Another ontological argument

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Gertie »

DM

It makes perfect evolutionary sense for human beings to have a felt need to make sense of the world, and "God" fills the gap in our understanding better than "chance."
Yes it does make sense that people feel the need to make sense of the world, saying 'I don't know' feels unsatisfactory, but when you say God fills the gap ''better'', I think what that really means is that God fills the gap in a more psychologically satisfying way. If it's a harmless belief which fills the gap and helps people lead more satisfying lives, I don't have a problem with it. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. Unfortunately many God beliefs are very harmful, and particularly resistant to argument or progressivism because they believe they're in touch with some deep, eternal revealed truth beyond the ken of mere man.
The other part of the equation is life itself, and life is not reducible to an idea. It is something we experience. I wonder how the world would be now if Descartes had said "I experience, therefore, I am."
He should have said 'experience' rather than 'think', but not bad for the day! Better still 'Experiencing Exists This Moment' - that's all that can really be known with direct certainty, even the 'I' part is an inference. I agree with you experiencing is what matters because it is qualiative, truth is secondary, and always inferred.
All too often, we let let our beliefs (calling it "truth") get between ourselves and our experiencing of life. We may call it being loyal to the "truth," but when conceptions of truth master life, life perishes: it becomes a doctrine instead of a life. It's becomes idolatry. Truth is life itself, not the body of facts associated with it.
The thing is, when we go about leading our lives outside of philosophy forums, we live on the basis (Act As If) there is such a thing as the real world, that's a truth. And there are truths about that world. Otherwise we couldn't get through the day. And we use science to tell us how the world works, at certain useful levels of granularity at least. And this science tells a convincing coherent story, makes testable predictions, and it works! It will probably even explain one day this yearning for the non-mundane.

But it strikes me that what many religious people do is pick and choose when they want to reject Truth. Not just religious people, everyone, but it's apposite here. You're not going to kick a rock because you don't believe in the truth of the rock. Often Religion actually encourages you to put aside Truth in favour of Faith (loyalty), and in a free society people will naturally veer towards whatever meets their psychological needs - tho of course A) those needs have been at least partially fashioned by their society, and 2) aren't always healthy wish-fulfilment type desires.

As I say, fine by me as long as it's not harmful.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belini:
Faith in reason …
It is not for Descartes a matter of faith that he exists. He sees that it could not be otherwise, he cannot doubt it. He goes on to say that mathematics is certain and indubitable. What is certain and indubitable is not a matter of faith. But he then goes on to claim that:
Everything we clearly and distinctly understand is true (Synopsis)
That, it seems to me, could be called a matter of faith, although, as the commentators have shown by their lack of agreement, we do not have a clear and distinct understanding of what he meant by this.

Where things get really interesting is when he introduces his algebraic method of solving for unknowns. He claims that any unknown can be solved based on what is known, starting with the knowledge of his own existence. In the fourth meditation he introduces the idea of the perfectibility and infallibility of man based on his method. Is this faith? As Matthew says:

Truly I tell you, if you have faith ... Nothing will be impossible for you. (17:20)

There is an echo here of the story of the tower of Babel, where God says that if they succeed in building the tower nothing they set themselves to do will be impossible for them. It is from this story that Descartes (following Bacon) gets the idea of a universal language, which he identifies as mathematics. For Descartes it is not so much a matter of faith in reason but of what we can accomplish through reason.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4, I picture the philosophical Rationalist as someone who believes it's possible , disembodied, to examine the world elevated above and free of any subject illusions.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Dark Matter »

Gertie wrote:Yes it does make sense that people feel the need to make sense of the world, saying 'I don't know' feels unsatisfactory, but when you say God fills the gap ''better'', I think what that really means is that God fills the gap in a more psychologically satisfying way. If it's a harmless belief which fills the gap and helps people lead more satisfying lives, I don't have a problem with it. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. Unfortunately many God beliefs are very harmful, and particularly resistant to argument or progressivism because they believe they're in touch with some deep, eternal revealed truth beyond the ken of mere man.
I'd be more cautious with the word “progressivism.” Nowadays, a “progressive” is someone who label those with whom they differ as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. They demonize the religious and use the courts to destroy their business.

-- Updated December 6th, 2016, 6:21 pm to add the following --

By the way, can you get any more condescending?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Gertie »

Dark Matter wrote:
Gertie wrote:Yes it does make sense that people feel the need to make sense of the world, saying 'I don't know' feels unsatisfactory, but when you say God fills the gap ''better'', I think what that really means is that God fills the gap in a more psychologically satisfying way. If it's a harmless belief which fills the gap and helps people lead more satisfying lives, I don't have a problem with it. Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me. Unfortunately many God beliefs are very harmful, and particularly resistant to argument or progressivism because they believe they're in touch with some deep, eternal revealed truth beyond the ken of mere man.
I'd be more cautious with the word “progressivism.” Nowadays, a “progressive” is someone who label those with whom they differ as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. They demonize the religious and use the courts to destroy their business.

-- Updated December 6th, 2016, 6:21 pm to add the following --

By the way, can you get any more condescending?
You say atheists don't understand analogy, you say explaining your beliefs to me is like trying to explain a Van Gogh to a blind person.... don't complain about being condescended to.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
I picture the philosophical Rationalist as someone who believes it's possible , disembodied, to examine the world elevated above and free of any subject illusions.
As a generality it is true enough, but it does not tell the whole story. For one, we have to consider the importance of optics for Descartes (I am not familiar enough with Spinoza to say what role they played for him beyond his profession as a lens maker). We tend to take the telescope for granted but its invention represented more that a tool for seeing further. We also have to consider that Descartes, contrary to Marx’s claim about philosophers, was not interested in simply interpreting the world but changing it. This is what the end of his provisional moral code is about. He says that whereas the stoics accepted what they could not change, it will no longer be necessary to accept because it is or will be in our power to change the world. Advances in medical knowledge was one area he devoted time and energy to.
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Renee »

Fooloso4 wrote:Descartes, contrary to Marx’s claim about philosophers, was not interested in simply interpreting the world but changing it.
Apparently, Marx defied his own definition by his own example.
Ignorance is power.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by -1- »

Dark Matter wrote:
I'd be more cautious with the word “progressivism.” Nowadays, a “progressive” is someone who label those with whom they differ as sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted.
Let me get this straight... I am not as fast as the others around here. You have a sense of pride by not being a "progressive" but being one from whom the progressives differ?
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Dark Matter »

Gertie wrote:
Dark Matter wrote: By the way, can you get any more condescending?
You say atheists don't understand analogy, you say explaining your beliefs to me is like trying to explain a Van Gogh to a blind person.... don't complain about being condescended to.
I'm in good company.

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Francis Bacon

Atheists “are in general sciolists rather than ingenious or learned”and “commonly allege in favor of the non-existence of God, arises continually from one or other of these two things, namely, either the ascription of human affections to Deity, or the undue attribution to our minds of so much vigor and wisdom that we may essay to determine and comprehend what God can and ought to do.” Rene Descartes

Almost 400 years and atheists still haven't changed their tune.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:
I picture the philosophical Rationalist as someone who believes it's possible , disembodied, to examine the world elevated above and free of any subject illusions.
As a generality it is true enough, but it does not tell the whole story. For one, we have to consider the importance of optics for Descartes (I am not familiar enough with Spinoza to say what role they played for him beyond his profession as a lens maker). We tend to take the telescope for granted but its invention represented more that a tool for seeing further. We also have to consider that Descartes, contrary to Marx’s claim about philosophers, was not interested in simply interpreting the world but changing it. This is what the end of his provisional moral code is about. He says that whereas the stoics accepted what they could not change, it will no longer be necessary to accept because it is or will be in our power to change the world. Advances in medical knowledge was one area he devoted time and energy to.
Praiseworthy then. Does Descartes' shaky ontological stance discredit his rationale at all?

Spinoza pretty thoroughly studied Descartes and metamorphosed the ontological dualism into ontological monism, thereby also pointing firmly towards a workable ethics based , not upon Free Will, but upon reason. I think that there is controversy as to whether or not Spinoza is actually an empiricist not a rationalist, although he uses rational method in 'Ethics'.

BTW I do recommend Stewart Hampshire's commentary on Spinozism and Spinoza , scholarly and easy to read.

At your instigation I found the following in online Enclyclopaedia of Philosophy:

He was clear, in his own mind at least, that the model had hardly be given a demonstration in the sense in which one could give in geometry the sort of demonstration given by Euclid. He wrote to Mersenne:

You ask me whether I think what I have written about refraction is a demonstration. I think it is, at least as far as it is possible, without having proved the principles of physics previously by metaphysics, to give any demonstration in this subject ... as far as any other question of mechanics, optics, or astronomy, or any other question which is not purely geometrical or arithmetical, has ever been demonstrated. But to demand that I should give geometrical demonstrations of matters which depend on physics is to demand that I should do the impossible. If you restrict the use of “demonstration” to geometrical proofs only, you will be obliged to say that Archimedes demonstrated nothing in mechanics, nor Vitello in optics, nor Ptolemy in astronomy, etc., which is not commonly maintained. For, in such matters, one is satisfied that the writers, having presupposed certain things which are not obviously contradictory to experience, have besides argued, consistently and without logical fallacy, even if their assumptions are not exactly true. (27 May 1638)


-- Updated December 7th, 2016, 5:34 am to add the following --

The ref for the above quote from Descartes is www.iep.utm.edu/desc-sci/
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:

Does Descartes' shaky ontological stance discredit his rationale at all?

Do you mean his dualism or the problem he gets into when he attempts to apply the idea of an extended substance to the physical world? I am not sure what you mean by his rationale.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:

Does Descartes' shaky ontological stance discredit his rationale at all?

Do you mean his dualism or the problem he gets into when he attempts to apply the idea of an extended substance to the physical world? I am not sure what you mean by his rationale.
By "his shaky ontological stance" I mean his dualism.

By "his rationale" I mean what he wrote Mersenne in the extract which I copied into my last. I don't suppose I can say it better than Descartes said it but I understand that a 21st century physicist uses experiments and observations i.e empirical method and fleshes out the empirical findings with maths. This seems to me, please correct me if I'm wrong, to be implied by what Descartes wrote to Mersenne
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
By "his shaky ontological stance" I mean his dualism.

By "his rationale" I mean what he wrote Mersenne in the extract which I copied into my last.
I don’t think the former discredits the latter. As I understand it, the letter to Mersenne had to do with with his denial that demonstrations in physics, specifically refraction, requires the same demonstrations provided for metaphysics.

From the quoted passage:
But to demand that I should give geometrical demonstrations of matters which depend on physics is to demand that I should do the impossible. If you restrict the use of “demonstration” to geometrical proofs only, you will be obliged to say that Archimedes demonstrated nothing in mechanics, nor Vitello in optics, nor Ptolemy in astronomy, etc., which is not commonly maintained.
This seems to me, please correct me if I'm wrong, to be implied by what Descartes wrote to Mersenne.
I think that in general you are right, although contemporary physics relies heavily on mathematical models and with both quantum physics and cosmology experiment and observation are problematic.

When he says:
... even if their assumptions are not exactly true
this sounds very much like contemporary science based on probability, approximation, and correction as opposed to the idea of indubitible certainty.

Although none of this touches on monism.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4 wrote regarding Descartes' ontological and scientific stance as explained in the post above:
Although none of this touches on monism.
I introduced into the topic Spinoza as he who metamorphosed Descartes' dualism into neutral monism. Briefly , as I'm sure you know, Descartes believed that there are two basic , ontic substances , mind and matter (or "extended substance"). Spinoza, also very concerned about ontic substance, tetained the concepts of mind and matter but those now, after Spinoza, refer to twin aspects of the one substance which Spinoza called "God- or- nature".

The use of dual-aspect monism for science is that both mental and material aspects of our experience can be subjected to scientific investigations. Lacan founded his psychoanalysis upon dual aspect monism. Although psychoanalysis is now an unpopular therapy it illustrates determinism, an adjunct of dual-aspect monism, upon which most scientific belief and practice is founded.

-- Updated December 8th, 2016, 5:27 am to add the following --
Belindi wrote:Fooloso4 wrote regarding Descartes' ontological and scientific stance as explained in the post above:
Although none of this touches on monism.
I introduced into the topic Spinoza as he who metamorphosed Descartes' dualism into neutral monism. Briefly , as I'm sure you know, Descartes believed that there are two basic , ontic substances , mind and matter (or "extended substance"). Spinoza, also very concerned about ontic substance, retained the concepts of mind and matter but those now, after Spinoza, refer to twin aspects of the one substance which Spinoza called "God- or- nature".

The use of dual-aspect monism for science is that both mental and material aspects of our experience can be subjected to scientific investigations. Lacan founded his psychoanalysis upon dual aspect monism. Although psychoanalysis is now an unpopular therapy it illustrates determinism, an adjunct of dual-aspect monism, upon which most scientific belief and practice is founded.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Another ontological argument

Post by Fanman »

Scruffy Nerf Herder:

Interesting topic.
1. Some things undeniably exist.

2. But my nonexistence is possible, for I am not a necessary being but one that changes or comes to be.

3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.

5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.

6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

7. This infinitely all-powerful, all-knowing being is what is meant by a theistic god.

8. Therefore, a theistic god exists.
1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. I think that might be the case, as things that exist seem to do so because they are caused to exist by actions or processes which precede them (cause and effect), but I wouldn't claim absolutely that everything which exists is contingent upon something else for it's existence, even though it may appear this way. Seeing things in this way, could be akin to believing that the geocentric model is correct, whilst time, progression and evidence shows us that the heliocentric model is the reality. QM is showing us that our understandings and perceptions of the nature of reality are questionable.

4. If the universe is eternal and operates according to the principles of cause and effect – then I think that its possible (hypothetically speaking) that there could be an infinite regress of causes of existence. I think its problematic to isolate a single cause of existence, since the question of “what came before that” will always arise.

5. An uncaused cause, is problematic I think. Furthermore, if we stipulate an uncaused cause which is responsible for existence, we automatically attribute properties to "it" which mean that it was capable of causing existence – such as intelligence; properties which we have no evidence of existing at such a scale. As far as I know, causes of our existences are empirical and not “uncaused.”

6. Is an example of what I previously stated (I think), in that you're attributing properties to an “uncaused cause” which we have no way of proving or demonstrating it would possess. So it seems like anthropomorphism. What I've found in my experience of being a long-time theist turned agnostic, is that belief in an all-powerful being or intelligent creator requires leaps of faith to fill the gaps made by missing evidence or logic – which many find completely unacceptable.

7. Agreed.

8. On the basis of a first uncaused cause? I think there are other possible causes of existence. A first uncaused cause seems too problematic a premise to base a sound argument for an intelligent creator upon. I think that a couple of the major flaws it presents as an argument are (a) it requires leaps of faith and (b) there's no empirical evidence that a theistic “God” exists. Anecdotal evidence, such as people's "spiritual" experiences (one example of evidence given for the existence of a theistic God) aren't enough to substantiate a claim that an infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing being exists. They may point to there being something “more” than is physically observable, but attributing those experiences to a “God” is again, in my opinion, a leap of faith.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021