OBKB

Why is it necessary for the mind to fill in the missing parts for completeness?
It seems to me that the idea of god fills the void where there is no rational explanation for anomalies. Historically speaking; would we be in the current discussion if the coincidence of printing press technology and King James had not occurred within the same window of time? The mass printing capability/availability of the King James Bible was used for teaching language in many rural places. Therefore the power over the people may not have been chosen by the people. It is easier to go along and get along than be obtuse. Contrast seems to provide clarity for words and ideas. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the idea of a supreme being.

HRG

And the argument has already stumbled twice,

1. The relationship "greater than" is ill-defined. I can tell whether a number is greater than another one, I can tell whether Joe is taller than George, but there is no objective concept "greater than" for beings. Was Roosevelt greater than Churchill ? Was Bach greater than Mozart ?

2. The "being which is greater than any other" need not exist. Not every ordered set has a maximal element.

In fact, since we are talking about conceivable beings ("Let's imagine ..") I think that a good argument along Cantor's Diagonal Proof can be made that to any conceivable being a greater one can be conceived.

Regards,
HRG.

Clutch

jennifer,
Nope, Descartes had his very own lame-ass argument from causality.

I summarize:

It is a priori there has to be as much reality in the cause as in the effect. Eg, a fire has to be at least as hot as the thing it heats; the heated object can't get hotter than the fire itself without there being some other cause. Now, I possess the idea of infinity/perfection. How did I get this idea? <considers and rejects six or seven possible explanations> Therefore, this idea must have been caused by something external to me. But by our first principle of causality, that cause must itself have been perfect/infinite. And that's God.

The funny thing is that even Descartes' medieval contemporaries thought this argument was utter bullshit. Even though they bought into the first premise (as we now wouldn't), it was a received view that this principle did not apply between concrete reality and ideas. The reason why this was recognized to be a no-no was precisely because it was known that you could perform Descartes' kind of metaphysical magic with it.

So Descartes' argument from causality wasn't even an artifact of an outmoded worldview -- even by the standards of that worldview, it was a howler.