Ont. God

[_Tarski]

Consider your favorite ontological proof for the existence of God.
Now assume for the sake of argument that it proves that some being "God" exists.

Call it "Ont God".

Here are some things that I think we still wouldn't know?

1) We wouldn't know whether or not our perception of good or great was out of alignment with God's absolute perspective. Given the horror we see around us, perhaps his "good" is just very different than ours. Perhaps tortured babies are the purpose.
Since we might not know which way is up so to speak, we don't know what being "greater" than all beings really means.

2) We wouldn't know about any connection with Jesus or the Bible.

3) Would wouln't know if ont God was conscious or had thoughts.

4) We wouldn't know whether "ont God" cared about any religion or cared about anything at all (yeh, caring seems like a great thing from our finite perspective but maybe God is in some nirvana without attachment or care.)

5) We wouldn't know whether "ont God" was or was not an abstraction like pi.

6) We would not have any new reason to admire or follow priests, popes, prophets or theologians for that matter.

7) We wouldn't have any idea what we should do differently given that the "ont God" existed.

Or not?

What difference should it make to us, if this deductively deduced thing exists or not given that this "ont God" is vastly more out of our ken and more remote than a random strongly inaccessible cardinal?


Edit: To be clear, I am not in the least convinced by any ontological argument for "GOD!!!"

[_Nightlion]

I do not think in all my preaching I am being the least bit ontological. I offer an actual experience that God alone will administer and complete. A workable effort with promised results that has evidence from all generations of time of its consistency and truth. If that is a mere argument. I'll be.

[_malkie]

Well, you got me!

"Ont" is the TLA (three-letter abbreviation) for Ontario.

[_harmony]

That whooshing sound was the point of this thread flying over my head at about 35,000 feet.

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, I like what John Larson said in one of his pod-casts, something about how he calls himself an "apatheist" because it just doesn't matter. Even if we knew there was a god, nothing follows from that. Knowing there's a god still doesn't tell us much about her. (Obviously, I'm paraphrasing).

[_Stormy Waters]

Correct if I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that according to ontological arguments that we wouldn't even be sure that this ontological God was responsible for our creation, or that he cared about our existence at all. The ontological God might simply co-exist in our universe.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Correct if I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that according to ontological arguments that we wouldn't even be sure that this ontological God was responsible for our creation, or that he cared about our existence at all. The ontological God might simply co-exist in our universe.

You’ve got it. Typically, these classical arguments for God’s existence like the Ontological argument or the Cosmological Argument typically set out to establish just one attribute of the Theistic God, so while the ontological argument may be necessary for Theism, but it is a long ways from being sufficient.

One strategy I’m a particular fan of is called Anselmian Atheism, where you take one of the ontological argument and attempt to disprove Theism with it, for the reasons you and Tarski have laid out.

[_mikwut]

Hello Tarski,

I would believe that Norman Malcolm and Leibniz and many others are then correct when they suggest that Anselm means by "God cannot be conceived not to exist" that God necessarily exists. Anselm's Ontological Arguments, The Philosophical Review, 69. This would mean I would have further evidence that the Cosmological Argument is true and valid because a necessary being does in fact exist, which would provide me the further attributes of God as creator et al. that the Cosmological Argument reasonably allows inferences from.

We wouldn't know whether or not our perception of good or great was out of alignment with God's absolute perspective. Given the horror we see around us, perhaps his "good" is just very different than ours. Perhaps tortured babies are the purpose.
Since we might not know which way is up so to speak, we don't know what being "greater" than all beings really means.

Yes we would because by conceding that there is something we can think of which by our thinking of it is shown to exist outside our thought - then the same would be ergo true of a priori evil, good, the moral law within etc... and hence would bound us to those truths when we deduce the conception of a being greater than.... or we would at least been given a rational carte blanche for that insight from your kind concession.

We wouldn't know about any connection with Jesus or the Bible.

There would be the rationality connection. If God's existence is of such a low probability without your ont.God concession then the rational acceptance of Jesus is greatly reduced as well. But if you have conceded God (as that which nothing greater can be conceived), then the rational acceptance of Jesus is increased. Also, the existential connection of 'sin' towards the need for Jesus is rationally connected to the 'greatest conceivable being" who would resolve the existential crisis of sin and the obvious Jesus correspondence to that would make the claims rationally more acceptable.

We wouln't know if ont God was conscious or had thoughts.

Really? You would be confused on whether the greatest conceivable being is actually conscious or not? It is found in the definition you conceded.

We wouldn't know whether "ont God" cared about any religion or cared about anything at all (yeh, caring seems like a great thing from our finite perspective but maybe God is in some nirvana without attachment or care.)

It is really beyond the pale for you or inconceivable to you that the greatest conceivable being wouldn't give a crap? It is rationally found in the definition you conceded.

We wouldn't know whether "ont God" was or was not an abstraction like pi.

Yes you would, by definition, because your granting concrete existence outside of our understanding where abstractions lie.

We would not have any new reason to admire or follow priests, popes, prophets or theologians for that matter.

We would have a foundational reason to take them seriously.

We wouldn't have any idea what we should do differently given that the "ont God" existed.

Oh dear.

What difference should it make to us, if this deductively deduced thing exists or not given that this "ont God" is vastly more out of our ken and more remote than a random strongly inaccessible cardinal?

Because you didn't concede a "thing" exists but the greatest conceivable being exists.

my regards, mikwut

[_MrStakhanovite]

For Anselm’s particular argument, how one is going to constrain maximality is going to determine if that which no greater can be conceived should be understood as a moral being.

[_huckelberry]

Paul Tillich may be said to have been asking how something could be the ground of my being without being my greatest good.