I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
- WindowtotheWorld
- Posts: 14
- Joined: April 23rd, 2022, 2:35 pm
I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA.... Maybe someone can flesh out why they think the OA is airtight or not? I think it is....
The way I look at it (and this may be some erroneous headspin on my part with but a kernel of truth..)
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds
in objective fact to the Idea). In the OA there exists a unique type of union, a wedding of concept and referent
no other idea really has.... If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc)
then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
Otherwise, there would be an idea that we could and yet could not conceive of, which is absurd. If we admit at the
outset that we can conceive of a Maximally Great Being, we can't renege on the formulation of that concept.
If we renege and say that the MGB only exists in the mind, we would have to eschew what makes that MGB the MGB, which
would need to have the added cherry of Existence atop it.... We can say Existence is not a perfection, though in
my Romantic frame of mind, how could it not be? How could the Beautiful Sheer Act of Pure Existence not be Perfection
In and Of Itself? It would seem a paucity of appetite on the philosopher's part not to yield to that final temptation....
Alas, I think I've lost it again. But it was a fair shot I hope.... Anyone else have ideas?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
"Who cares, wins"
- WindowtotheWorld
- Posts: 14
- Joined: April 23rd, 2022, 2:35 pm
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
I suppose it is that the conception of a Maximally Great Being, necessarily implies its concrete reality. Otherwise, one could not conceive of it to begin with.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 12:16 pm What is the "Ontological Argument", as you understand it?
That is my understanding as of now, but perhaps its hopelessly mired in a sea of mysterian abstraction for which I hope you forgive me....
-
- Posts: 798
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
It's false.
I could tell you a story of a realm called Narnia where a perfect being called Aslan exists (with apologies to CS Lewis).
And I could tell you a story of a realm called Nornia where a perfect being called Oslan is believed to exist, but turns out to be purely imaginary.
There's no obvious contradiction in saying that Aslan seems to you more perfect than Oslan because Aslan has a reality, a property of existence, that Oslan lacks.
But it doesn't mean that either exists in the real world...
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
I have always had trouble trying to understand nonsense.WindowtotheWorld wrote: ↑September 21st, 2022, 7:57 pm I wish I understood the Ontological Argument. Or maybe I do? But the next moment, it seems to slip through my fingers.... One second I think I get it, the next I'm completely at a loss.
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA.... Maybe someone can flesh out why they think the OA is airtight or not? I think it is....
The way I look at it (and this may be some erroneous headspin on my part with but a kernel of truth..)
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds
in objective fact to the Idea). In the OA there exists a unique type of union, a wedding of concept and referent
no other idea really has.... If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc)
then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
Otherwise, there would be an idea that we could and yet could not conceive of, which is absurd. If we admit at the
outset that we can conceive of a Maximally Great Being, we can't renege on the formulation of that concept.
If we renege and say that the MGB only exists in the mind, we would have to eschew what makes that MGB the MGB, which
would need to have the added cherry of Existence atop it.... We can say Existence is not a perfection, though in
my Romantic frame of mind, how could it not be? How could the Beautiful Sheer Act of Pure Existence not be Perfection
In and Of Itself? It would seem a paucity of appetite on the philosopher's part not to yield to that final temptation....
Alas, I think I've lost it again. But it was a fair shot I hope.... Anyone else have ideas?
All the so-called "proofs of God's existence", lack the most basic logical credibility. When confronted by incoherence, smart people find themselves "at a loss". But rest assured - the reason you do not get it is that there is nothing to "get" here. It's rubbish; it has always been rubbish and will continues to be that way.
The only people who succumb to such sophistry are those for whom the existence of god is an endemic assumption.
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: July 18th, 2014, 7:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Chesterton
- Location: Lubbock, Texas
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Scientists have the same problem. They can't imagine God, but they can imagine a multiverse, for which there is no sense to make of it other than that the multiverse is the universe beyond which no greater universe can be conceived.
So it MUST exist. It MUST exist, they assert; otherwise we are back to God, and WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
WW!WindowtotheWorld wrote: ↑September 21st, 2022, 7:57 pm I wish I understood the Ontological Argument. Or maybe I do? But the next moment, it seems to slip through my fingers.... One second I think I get it, the next I'm completely at a loss.
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA.... Maybe someone can flesh out why they think the OA is airtight or not? I think it is....
The way I look at it (and this may be some erroneous headspin on my part with but a kernel of truth..)
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds
in objective fact to the Idea). In the OA there exists a unique type of union, a wedding of concept and referent
no other idea really has.... If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc)
then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
Otherwise, there would be an idea that we could and yet could not conceive of, which is absurd. If we admit at the
outset that we can conceive of a Maximally Great Being, we can't renege on the formulation of that concept.
If we renege and say that the MGB only exists in the mind, we would have to eschew what makes that MGB the MGB, which
would need to have the added cherry of Existence atop it.... We can say Existence is not a perfection, though in
my Romantic frame of mind, how could it not be? How could the Beautiful Sheer Act of Pure Existence not be Perfection
In and Of Itself? It would seem a paucity of appetite on the philosopher's part not to yield to that final temptation....
Alas, I think I've lost it again. But it was a fair shot I hope.... Anyone else have ideas?
The ontological argument is based upon logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. It's all part of deductive reasoning. Their conclusions are based upon the definitions/concepts (of the words) used (as opposed to inductive reasoning). The ontological argument is a priori logic that's used in a propositional form. It's kind of like saying 'there exists at least one true proposition'. That's true by definition, hence logically necessary. Similarly, the more intriguing proposition(s) is the cosmological argument relative to causation:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Consider whether any of those propositions are valid or sound. For instance, say the universe has always existed. As such, you have either a sense of eternity (infinite regress), or you're back to logical necessity. With respect to using logic, because there is something and not nothing, questions/answers that posit the first cause will always exist. Beyond this, we have an innate sense of curiosity and wonder (synthetic a priori) that causes us to ask those kinds of quality-of-life questions. Remember, that sense of wonderment confers no Darwinian survival advantages. But is the primary cause of scientific inquiry...
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: July 18th, 2014, 7:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Chesterton
- Location: Lubbock, Texas
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Indeed, we have no evidence that fish or cattle or birds wonder about the creation of the universe. Wonder seems to be a gift God granted to humans alone, so that we could wonder about everything, including God.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 11th, 2022, 10:26 amWW!WindowtotheWorld wrote: ↑September 21st, 2022, 7:57 pm I wish I understood the Ontological Argument. Or maybe I do? But the next moment, it seems to slip through my fingers.... One second I think I get it, the next I'm completely at a loss.
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA.... Maybe someone can flesh out why they think the OA is airtight or not? I think it is....
The way I look at it (and this may be some erroneous headspin on my part with but a kernel of truth..)
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds
in objective fact to the Idea). In the OA there exists a unique type of union, a wedding of concept and referent
no other idea really has.... If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc)
then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
Otherwise, there would be an idea that we could and yet could not conceive of, which is absurd. If we admit at the
outset that we can conceive of a Maximally Great Being, we can't renege on the formulation of that concept.
If we renege and say that the MGB only exists in the mind, we would have to eschew what makes that MGB the MGB, which
would need to have the added cherry of Existence atop it.... We can say Existence is not a perfection, though in
my Romantic frame of mind, how could it not be? How could the Beautiful Sheer Act of Pure Existence not be Perfection
In and Of Itself? It would seem a paucity of appetite on the philosopher's part not to yield to that final temptation....
Alas, I think I've lost it again. But it was a fair shot I hope.... Anyone else have ideas?
The ontological argument is based upon logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. It's all part of deductive reasoning. Their conclusions are based upon the definitions/concepts (of the words) used (as opposed to inductive reasoning). The ontological argument is a priori logic that's used in a propositional form. It's kind of like saying 'there exists at least one true proposition'. That's true by definition, hence logically necessary. Similarly, the more intriguing proposition(s) is the cosmological argument relative to causation:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Consider whether any of those propositions are valid or sound. For instance, say the universe has always existed. As such, you have either a sense of eternity (infinite regress), or you're back to logical necessity. With respect to using logic, because there is something and not nothing, questions/answers that posit the first cause will always exist. Beyond this, we have an innate sense of curiosity and wonder (synthetic a priori) that causes us to ask those kinds of quality-of-life questions. Remember, that sense of wonderment confers no Darwinian survival advantages. But is the primary cause of scientific inquiry...
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Yep! Also, wonderment, a qualitative property of consciousness, also has pragmatic uses. Wonder and curiosity is all part of that 'thing' which causes us to critique stuff. For instance, in a macroeconomics context, people critique products and services not only make the product/service better against their competition, but ultimately all for the purposes of enhancing the 'quality of life' for the masses. And again, quality of life stuff has little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages (i.e., music appreciation, understanding the laws of gravity, which color car to buy, building a better widget, which movie and restaurant to have dinner, which free agent to sign, etc..).Charlemagne wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 11:06 amIndeed, we have no evidence that fish or cattle or birds wonder about the creation of the universe. Wonder seems to be a gift God granted to humans alone, so that we could wonder about everything, including God.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 11th, 2022, 10:26 amWW!WindowtotheWorld wrote: ↑September 21st, 2022, 7:57 pm I wish I understood the Ontological Argument. Or maybe I do? But the next moment, it seems to slip through my fingers.... One second I think I get it, the next I'm completely at a loss.
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA.... Maybe someone can flesh out why they think the OA is airtight or not? I think it is....
The way I look at it (and this may be some erroneous headspin on my part with but a kernel of truth..)
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds
in objective fact to the Idea). In the OA there exists a unique type of union, a wedding of concept and referent
no other idea really has.... If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc)
then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
Otherwise, there would be an idea that we could and yet could not conceive of, which is absurd. If we admit at the
outset that we can conceive of a Maximally Great Being, we can't renege on the formulation of that concept.
If we renege and say that the MGB only exists in the mind, we would have to eschew what makes that MGB the MGB, which
would need to have the added cherry of Existence atop it.... We can say Existence is not a perfection, though in
my Romantic frame of mind, how could it not be? How could the Beautiful Sheer Act of Pure Existence not be Perfection
In and Of Itself? It would seem a paucity of appetite on the philosopher's part not to yield to that final temptation....
Alas, I think I've lost it again. But it was a fair shot I hope.... Anyone else have ideas?
The ontological argument is based upon logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. It's all part of deductive reasoning. Their conclusions are based upon the definitions/concepts (of the words) used (as opposed to inductive reasoning). The ontological argument is a priori logic that's used in a propositional form. It's kind of like saying 'there exists at least one true proposition'. That's true by definition, hence logically necessary. Similarly, the more intriguing proposition(s) is the cosmological argument relative to causation:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Consider whether any of those propositions are valid or sound. For instance, say the universe has always existed. As such, you have either a sense of eternity (infinite regress), or you're back to logical necessity. With respect to using logic, because there is something and not nothing, questions/answers that posit the first cause will always exist. Beyond this, we have an innate sense of curiosity and wonder (synthetic a priori) that causes us to ask those kinds of quality-of-life questions. Remember, that sense of wonderment confers no Darwinian survival advantages. But is the primary cause of scientific inquiry...
But back to logic (the synthetic a priori). The question that fascinates me, including Kant, was whether the proposition 'all events must have a cause' is true or not. The actual cause of even asking the question, confers no Darwinian advantages. We seemingly have this innate sense of wonderment and curiosity about the why's of existence, and what's beyond those things we see (physics v. metaphysics). For example, the how, where, when, how or who caused the information narrative (consciousness) to emerge from the matter narrative (Singularity) or vice versa.
Anyway, the irony with respect to scientific discoveries, aside from imaginative leaps which are then worked backwards (kind of like writing music), science uses synthetic propositions all the time to begin theories about stuff. If we didn't have this intrinsic need for curiosity and wonder, our intellectual lives would be much different or not exist at all... . Again, this all falls under the category of the qualitative properties of existence.
But back to the OP, the ontological argument is not really all that intriguing. It tells us nothing beyond what the definitions provide. Hence from physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God:
The ontological argument relies on what philosopher's call "analytic propositions." An analytic proposition is one whose truth (or otherwise) follows purely from the meanings of the words involved. Thus "All bachelors are men" an analytic proposition. Propositions that do not fall into this class are called "synthetic," because they make connections between things that are not related merely by definition. Now, physical theories always involve synthetic propositions, because they make statements about e facts of nature that can be tested. The success of mathematics in describing nature, especially the underlying laws, can give the impression (defended by some, as we have seen) that there is nothing more
the world than mathematics, and that this mathematics is in turn nothing more than definitions and tautologies i.e., analytical propositions.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: July 18th, 2014, 7:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Chesterton
- Location: Lubbock, Texas
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Paul A.M. Dirac, Quantum Physicist
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
There are many who infer that based upon the unreasonable effectiveness of those mathematical laws of the universe. Yet another (metaphysical) mystery in life! Afterall, abstract mathematics in-itself, is not an exclusive material thing. It's a metaphysical language.Charlemagne wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 1:32 pm Here's another one I like:
Paul A.M. Dirac, Quantum Physicist
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Nicely put, I know what you mean. It's a slippery one, but I think that's because we're in the territory of fuzzy word games.I wish I understood the Ontological Argument. Or maybe I do? But the next moment, it seems to slip through my fingers.... One second I think I get it, the next I'm completely at a loss.
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA....
There are two unjustified leaps in your formulation aren't there -
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds in objective fact to the Idea).
If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc) then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
The standard 'imagine a perfect island' rebuttal is good enough to address the first leap I think.
The argument then goes on to make a special pleading when when it comes to '' a Maximally Great Being'' with greatness here being defined as a being which is ''all knowing, all powerful, all moral, etc''. That definition of ''great'' doesn't include existence tho. If it did, the argument would obviously be circular. So some other reason needs to be supplied to justify why being maximally great requires actual existence, which would similarly apply to perfect island example?
Here's Anselm's formulation from wiki -
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.
Again the word ''greater'' is doing a lot of work here. Firstly denoting the sort of perfection you describe. Then to claim existence as an aspect of greatness, which is a bit of sleight of hand, because we don't use Great or Perfect to describe existence itself, rather we use such terms to describe qualities of what exists - or what is imagined.
My own prob with it tho is simple, it tries to imagine something into existence. Confusingly, and no doubt sincerely, but that's what is going on. The special pleading and equivocation of ''great'' aside, that's it.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Hello Gertie!Gertie wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 9:31 pm Window
Nicely put, I know what you mean. It's a slippery one, but I think that's because we're in the territory of fuzzy word games.I wish I understood the Ontological Argument. Or maybe I do? But the next moment, it seems to slip through my fingers.... One second I think I get it, the next I'm completely at a loss.
Then again, I've never been good with formal arguments with premises and a conclusion and so on.... Still, the Ontological Argument at times kindles in me an imaginative interest.... It's so simple in a way, but also deeper as you go on in... like a crystal that you can gaze deeply into and ferret out its complex facets the more closely you squint your eyes.... This is what I sense in the Ontological Argument... a type of Beauty which other classical arguments don't seem to have in my opinion. The Teleological and Cosmological arguments are fine in so far as they go... but those are straightforward and pretty rudimentary compared to the self-contained flash of insight(s) I see in the OA....
There are two unjustified leaps in your formulation aren't there -
there must be a union of IDEA (what we mentally conceive) and IDEATUM (that which parallels or corresponds in objective fact to the Idea).If there exists a Maximally Great Being (in a certain definite sense - not just as a
vague "perfect island" but in certain key ways that are objectively coherent - "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-moral", etc) then this Maximally Great Being would only be Maximally Great if it existed in point of fact, not just imaginatively.
The standard 'imagine a perfect island' rebuttal is good enough to address the first leap I think.
The argument then goes on to make a special pleading when when it comes to '' a Maximally Great Being'' with greatness here being defined as a being which is ''all knowing, all powerful, all moral, etc''. That definition of ''great'' doesn't include existence tho. If it did, the argument would obviously be circular. So some other reason needs to be supplied to justify why being maximally great requires actual existence, which would similarly apply to perfect island example?
Here's Anselm's formulation from wiki -
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.
Again the word ''greater'' is doing a lot of work here. Firstly denoting the sort of perfection you describe. Then to claim existence as an aspect of greatness, which is a bit of sleight of hand, because we don't use Great or Perfect to describe existence itself, rather we use such terms to describe qualities of what exists - or what is imagined.
My own prob with it tho is simple, it tries to imagine something into existence. Confusingly, and no doubt sincerely, but that's what is going on. The special pleading and equivocation of ''great'' aside, that's it.
Just my two pennies. At best the argument can demonstrate that, if a necessary being is possible, then he must exist. In formal or a priori logic, you generally can't get out of a purely deductive argument, more than you put into the premises. Although for some reason, I do prefer the cosmological argument. In thinking about it, I probably prefer it (sorry for thinking out loud I haven't had my coffee) because I've never been a big fan of the Omni-3 attributes of God. And that's mainly because if we knew all the attributes of God, in principle, we would either not be in this best of all 'possible worlds', or we'd know how to make world ex nihilo or otherwise. We'd already know all of the information and instruction or ingredients to make a universe with biological organisms, who also think and feel and discuss philosophy, etc.. Know what I mean vern? The argument(s) would no longer apply or be logically necessary to posit in such a way from ignorance.
Remember, a priori logic essentially means 'without experience'. Its conclusions are reached by virtue of the definitions of words and concepts alone. There is no 'living life' kinds of phenomena or experiential treatment of words. There is no sense of becoming; the feelings of an a posteriori world of experiencing life. It's kind of like telling a child who's 7, that burping at the dinner table is wrong. They haven't experienced enough of life to understand its meaning(s). In other words, you already have to understand through experience the words and concepts for it to make sense. And that comes from experience or experiencing the phenomenal world.
As such, synthetic propositions, or synthetic a priori one's like 'all events must have a cause' are far more intriguing. Remember, most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions because they can be experienced and/or empirically tested. In physics, aside from imaginative leaps (that are then worked backwards into an existing axiom like writing music) all theories start with synthetic propositions. Similarly, the typical cosmological argument, though not completely synthetic, confers a real world need to test the validity of a something that has causal powers or attributes. The thought that all effects have causes can be argued as an innate sense wonder, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages. You know, quality of life stuff that has effects on becoming, or the process of existing as a human:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
The concept of causation is more real world, and we can relate to causative forces in our everydayness. For example, our own Will to want to do stuff, be something, or otherwise project purpose (Teleology, etc.) has causative value and power. We do things because we want to do them to achieve some quality-of-life purpose. Like finding a soul mate, listen to music, talk philosophy, buy stuff, things that have no survival of the fittest value. But all that has causal influence or effects on the outcomes. Basic human cause and effect. My Will causes me to act or behave a certain way to achieve a perceived sense of pleasure, happiness or joy. We are self-directed individuals who do stuff.
And so, the concept of causation, and all the relative experiences and observations of causation in both the physical and metaphysical world of conscious phenomena, is much more intriguing. You know, though another discussion, all the relationships between mind and matter, the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, free Will, and so on. Metaphysical stuff! Existentially, the intrigue may even further lead one into the cognitive sciences (psychology) which is yet another interesting sojourn... !
Gosh, the more coffee I drank the wordier I got
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
You're throwing the book at this! OK!
Just my two pennies. At best the argument can demonstrate that, if a necessary being is possible, then he must exist. In formal or a priori logic, you generally can't get out of a purely deductive argument, more than you put into the premises.
Saying 'that which necessarily must exist, must exist' isn't the ontological argument. (Or any kind of argument, it's a tautological proposition).
The basic prob I see with the cosmological argument is related to inevitable ignorance. It applies the way the universe of space and time appears to work to us ('classical' causation), to a presumed state of no space and no time 'outside' that universe. Which is both a category error and pretty much impossible to imagine as anything but nothingness for us, never mind populating a spaceless 'place' with a static creator acting timelessly. It's philosophically incoherent. You have to ditch notions of space, time and causality which are features of the space-time universe to go there, and you can't then co-opt causality back in.Although for some reason, I do prefer the cosmological argument. In thinking about it, I probably prefer it (sorry for thinking out loud I haven't had my coffee) because I've never been a big fan of the Omni-3 attributes of God. And that's mainly because if we knew all the attributes of God, in principle, we would either not be in this best of all 'possible worlds', or we'd know how to make world ex nihilo or otherwise. We'd already know all of the information and instruction or ingredients to make a universe with biological organisms, who also think and feel and discuss philosophy, etc.. Know what I mean vern? The argument(s) would no longer apply or be logically necessary to posit in such a way from ignorance.
Remember, a priori logic essentially means 'without experience'. Its conclusions are reached by virtue of the definitions of words and concepts alone. There is no 'living life' kinds of phenomena or experiential treatment of words. There is no sense of becoming; the feelings of an a posteriori world of experiencing life. It's kind of like telling a child who's 7, that burping at the dinner table is wrong. They haven't experienced enough of life to understand its meaning(s). In other words, you already have to understand through experience the words and concepts for it to make sense. And that comes from experience or experiencing the phenomenal world.
As such, synthetic propositions, or synthetic a priori one's like 'all events must have a cause' are far more intriguing. Remember, most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions because they can be experienced and/or empirically tested. In physics, aside from imaginative leaps (that are then worked backwards into an existing axiom like writing music) all theories start with synthetic propositions. Similarly, the typical cosmological argument, though not completely synthetic, confers a real world need to test the validity of a something that has causal powers or attributes. The thought that all effects have causes can be argued as an innate sense wonder, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages. You know, quality of life stuff that has effects on becoming, or the process of existing as a human:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Anybody who claims to know what exists or happens outside space and time hasn't given the idea enough thought.
Briefly, our lack of understanding the mind-body relationship is a God of the Gaps argument. The evolutionary functionality of conscious experience is a good fit tho. Start with the basic reward system (yuck/yum) and as humans become smarter add layers of abstraction and complexity, and the brain becomes our decision-making organ.The concept of causation is more real world, and we can relate to causative forces in our everydayness. For example, our own Will to want to do stuff, be something, or otherwise project purpose (Teleology, etc.) has causative value and power. We do things because we want to do them to achieve some quality-of-life purpose. Like finding a soul mate, listen to music, talk philosophy, buy stuff, things that have no survival of the fittest value. But all that has causal influence or effects on the outcomes. Basic human cause and effect. My Will causes me to act or behave a certain way to achieve a perceived sense of pleasure, happiness or joy. We are self-directed individuals who do stuff.
And so, the concept of causation, and all the relative experiences and observations of causation in both the physical and metaphysical world of conscious phenomena, is much more intriguing. You know, though another discussion, all the relationships between mind and matter, the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, free Will, and so on. Metaphysical stuff! Existentially, the intrigue may even further lead one into the cognitive sciences (psychology) which is yet another interesting sojourn... !
Gosh, the more coffee I drank the wordier I got
Re your argument from incredulity that evolution could result in such apparently non-functional outcomes as enjoyment of discussing philosophy, loving your partner, enjoying music, etc. I used to think how on earth could evolution pop such complex things as eyeballs into existence, but once I got the process, I could see how it could without knowing every detail. So is it useful for us to have curiosity about how the world works - sure. Is aesthetics useful, that's a less obvious one, but if we wade through the unimaginable layers of complexity, we can perhaps understand that a preference for naturally well-formed/healthier looking things is a good rule of thumb evolutionarily when choosing which fruit to eat or mate to choose. And those pleasure/disgust responses once in place, can be triggered in less obvious ways as parts of an extremely complex inter-connected neural network.
A wacky example, there's an experiment (no link sorry) I read which tested people's moral judgement in response to various scenarios. One group were sat in a room where there was a bad smell and they made harsher moral judgements about the scenes. Makes no sense, except in terms of 'seepage' involved in neural inter-connectivity. There are a lot of mirror neurons located near our auditory system, which might account for the apparently unconnected emotional feelings hearing music. Such complexity isn't easy to unravel, like with the eyeball, and we've barely started - but the process can be understood in principle, despite our intuitive incredulity.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: I wish I understood the Ontological Argument
Actually I don't have a lot of time at the moment but wanted to quickly offer a response to your first point. Any deductive argument in propositional form not only is a tautology but makes whatever subject matter and it's conclusion a logical necessity. Important distinction between other forms of logic that we can chat about later....Gertie wrote: ↑November 4th, 2022, 3:06 pm meta!
You're throwing the book at this! OK!
Just my two pennies. At best the argument can demonstrate that, if a necessary being is possible, then he must exist. In formal or a priori logic, you generally can't get out of a purely deductive argument, more than you put into the premises.
Saying 'that which necessarily must exist, must exist' isn't the ontological argument. (Or any kind of argument, it's a tautological proposition).
The basic prob I see with the cosmological argument is related to inevitable ignorance. It applies the way the universe of space and time appears to work to us ('classical' causation), to a presumed state of no space and no time 'outside' that universe. Which is both a category error and pretty much impossible to imagine as anything but nothingness for us, never mind populating a spaceless 'place' with a static creator acting timelessly. It's philosophically incoherent. You have to ditch notions of space, time and causality which are features of the space-time universe to go there, and you can't then co-opt causality back in.Although for some reason, I do prefer the cosmological argument. In thinking about it, I probably prefer it (sorry for thinking out loud I haven't had my coffee) because I've never been a big fan of the Omni-3 attributes of God. And that's mainly because if we knew all the attributes of God, in principle, we would either not be in this best of all 'possible worlds', or we'd know how to make world ex nihilo or otherwise. We'd already know all of the information and instruction or ingredients to make a universe with biological organisms, who also think and feel and discuss philosophy, etc.. Know what I mean vern? The argument(s) would no longer apply or be logically necessary to posit in such a way from ignorance.
Remember, a priori logic essentially means 'without experience'. Its conclusions are reached by virtue of the definitions of words and concepts alone. There is no 'living life' kinds of phenomena or experiential treatment of words. There is no sense of becoming; the feelings of an a posteriori world of experiencing life. It's kind of like telling a child who's 7, that burping at the dinner table is wrong. They haven't experienced enough of life to understand its meaning(s). In other words, you already have to understand through experience the words and concepts for it to make sense. And that comes from experience or experiencing the phenomenal world.
As such, synthetic propositions, or synthetic a priori one's like 'all events must have a cause' are far more intriguing. Remember, most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions because they can be experienced and/or empirically tested. In physics, aside from imaginative leaps (that are then worked backwards into an existing axiom like writing music) all theories start with synthetic propositions. Similarly, the typical cosmological argument, though not completely synthetic, confers a real world need to test the validity of a something that has causal powers or attributes. The thought that all effects have causes can be argued as an innate sense wonder, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages. You know, quality of life stuff that has effects on becoming, or the process of existing as a human:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Anybody who claims to know what exists or happens outside space and time hasn't given the idea enough thought.
Briefly, our lack of understanding the mind-body relationship is a God of the Gaps argument. The evolutionary functionality of conscious experience is a good fit tho. Start with the basic reward system (yuck/yum) and as humans become smarter add layers of abstraction and complexity, and the brain becomes our decision-making organ.The concept of causation is more real world, and we can relate to causative forces in our everydayness. For example, our own Will to want to do stuff, be something, or otherwise project purpose (Teleology, etc.) has causative value and power. We do things because we want to do them to achieve some quality-of-life purpose. Like finding a soul mate, listen to music, talk philosophy, buy stuff, things that have no survival of the fittest value. But all that has causal influence or effects on the outcomes. Basic human cause and effect. My Will causes me to act or behave a certain way to achieve a perceived sense of pleasure, happiness or joy. We are self-directed individuals who do stuff.
And so, the concept of causation, and all the relative experiences and observations of causation in both the physical and metaphysical world of conscious phenomena, is much more intriguing. You know, though another discussion, all the relationships between mind and matter, the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, free Will, and so on. Metaphysical stuff! Existentially, the intrigue may even further lead one into the cognitive sciences (psychology) which is yet another interesting sojourn... !
Gosh, the more coffee I drank the wordier I got
Re your argument from incredulity that evolution could result in such apparently non-functional outcomes as enjoyment of discussing philosophy, loving your partner, enjoying music, etc. I used to think how on earth could evolution pop such complex things as eyeballs into existence, but once I got the process, I could see how it could without knowing every detail. So is it useful for us to have curiosity about how the world works - sure. Is aesthetics useful, that's a less obvious one, but if we wade through the unimaginable layers of complexity, we can perhaps understand that a preference for naturally well-formed/healthier looking things is a good rule of thumb evolutionarily when choosing which fruit to eat or mate to choose. And those pleasure/disgust responses once in place, can be triggered in less obvious ways as parts of an extremely complex inter-connected neural network.
A wacky example, there's an experiment (no link sorry) I read which tested people's moral judgement in response to various scenarios. One group were sat in a room where there was a bad smell and they made harsher moral judgements about the scenes. Makes no sense, except in terms of 'seepage' involved in neural inter-connectivity. There are a lot of mirror neurons located near our auditory system, which might account for the apparently unconnected emotional feelings hearing music. Such complexity isn't easy to unravel, like with the eyeball, and we've barely started - but the process can be understood in principle, despite our intuitive incredulity.
― Albert Einstein
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