Maybe you are referring to Anselm's argument?
Why did God create the universe?
- paradox
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
I very much like the link you posted!
Here is a copy of Anselm's second version of his ontological argument.
I think the above argument is little help , because if you substitute "The Spirit Of Evil" for "God" you have The Spirit of Evil necessarily exists in reality.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
For sure the spirit of evil by definition is not worthy of respect and veneration, however one conceives of evil.
If, however, Augustine's claim that evil is absence of good is combined with Anselm's second argument we have a reasonable God.
There remains the problem that people interpret 'good' subjectively. Xianity has this objection covered by the Incarnation i.e. good as manifested in the life and work of a christ or messiah.
If Christianity were to be interpreted without supernaturalism then Xianity would be suited to modern people in a scientific age.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-it-exist
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Can there be a greater God than the God who created all that is seen and unseen?By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
Can there be a greater God than the God who has no beginning or no end?
Can there be a greatest good definition of God?
How else could you measure greatness?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
viewtopic.php?p=397434#p397434By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- paradox
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
While this is logically true, it is contradictory to definition of God as a supreme being with all his properties, because God would otherwise be inferior and as such no longer God because it would be inferior. (which doesn't really remove God)Belindi wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 7:37 am I very much like the link you posted!
Here is a copy of Anselm's second version of his ontological argument.
I think the above argument is little help , because if you substitute "The Spirit Of Evil" for "God" you have The Spirit of Evil necessarily exists in reality.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
for example, if God is inferior then there is a being that is even grater, and what ever that is it is again God.
We could replace God with anything, not just evil, but problem of God as supreme being is again the same, inferior God and therefore again God that is grater.
What I'm saying that there can be no grater being than God because that's "circular assertion" that leads to God anyway, regardless of existence or nonexistence of evil.
Indeed, which is why omnibenevolent nature of a God still holds.
However to me Augustine's claim is very unclear, for example:
1. Evil is absence of God which is thus also absence of a being (God is a being).
2. And as such using his logic, evil (that is the devil) is not a being which is false.
Church teaching is that the devil is a being and devil's (evil) main weapon is to convince his nonexistence.
So I don't know why would a saint say such a thing
I know your link is just a portion of a whole article so either I might be missing some points or "theguardian news" is doing something terribly wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-it-exist
Subjectively this is pure heresy and subject to belief of an individual, but I get your point otherwise.
In any case Anselm's second argument is philosophically irrefutable given the definition of God.
- paradox
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
You said in your referred post:Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:07 amviewtopic.php?p=397434#p397434By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence?"a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects.
Isn't existence property on it's own, and potentials of such property just additional properties?
No because such God would be inferior and as such no longer God, see my previous post.
You compare infinity and absolute greatness?
I would really like to hear myself what others have to say about this!
I think not, definition of God is self sufficient:
You can't, see my post HERE:
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Yes, that's right, I did say that.paradox wrote:You said in your referred post:Steve3007 wrote:"a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects.
I don't. There's no such thing as an "act of existence". Existing isn't an act or action. That was the point. As I said, it was a point about the misuse of grammar. As I said, verbs are often "doing words". That's a rule that we learn as children when we first learn what kind of grammatical construct a verb is. We learn "Verbs are doing words". But "To exist" is a verb. So somebody who wishes to misuse grammar to make a point can incorrectly use the verb "to exist" grammatically as if it's an action that something does, even though it isn't. Hence they get away with sentences like this:paradox wrote:Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence?
"A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist."
which make no sense.
- paradox
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
No we are not on the same rail.Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 10:28 amYes, that's right, I did say that.paradox wrote:You said in your referred post:Steve3007 wrote:"a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects.
I don't. There's no such thing as an "act of existence". Existing isn't an act or action. That was the point. As I said, it was a point about the misuse of grammar. As I said, verbs are often "doing words". That's a rule that we learn as children when we first learn what kind of grammatical construct a verb is. We learn "Verbs are doing words". But "To exist" is a verb. So somebody who wishes to misuse grammar to make a point can incorrectly use the verb "to exist" grammatically as if it's an action that something does, even though it isn't. Hence they get away with sentences like this:paradox wrote:Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence?
"A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist."
which make no sense.
Nobody is talking about "an act of existence" as actually doing something (as you yourself described) but existence as a property of a being.
My question was:
Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence? (as property of a being)
And not as you interpret it:
Why do you correlate an act of existence and non existence? (as actually doing something)
I also must be honest in that I'm inferior to you because English isn't my native, but following link seems to agree with question that I asked:
What is the verb for existence?
Also a verb according to definition isn't only about doing something as you say, it has 3 potential meanings:
The bold underlined portion does not imply doing anything obviously.A verb (from Latin verbum 'word') is a word (part of speech) that in syntax conveys an action (bring, read, walk, run, learn), an occurrence (happen, become), or a state of being (be, exist, stand).
3 "states" so to speak are mutually exclusive, one does not imply the other.
wikipedia
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
OK, so if you think the verb "to exist" denotes a property and not an act, then your question can't have been "Why do you correlate potential acts of existence...". You must have meant to ask me something like this:paradox wrote:No we are not on the same rail.
Nobody is talking about "an act of existence" as actually doing something (as you yourself described) but existence as a property of a being.
My question was:
Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence? (as property of a being)
And not as you interpret it:
Why do you correlate an act of existence and non existence? (as actually doing something)
"Why do you correlate the potential property of existence and the property of non existence?"
Is that what you meant to ask?
- paradox
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
By "potential acts of existence" I meant potential properties (and thus acts) that a being could do given the fact that it exists.Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 11:23 amOK, so if you think the verb "to exist" denotes a property and not an act, then your question can't have been "Why do you correlate potential acts of existence...". You must have meant to ask me something like this:paradox wrote:No we are not on the same rail.
Nobody is talking about "an act of existence" as actually doing something (as you yourself described) but existence as a property of a being.
My question was:
Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence? (as property of a being)
And not as you interpret it:
Why do you correlate an act of existence and non existence? (as actually doing something)
"Why do you correlate the potential property of existence and the property of non existence?"
Is that what you meant to ask?
However these potential acts are additional properties for them self's, and not part of "existence" which is already property on it's own.
potential acts could be doing (omnipotent), knowing (omniscience), or to be good (omnibenevolent) etc.
Anselm's argument is all around inferior God and superior God, where superior God is God, but not conversely because God is absolute.
A being that has existence (or exists) is superior to being that does not have existence (or does not exists)
That is, God which exists is superior to God that does not exist (full stop)
This is why existence as a property of superior God is there, to avoid confusion with inferior God.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
But there are grades of existence, Some ideas exist more than other ideas. Hallucinations, and deliberate lies exist less than phenomena of normal awareness, and truth-intentioned claims.Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 10:28 amYes, that's right, I did say that.paradox wrote:You said in your referred post:Steve3007 wrote:"a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects.
I don't. There's no such thing as an "act of existence". Existing isn't an act or action. That was the point. As I said, it was a point about the misuse of grammar. As I said, verbs are often "doing words". That's a rule that we learn as children when we first learn what kind of grammatical construct a verb is. We learn "Verbs are doing words". But "To exist" is a verb. So somebody who wishes to misuse grammar to make a point can incorrectly use the verb "to exist" grammatically as if it's an action that something does, even though it isn't. Hence they get away with sentences like this:paradox wrote:Why do you correlate potential acts of existence and non existence?
"A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist."
which make no sense.
Okay, if there are grades of existence there must also be a criterion. Spinoza's criterion is reason.Also, if a beneficial practical result of an idea may be a criterion, then Spinoza's logical progression finishes with the way to human freedom which (unlike Free Will)is not antithetical to reason.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
Re: Why did God create the universe?
Can a creator God partially exist?But there are grades of existence,
How the universe came to be is history; and no matter what you or I chooses to believe; we can't change history. Either at least 'One God' created the universe; or there is no god.
How can a partial God exist or create the universe?
- paradox
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
While your logic may be true, I think this is less applicable to God because his existence is eternal and necessary, I'm sure there are arguments as a basis for this definition, we would have to google them out.Belindi wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 11:57 am But there are grades of existence, Some ideas exist more than other ideas. Hallucinations, and deliberate lies exist less than phenomena of normal awareness, and truth-intentioned claims.
Okay, if there are grades of existence there must also be a criterion. Spinoza's criterion is reason.Also, if a beneficial practical result of an idea may be a criterion, then Spinoza's logical progression finishes with the way to human freedom which (unlike Free Will)is not antithetical to reason.
Therefore likely no, because God's existence is eternal and necessary.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
EricPH wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 2:15 pmCan a creator God partially exist?But there are grades of existence,
How the universe came to be is history; and no matter what you or I chooses to believe; we can't change history. Either at least 'One God' created the universe; or there is no god.
How can a partial God exist or create the universe?
God is absolute not partial. The Absolute is not partial. Human ideas are neither God nor the Absolute. However some human ideas may be nearer to God (or the Absolute) than other human ideas.
How might we identify those ideas that are nearer to God(or the Absolute)?
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 7:29 pm
Re: Why did God create the universe?
It was the only way he could communicate.
The raison daitre of a God is to be acclaimed so and humans muxt exist to do so.
Without us, there is no God or any other question to be asked.
God is dead, or never was, which is the reality, without a universe with us in it.
Regards
DL
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023