it correlates with experience at all. Philosophy is like dreams it's purposes is to establish internal consistency and prune unnecessary data. If you don't dream you go mad as sensory data clogs up the machinery. I suppose it's about balance because without sensory data you also go mad.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
LomaxBraininvat liked this post


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby mitchellmckain on December 6th, 2017, 4:33 am 

BadgerJelly » December 6th, 2017, 2:39 am wrote:Hyksos -

Just spit out whatever it is you wish to say. Otherwise, I don't know what you really mean by G or P because you didn't explicate what we're meant to make of "perfect" compared to "source" (which you seemed to be happy to frame as a physical proof).

You would if you were paying more attention.

G = creator of the universe
P = perfect being

Hyskos suggested that G was not unique and I replied that neither is P.


Are G and P variables or sets? The sets certainly are not equal. But if variables, then the equation G=P has a solution according to the beliefs of some people. I can see no reason to exclude a solution. I am tempted to suggest an augmentation of the ontological proof which claims that God is the solution to such an equation. LOL However, if we are including all possible worlds in the scope of our query, then I see no reason why this would only have one solution, so that fails to fix that particular problem. But I suppose this would be a valid definition for God as one who partakes of both descriptions -- so neither the Demiurge nor the unicorn would be God by that definition.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 6th, 2017, 5:47 am 

Mitch -

I am well aware of the post made two pages back. Don't assume ignorance or sloppiness in every single post you read please.

To quote Hyksos -

So the G Entity (lets call him) is the source and cause of the Big Bang, and the source of the laws of physics as we currently measure them. Fine.

So let the P Entity (lets call him) be the "Perfect Existing thing for which nothing more perfect can be thought."


Question. Is the G Entity equivalent to the P Entity? In other words, are we necessarily talking about the same entity with a different label?

On logical grounds, the answer is obviously no. G Entity could be a petty smaller player in the grand scheme, and there could exist lots of P entities "more perfect than G". G Entity becomes a provincial minor god who only deals in local universe pockets that obey QFT and GR. There could exist several other G Entities, labelled G1, G2,... GN respectfully. And they have their own little universes that they "Design" and "Bang".

Are these above scenarios true on account of the fact that I can deductively show them as possible and logically plausible? Of course not. It is equally logical to claim that G=P. I don't see how deductive logic in isolation could resolve either scenario.


Are you blind to the premises?? I have put them in bold just in case ;)

Notice the way in which "perfect" and "source" are framed. See what I mean?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 6th, 2017, 6:01 am 

Wolf -

Note how the term "god" has been defined. If it is that which cannot be defined then we have an issue from the get go. It has been defined, albeit vaguely, by many people. It is upon those premises that the proofs can be applied.

Hyksos has said "entity" and I prefer that term because numbers and tables are both entities. It does not have to refer to some form of higher consciousness or any other theological concatenation that ends in a "man in the sky" ruling over us.

The way I see it the whole issue is a question of how we're explicating "existence".
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby wolfhnd on December 6th, 2017, 12:18 pm 

Sorry I got involved I admit to having nothing of value to add.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby dandelion on December 6th, 2017, 1:01 pm 

mitchellmckain » December 1st, 2017, 10:35 am wrote:So....

I refreshed myself by rereading my predigested interpretation/description of Heidegger (text on the history of philosophy by Stumpf). My objection to Heidegger is this: reality is captured by multiple perspectives rather than a singular one. We can look at reality where man is one of the collection of things including animals...


Just wiki gives some description and quotes about it, e.g., "This entity which each of us is himself…we shall denote by the term “Dasein” (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.27), and wiki also refers to criticisms e.g. Rorty’s. Lyotard’s is interesting too.

And by the way, I particularly liked Mitch’s mention of animals. For me, problems with Heidegger can include denial of animals, e.g., chimps (despite usage and even fashioning) use tools or may mourn or die; denials of allowances for such possibilities as AI or aliens; quantity in discretion- but instead, an “unauthorised”, “inauthentic” interpretation from ontic to an entropic epistemic interpretation of zeit through an ancient fragment can be interesting (Basic Concepts of Ancient Philosophy, 1926, trans, 2007; The White Mythology, etc.).
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 302
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby Braininvat on December 6th, 2017, 2:02 pm 

"God" is more like a large shaded area on a graph where the shaded area is "conscious entities that are much smarter and much more capable than you are, over a much larger volume of space." You could have 3 axes, and have it be a shaded volume, with the axes being intelligence, capability, and coverage area. Given C, of course, the larger the coverage area, the slower the thoughts. An entity that covers the present Hubble volume would take billions of years to have a single thought. Which means....

....that it could not be omniscient, since its thoughts would be too slow to be fully aware of everything that is going on at our scale of reality.

Ergo, to have god-like extent is perforce to lack godlike omniscience. Ergo, there is no real God in the traditional Western definition.

Cheers.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomax liked this post


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby Braininvat on December 6th, 2017, 2:03 pm 

Essentially I'm saying that religion is the low hanging fruit of bad ideas. When you remove religion equally bad ideas crop up to take it's place.
- Wolf

I've known a fair number of agnostics who are fans of the X-Files and the abduction literature. This would seem to support what you say.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby BadgerJelly on December 6th, 2017, 5:14 pm 

Dand -

Heidegger uses multiple, and obscure, definitions of "Dasein" then quickly moves on. The entire book kind of outline what he means. The way I see it he butchered Husserl's phenomenology for the sake of one minute part of it.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The illogic of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

Postby hyksos on December 8th, 2017, 6:48 pm 

Braininvat » December 6th, 2017, 10:02 pm wrote: Ergo, there is no real God in the traditional Western definition.Cheers.


History of science. Roughly separated by 200 year gaps.

Johannes Kepler. (b.1571) To him the "universe" was a sun in the middle and six planets. He was convinced that God had created that "universe" , and since God created it, the planetary orbits correspond to embedded platonic solids.

Pierre Louis Maupertuis (b.1698) The "universe" is still the sun in the middle, six planets, and a "celestial sphere" at a great distance. At this point in time, astronomy was developed enough that measurements could be made of orbital inclinations. These are slight deviations of the planetary orbits being tilted away from a perfect plane. Maupertuis got into raging debates on letters with other scientists regarding the issue of the planets having random inclinations out of a perfect plane. And yes, they interpreted this as evidence for, or against, the solar system being a creation of a "perfect divine Being". God was copiously mentioned in the back-and-forth correspondence.

Albert Einstein (b.1879). The "universe" for mid-life Einstein was equal to the Milky Way galaxy. By the end of his life, the universe was a large collection of galaxies. Starting in 1924, and going to 1940s, Einstein debated Max Born in a series of letters about quantum mechanics and what Q-M suggested about the nature of the world. These debates were the whole rigamorolle about "God does not play dice" , and et cetera.

Today we can identify a common thread running through this history. THe basic gist here is something like :

I know God, and God would not create a universe were X is true.


Identifying the theme in each case :

"I know God, and God would not place the orbits of the planets around the sun at haphazard distances."
(Kepler)

"I know God, and if God had made the solar system, he certainly would have placed the planes of orbits all together in the same plane, rather than in the bizarre random configuration we find them in." (Maupertuis)

"I know God, and God does not allow physical events to happen that have no cause."
(Einstein)

So we have a history spanning multiple centuries where aspects of the universe are uncovered, and at every instance, the Western Creator God is invoked --- because some character in the drama pipes up and claims to "KNow God" and knows that "God would have such-and-such".

Obviously, I have skip-jumped over the entire debacle regarding Charles Darwin, and evolutionary theory. I might make a roughshod statement, and claim something like : Nobody inside the discipline of biology ever seriously doubted Natural Selection. (but such a claim may be too hasty on my part. we'll see).
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests