Ont. God

[_MrStakhanovite]

For an example of this, pretend you have iron cube that is 6 feet by 6 feet by 6 feet made of solid corrugated iron. A lot of Metaphysicians would say that cube has the maximal property of being a cube, but inside that cube we could carve out a sphere, and just like a cube, being a sphere is a maximal property. When the sphere was inside the cube, we wouldn’t say that cube has the maximal property of being a sphere. What if God as a morally perfect being was somehow embedded inside some meta idea about God?

[_Tarski]

Hello Tarski,
....snip.....

Do you have an independent reason to think that our anthropocentric notions of greater and better are objective?

If not then most of what you said is out the window.

I do not concede that (for example Godel's) ontological argument makes it clear in what sense God is supposed to exist: abstract, platonic, physical etc.

Read Godel's argument and then tell me that it is clear that the being he stipulatively defines as "god" cares about us.

Now Anselm's argument is worse and was not even on my mind. It is just too informal and dependent on imprecise anthropocentric notions to do the heavy lifting needed for a concept such as God.

Look:
1.Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5.We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6.Therefore, God exists.

(1) assumes an objective notion of greatness whereas it seem more like that what counts as greater depends on perspective and sense.

(2) and (3) assume the metaphysically dubious notion of a mind and also assumes that what exists in the mind does not exist in reality in any sense (but if the mind is real then...). Here one also once again assumes we have a grasp on an objective notion of better. Might not abstracta enjoy a "better" form of existence since they are less tainted?

(4) and (5) beg serious questions about what constitutes "imagining" or "conceiving". What would an eliminativist (like the Churchlands) think of this? Greater in what sense and from what perspective?

A rock and the number Pi exist in two totally different senses. How many senses are there in total? Which one do we end up with?

Objections more telling than mine are easy to find. Seek and ye shall find.

But really now, are you really convinced by this stuff???

To me, the extent to which these arguments work, is the extent to which our logical formalisms are failing us.

[_huckelberry]

I suppose it can be said that what ever thing a ma jig one comes upon has an order proper to itself. I think it is safe to say that Anselem was considering the observation that things change. One order comes to an end for the object as some other order takes its place. Considering such transitions, changes, evolution, the greater order is that which underlies the changes from one to another. The order which makes order possible.

I think I would not be making too big a leap to add that in Anselems time order and morality were understood to be very closely related. I doubt that such a connection would be totally out of place today.

[_marg]

To me, the extent to which these arguments work, is the extent to which our logical formalisms are failing us.

Would you go further than that and say that these logical formalisms are creating problems in critical thinking as opposed to adding to critical thinking?

[_Tarski]

To me, the extent to which these arguments work, is the extent to which our logical formalisms are failing us.

Would you go further than that and say that these logical formalisms are creating problems in critical thinking as opposed to adding to critical thinking?

I think formal logical systems are supposed to be models of certain aspects of rationality. We can then use the formal system to help us look closer at our own thinking. But they are not perfect reflections of rationality and it is dangerous to think that rationality just equals some formal logical system. Push a system to its limits or apply it to indistinct or inappropriate concepts and it will break ---which is perhaps what is happening.

So logic is supposed to help with critical thinking and it usually does but if one loses sight of what is really going on and lets a formal system have the final say no matter what then maybe we are hurt.

[_MrStakhanovite]

To me, the extent to which these arguments work, is the extent to which our logical formalisms are failing us.

Do you mean this in the sense of Formalism in the Philosophy of Math (Like Hilbert?) or something like people who focus on the connection between a premise at the cost of missing important material concerns about the premise?

[_Tarski]

To me, the extent to which these arguments work, is the extent to which our logical formalisms are failing us.

Do you mean this in the sense of Formalism in the Philosophy of Math (Like Hilbert?) or something like people who focus on the connection between a premise at the cost of missing important material concerns about the premise?

Both and more. But I will admit that this was an off hand comment. It hits the mark in spirit though.

[_marg]

]We can then use the formal system to help us look closer at our own thinking.

I'm not understanding what a formal logical system is. Is an ontological argument a formal logical system?

[_Tarski]

I'm not understanding what a formal logical system is. Is an ontological argument a formal logical system?

A formal logical system has mechanical rules of inference and so on.

The more formally stated ontological arguments (like Godel's) are in a form that invite us to map onto a formal system and check whether the conclusion follows according to allowed rules. Of course, as you know, the actual truth of the conclusion depends very much on the truth, self-consistency, semantics, the general clarity of the premises and perhaps also on how well the formal system does its job (and what is that job?--reflecting reality or reflecting rationality in some sense??). Is it consistent? Does everyone have faith in modal logic?
The formal or syntactic half has to be given an interpretation. How well can that really be done?
For example, "positive property in the moral or aesthetic sense"?? Really?

[_Chap]

It seems that the chain of argument that leads to Ont. God is a good example of the data processing principle of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

It doesn't matter how finely tuned the logical machine of the argument is.

If you feed in at one end the intolerably vague concept of something being 'great' (which means what? and how do we tell whether one thing is 'greater' than another?), and turn the handle, then what comes out at the other end is unlikely to be worth anyone's serious attention.