philosophy

[ivar]

i did a thread on academic philosophy a while back and it didn't garner much interest, and i had people who posted with no background anyways

so why not give a shot at another philosophy thread... obviously a lot of philosophy is not accessible (hegel's force and understanding chapter in the phenomenology anyone?) so i'll try and steer philosophical discussion to simple, accessible topics that even a layman can get into, but without introducing the same tired old debates

a popular argument during the medieval ages and even a couple of centuries afterward was the ontological argument for the existence of God. basically, according to this argument we can infer God's existence from the idea of God. Anselm's argument is most notable, but descartes' is most simple to grasp: the idea of God's essence entails his perfection and existence is a pure perfection, thus God exists

in response some argue that we can attribute perfection to anything to prove its existence. the classic example is that of the perfect island: since it's perfect it must exist. Leibniz however defines what it means for something to be perfect, i.e. simple and positive, thus it cannot be infringed by lacks (since it only has positive attributes and has all positive attributes) nor can it be corrupted by parts (since it is simple). islands are neither simple nor positive; in fact, only god is

however, some just say you can't infer the existence of something from the idea of something. but that claim requires you to back it up.

...let the debate commence

 

[ungulateman]

If that's the case than God needs to be everything (because he has ALL positive atributes) and he has to be simple.

We have something like that. It's called 'the Universe'.

 

[Morm]

The idea of god just means the idea exists, not god itself. Inferring correctness from an inference is a poor jump in logic. When making a logical inference, you must infer based on evidence. As an example of this, I will write this post and there will be a reply, but I infer that someone is writing it. Inferring there is a god is one inference, but imposing correctness on your inference based on the fact that the inference exists is circular.

This also is a bit of a bastard child of "I think, therefore I am." In this case, it's saying "I think, therefore IT is". The key difference is that you must exist in order to think but what you think doesn't necessarily exist. This is something that nihilists struggle with I'm sure, but they don't exist anyways and become somewhat non material in the discussion.

Using perfection as a counter to this is faulty, as perfection is a weasel of a term. It is perfect based on a set of criteria which isn't consistent and is imperfect to begin with (ie. human failings). So nothing can be 'perfect' in the universal sense and therefore the rug is taken from the argument before it can even start. However, even if it were possible to be perfect, the idea of a perfect island doesn't mean it exists at all. It's using the same faulty logic used in the perfect god scenario to combat it! You can imagine it but that doesn't mean it exists.

THIS might help clarify what I'm talking about. It's basically epistemology but put in less elegant words than my own.

 

[Tomahawk]

So if something is perfect, it exists? That doesn't make sense.

Perfect things don't exist, as nothing can be perfect would make more sense.

 

[MrIndigo]

If that's the case than God needs to be everything (because he has ALL positive atributes) and he has to be simple.

We have something like that. It's called 'the Universe'.

What are positive attributes?

All positive attributes have a negative equivalent restatement, hence anything that has all positive attributes also has all negative attributes, and hence is self contradictory.

 

[ungulateman]

So if something is perfect, it exists? That doesn't make sense.

Perfect things don't exist, as nothing can be perfect would make more sense.

The argument is that things that exist are more perfect because existence is a positive trait.

I fail to see how existence can be considered a 'trait' as such. I also don't see it as positive necessarily.

 

[monkfish]

positivity and negativity are human constructs; if perfection is defined as the set of all positive attributes then perfection is a human construct and if god is defined as perfection then god is a human construct

 

[cookie]

haha i love your avatar+ct in this topic

 

[JimBob]

Just because the definition of god implies existence doesn't mean that god exists. I could define a trunicorn as a unicorn, but it is different from a unicorn in that it exists, while unicorns are just fantasy. Just because I define a trunicorn as something that exists doesn't mean that it does exist.

I mean, this is kind of a variation on what morm and ivar already said, but I think it's easier to understand from a layman's perspective (since I am pretty much a layman as far as philosophy is concerned, sorry for messing up your thread).


Of course, I really don't like Anselm's original argument anyway. Who's to say that existing is greater or more perfect than not existing? Pokemon doesn't exist, but I find it to be a whole hell of a lot better than dogfighting or whatever.

 

[ivar]

@ungulateman

that's an interesting point and i agree with it. if God exists (a big if, however) he must be wholly infinite with infinite modes and infinite attributes --thus god must be the universe. this is a cliff notes version of Spinoza's pantheist God

@morm

good points all around, but a few quibbles. the argument is not 'I think therefore it is' but rather the essence of the idea of God necessitates his existence. also, descartes 'i think therefore i am' is not a syllogism or an inference as people mistakenly suppose (and for good reason, given the wording). it's actually supposed to be a self-evident intuition--you dont reason it, but it is self-evident just like the law of non-contradiction. you can't prove the law of non-contradiction without invoking rule-circularity, but we take it for granted because it is self-evident to us. so the ontological argument and 'i think therefore i am' are not really related

also, inferences don't have to be made empirically, with evidence. the whole is greater than its parts is not inferred from evidence, since it is obvious from the meaning of the terms

@ JimBob

as to the unicorn thing, Leibniz has a counter objection that i mentioned in the op. he defines perfection as simple and positive, and these attributes can only be possessed by God, thus the idea of the perfect unicorn is incoherent

@mr indigo

even if positive attributes have equivalent negative statements it does not follow that something with all positive attributes has all negative attributes.
we cant make the jump from statements to attributes

@monkfish

interesting point. i do think anthropomorphizing God is problematic, and characteristic of the scholastics especially. that's why i dont like a lot of these ontological arguments

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

however, there is a remaining ontological argument by Spinoza and kinda but not really by aquinas

they both say that God's essence is his existence, i.e. god is something that necessarily exists. our essence is not existence because we are contingent beings and can die. now, spinoza believed that we can infer from God's essence to his existence, but aquinas did not. the problems with perfection, anthropomorphism and positivity are null and void, but there's still the whole thing with going from ideas to the actual, and why is God's essence existence?

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

with monkfish on this one, human constructs / definitions leading to the conclusion that something exists based upon said constructs doesn't really follow for me.

 

[Fishy]

my philosophy is to always agree with cookie, and his post in this thread especially

 

[Morm]

the argument is not 'I think therefore it is' but rather the essence of the idea of God necessitates his existence.

Then that logic can be applied for anything and anything can exist simply by thinking of it. God does not get a free pass in logic, this isn't political correctness.

so the ontological argument and 'i think therefore i am' are not really related

Did you read the part where I explained how it's related?

also, inferences don't have to be made empirically, with evidence. the whole is greater than its parts is not inferred from evidence, since it is obvious from the meaning of the terms

Then anything can be anything without any reason.

 

[lati0s]

You didn't seem to read Jimbob's post as your rebuttal was completely off topic, he said nothing about perfection but rather commented on the idea of having a definition that entails existence. It might be that a "perfect" unicorn doesn't make sense because of the definition of perfect but "a unicorn that exists" is a definition that seems to make sense and is one entails existence.

I've written this about the ontological argument, please tell me what you think.

 

[Fake Sketch]

however, some just say you can't infer the existence of something from the idea of something. but that claim requires you to back it up.

Well, I believe u can infer it, but it would only prove its existance as an abstract concept.
Only way god can be a concept and interfere (sorry I couldnt find the right word there, english isnt my mother tongue) in actual reality is that he where an action, be the first action. But how can an action come out of nowhere?

 

[Morm]

Lati0s:

In order to posses the nature to exist something has to exist in the first place. You're right, it's a circular argument, one that actually spirals downward into irrefutably saying there is a god. This is why I brought up what I did:

The idea of god just means the idea exists, not god itself. Inferring correctness from an inference is a poor jump in logic. When making a logical inference, you must infer based on evidence. As an example of this, I will write this post and there will be a reply, but I infer that someone is writing it. Inferring there is a god is one inference, but imposing correctness on your inference based on the fact that the inference exists is circular.

Evidence can be seen as a starting point for logic, even if you do make a series of armflailing inferences based on each other afterwards it becomes more legitimate than just saying "X exists because I want it to" (which is effectively the argument for god in the OP).

Your blog post is a little bit non definitive, in that you talk about the difference between defining and trying to define. It's a bit Yodaesque, the whole "Do or do not" idiom and is rather soft.

 

[lati0s]

Your blog post is a little bit non definitive, in that you talk about the difference between defining and trying to define. It's a bit Yodaesque, the whole "Do or do not" idiom and is rather soft.

My point was that by defining god to be the perfect being you define him to exist in reality and then give him a bunch of other attributes too (like loving, conscious, all powerful etc.) as all these attributes are entailed by perfection. but if it turns out that a being that has all these other attributes does not in fact exist then that would mean that your definition is self contradictory and thus the argument is invalid. The argument is circular because it relies upon a definition of god which includes existence being valid and non-self-contradictory but such a definition is only non-self-contradictory if god exists.

we can use such cleverly disguised circular reasoning to prove any proposition.

let X be the statement "this statement implies Y"
If X is false then the principle of explosion means that it implies everything and thus it implies Y, but if it implies Y then it is true, this is a contradiction and thus X cannot be false. Therefore X is true, therefore X implies Y, therefore Y.

 

[billymills]

First off it's clearly circular logic, you have to assume all the implications are true to get anywhere whatsoever.

Furthermore, if you assume god is perfect, then you can't have any other qualifiers on it. That's like saying an Platonic ideal exists, but it doesn't have to be tangible. It doesn't even imply that god is unique or well defined. "God" could also be equivalent to another term that we often use.

Even then, if you assume this perfect object exists, it doesn't entail anything. It doesn't imply that this object is powerful, weak, good, or bad. It just 'is'. I'm not really sure this is a proof of anything.

 

[Morm]

Ah, thanks for explaining that Lati0s, I appreciate it. You'd think all that "all loving" and etc would be INCLUDED in the perfect qualifications for a God, not in addition to.

 

[JimBob]

@ JimBob

as to the unicorn thing, Leibniz has a counter objection that i mentioned in the op. he defines perfection as simple and positive, and these attributes can only be possessed by God, thus the idea of the perfect unicorn is incoherent

I'm not perfect, yet I exist. You don't have to be perfect in all traits to have just one 'simple positive' trait.

As more elaboration on my second point... from how I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), a simple positive trait can either be P or ~P. So if you can have two different traits P and Q that conflict with each other, at least one of them must be a complex trait rather than a simple trait. But who is to say that existence is a positive trait rather than a negative trait? In fact, who is to say that any of God's traits are positive? It seems to me that Anselm just threw that in there to wrap things up nicely. What if not existing were greater than existing, would this argument then prove that God does not exist?



Of course, that's just on top of the first point, which is that just because the concept of something necessitates its existence doesn't mean that it exists. Say people understand the concept of God, and the ontological argument proves that He exists. But consider a trunicorn, which is specifically defined as something that exists. I'm not claiming that a trunicorn is perfect, simply that it exists. A trunicorn by definition can't not exist, therefore it must exist. And yet it doesn't exist.

Lati0s's stuff says pretty much the same thing.

 

[iDunno]

I'm perfect, so does that mean I'm god?

 

[Hipmonlee]

I think most people would be willing to accept that. If you actually are perfect.

Have a nice day.

 

[Morm]

It's impossible, hip, because everyones definition of perfect is different.

 

[FlareBlitz]

I am very hesitant to discuss philosophy as it relates to God, because in my experience internet discussions on God devolve into flaming, trolling, and/or general stupidity. Plus, there are so many other really cool issues in philosophy that get much less discussion time than the one about the sky daddy.

For example, one of my favorite subjects to discuss is utilitarianism. Essentially, it is the idea that laws must be oriented not with respect to natural law or social justice, but with respect to what results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

I personally believe in a modified version of this (where I believe some natural laws/social justice is important, but can be overturned in specific circumstances), but I love entertaining arguments to the contrary, such as "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas".

 

[TM13IceBeam]

Philosophy?

Cool bro, but not 100% of the peepz here are in love with God. Make a social group and get the work on there.