Kenny

Suppose it were not the case that there were bachelors or marriage, that some other possible world were actual instead of our own in which these things did not exist. Would the concept of bachelorhood and marriage still be meaningful descriptions of possible states of affairs? I believe so. With respect to such a world, our world, with things like Bachelors and marriage, would still exist as an unrealized logical possibility. The inhabitants of that world might never conceive of such possibilities, but that does not render them meaningless. Meaningful things could still be said about the nature of bachelorhood, even if there were no concrete situations in which the concept bachelorhood had the chance to manifest itself, just as in our world, we can meaningfully speak of concepts such as unicorns and describe properties which such creatures would have if they actually existed (they would be horse-like, have a single horn, etc.)

Now, it is true that just because we can meaningfully talk about the properties something would have if it existed, that does not mean that those properties must exemplify themselves or that those things must actually exist concretely. However, with respect to the concept of a necessary being, it can be said that if such a being is a logical possibility, then it must also exist in actuality. This is because, if a necessary being is a logical possibility, there is at least one logically possible world in which such a being exists. Since necessary being involves existing in all possible worlds, the fact that such a being exists in at least one possible world means that it must exist in them all (since the inhabitants of that world could meaningfully ascribe the property of existing in all other possible worlds to that being), including the actual world in which we find ourselves.

Of course, the trouble with this is asking the question as to whether such a being is actually a logical possibility. The key premise of the ontological argument is that it is, but the skeptic is not likely to buy that premise (though, in the link I provided, there is an explanation of Godel‘s attempt to argue for that premise). Consequently, the chief value of the OA, in my opinion, is that it helps those of us who are theists to explore the concept of necessary being more thoroughly, not to convince non-believers.

Actually, all you have to show is that it is logically possible for God to exist.

As I recall, I believe that Aquinas did reject Anselm’s version of the OA, but not the concept of necessary existence. Nevertheless, the OA has made a few advancements since Anselm (see the Godel link above).

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

This is a difficult question, but I am inclined (though with some hesitation), in the case of the circle, to say yes. The reason being that a circle is an abstract object, an ideal conception. Since a circle is an idea, the idea of a circle in the mind of God is the circle itself. Now, that doesn’t mean that anything resembling a circle must exist concretely in the actual world, but it is still the case that there is such an abstract object in the mind of God.

It seems that we can differentiate between the notions of existing abstractly and existing concretely. There are a certain set of abstract characteristics which describe the being known as Kenny, for example. Since it is logically possible for this being to exist (given that I do, in fact, exist), this set of abstract characteristics would still exist as an unrealized logical possibility if there were no such being in the actual world, but I, as a concrete manifestation of that set, would not exist. With respect to God (defined as a necessary being), however, if it is logically possible for God to exist, then He must exist in actuality, because the concept of necessary being entails existence in all logically possible worlds.

I agree. The idea of Kenny is not the same thing as Kenny himself. However, the idea of a circle, since a circle is nothing more than an idea, is the circle itself.

God Bless,
Kenny

GunnerJ

I bow to your superior logic. God does exist! Allow me to huble myself... <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Scrutinizer

Good, see, that wasn't so hard! I always get annoyed when skeptics try to deny such a crystal clear demonstrative proof. It's only a matter of time before the entire Secular Web shuts down on account of my logic. I should write a book.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

99Percent

Kenny: To say that the “supernatural” (I personally do not like that term) or the Divine is irrational is simply a mischaracterization of classical Christian theism. Classical Christian theism maintains that God is a rational being Who has created the universe in accordance with a rational plan.

Sorry, I come from Mexico where Christianity is of a Catholic flavor. Catholics like to believe in miracles and saints and so on. This is where I get the characterization of supernatural irrationality of Christianity. However, you cannot deny that life after death is certainly an irrational belief, a belief that cannot be proven in any scientific or logical way, since death is a part of life.

It won’t do to simply define the miraculous as irrational. Miracles in the context of Christian theism are not just arbitrary violations of natural law that occur for no discernable reason, but revealatory events which are given their interpretation in the theological context in which they are situated.

That is a nice way of putting it but miracles are still miraculous precisely because they defy logic, they are unexplainable in naturalistic or scientific ways, and most of they are humanly unreproducible, that implies that was a was a higher self willed being producing them, a being with powers not restricted by nature. This is the purpose of believing in miracles, no?

Sigh. I have a hunch that you are a follower of Ann Rand.

You are correct, although I am not a "blind" objectivist, as they are commonly labeled.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think Rand had some interesting things to say about politics and about ethics (though, in the end, I disagree with her), but her metaphysics is just plain sophistry.

You perceive it Rand's philosophy as sophistry because you have a theist/platonist worldview which makes you want to see more to reality than what there really is. As Rand is quick to point out, existence just is. It is pointless, foolish and even dangerous to try to see more than what there really is. A=A, not A=(B,C,D,A).

To attempt to derive some sort of “objective” philosophy from a tautology is ridiculous. Tautology’s are semantically empty. They literally say nothing about the content of reality.

Agreed, one only needs to look at the bible.

It seems that we can differentiate between the notions of existing abstractly and existing concretely. There are a certain set of abstract characteristics which describe the being known as Kenny, for example. Since it is logically possible for this being to exist (given that I do, in fact, exist), this set of abstract characteristics would still exist as an unrealized logical possibility if there were no such being in the actual world, but I, as a concrete manifestation of that set, would not exist. With respect to God (defined as a necessary being), however, if it is logically possible for God to exist, then He must exist in actuality, because the concept of necessary being entails existence in all logically possible worlds.

Abstract knowledge is tool for classifying the world and categorizing knowledge. The big mistake you are making, Kenny, is that assume that because you can derive abstract concepts these can exist concretely ("reality" as I say). God is a concept that we developed to imagine possibilities and consequences, but it cannot exist concretely. Abstract knowledge helps us to live better by as long as we can distinguish from the possible and the impossible in reality. I can strive to become the perfect man ("Jesus" maybe?) but it would be foolish on my part to think that I can actually become so, or that such a person actually existed or exists or will exist in real life.

You state yourself that we can differentiate from notions of existing abstractly and existing concretely. Yet you utterly fail to distinguish that the concept of God cannot possibly exist concretely.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

plool

I know this is a little off-topic, but it's somewhat amusing.

Found this during my daily news reading. Here is an article relating another "miracle"

<a href="http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/mil/news/stories/news-121071220020128-180100.html" target="_blank">http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/mil/news/stories/news-121071220020128-180100.html</a>

HRGruemm

That's not existence since "X exists" = "X is instantiated". The only object which could be said to exist is the thought in your mind "the following characteristics are not inconsistent". Anything more would be a fallacy of reification, IMHO.

Unicorns do not have "potential of existence" (or anything similar): they don't exist *). Period.

*)AFAWK, at least :-)

This line argument has been refuted in a recent CARM thread.

1. Try writing down in a formal language the definition "God is defined as a necessary being".
You'll find out that it is circular:

Let God(X) denote that X fulfills all conditions for Godhood. Let Add(X) denote the conjunction of all additional properties that a god has (e.g. Creator of this universe). Then:

God(X) &lt;=&gt; Add (X) & "(Ex)God(X) is tautological".

Hence the circularity. You can replace "tautological" by "true in all conceivable worlds", if you wish.


2. Uniqueness is lacking since I could define Joe God as 1. necessary and 2.concerned about humans and Jim God as 1. necessary and 2. not concerned about humans. Both concepts are logically possible.

Regards,
HRG.

Kenny

Sure I can. I deny it. See, that wasn’t so hard

In what way do miracles “defy logic?” Is there anything self-contradictory concerning the concept of a miracle?

So.

Yeah, they’re miracles after all.

If an event truely is a miracle, an extraordinary event through which God reveals Himself in a special way above and beyond His ordinary acts of providence in sustaining and guiding the natural world, then, yes, there “was a higher self willed being producing them, a being with powers not restricted by nature.”

No. I don’t believe in miracles because I’m looking for some “proof” of God. I believe in the possibility of the miraculous because I already believe in God, as revealed through nature, history, Scripture, and ultimately in the person and work of Christ, Who is revealed as a personal being that can and does causally involve Himself in human affairs.

I like Ender’s term, “objectivist zombie.” As to the question as to whether or not you fit that description, we shall see.

No, I see it as sophistry because it doesn’t make any sense. Trust me, you don’t have to be a theist or a Platonist to regard Ann Rand’s philosophy as sophistry. Outside of her circle of followers, her philosophy is largely regarded as a joke in the academic world. Now, that doesn’t automatically mean that she is wrong, but it does mean that its not just my “theist/Platonist” philosophy that might make me think so.

Yes, but what contents make it up? What is the nature of being?

As I pointed out to you, A=A doesn’t say anything about what “is.” A = A is a tautology. Tautologies are semantically empty. They literally say “nothing” about anything. What is pure foolishness, is to think that some sort of profound metaphysical truth can be derived from a semantically empty statement.

Yes, and it is a tool that works because the world is such that it is describable by abstract ideas (i.e. abstract ideas reflect something about reality). I believe this is so because God has created the world in accordance with abstract ideas present in His own mind, and created us in His image with the capacity to understand things about how He has created the world.

I have made no such assumption. Some coherent abstract concepts are still such that they could not be instantiated in our world.

Why not?

If the concept of a necessary being is coherent, then such a being could not possibly fail to exist concretely. For such a being to fail to exist would involve a contradiction.

God Bless,
Kenny

99Percent

Kenny: Sure I can. I deny it [life after death is not an irrational belief]. See, that wasn’t so hard

Prove that life after death exists. Can't do it? Well then its not possible is it.

In what way do miracles “defy logic?” Is there anything self-contradictory concerning the concept of a miracle?

The definition of miracle is precisely something that defies logic. So you are going to alter definitions?

No. I don’t believe in miracles because I’m looking for some “proof” of God. I believe in the possibility of the miraculous because I already believe in God, as revealed through nature, history, Scripture, and ultimately in the person and work of Christ, Who is revealed as a personal being that can and does causally involve Himself in human affairs.

But would you really accept to have irrational miraculous events injected into the affairs of men? Wouldn't that cause caos and uncertainty? And Christ is not a personal being. He is long dead, assuming existed in the first place

Yes, but what contents make it up? What is the nature of being?

Being just is, dammit, why do you insist in finding something else where there is nothing else to find? For what purpose?

Yes, and it is a tool that works because the world is such that it is describable by abstract ideas (i.e. abstract ideas reflect something about reality). I believe this is so because God has created the world in accordance with abstract ideas present in His own mind, and created us in His image with the capacity to understand things about how He has created the world.

Those abstract ideas that describe and reflect upon reality just are. What other way could reality have existed that would not allow for abstract ideas such as concepts, categories and attributes to be formulated? And how would you know that about God in the first place (about creating the world acoding to abstract ideas present in his own mind)?

Some coherent abstract concepts are still such that they could not be instantiated in our world.

NO coherent abstract concepts can be instantiated in our world. There can be no pure elements in reality, because all of reality, the whole universe, is in a constant flux of cause and effect. What I think of Kenny is not in fact Kenny because you change every instant.

Why not [can God exist concretely]?

See previous answer.

If the concept of a necessary being is coherent, then such a being could not possibly fail to exist concretely. For such a being to fail to exist would involve a contradiction.

The concept of necessary being is in fact incoherent. What contradiction are you referring?

Kenny

Huh? Anything that cannot be proven to a skeptic is impossible? Suppose I’m a solipsist. Prove to me that you exist. Can’t do it? I guess you don’t really exist.

Find me a single Christian theologian who defines a miracle that way. I gave you my definition already. A miracle is: “an extraordinary event through which God reveals Himself in a special way above and beyond His ordinary acts of providence in sustaining and guiding the natural world.” Something along those lines is usually how a miracle is defined in a Christian theological context.

As I have already pointed out to you, “Miracles in the context of Christian theism are not just arbitrary violations of natural law that occur for no discernable reason, but revelatory events which are given their interpretation in the theological context in which they are situated.” In other words, miracles are not “irrational events injected into the affairs of men.”

So are you saying that being has no content? If so, then why do we experience a world filled with content?

Because they characterize certain attributes of being.

There is no such way. Existence requires content. Whatever the minimum content it requires, that is the set of characteristics which describe necessary being.

Because God has revealed it to us, and impressed such knowledge within us.

So are you saying that no set of abstract concepts can correspond with reality? How does that mesh with your previous statement to the effect that “those abstract ideas that describe and reflect upon reality just are“?

Define “pure.”

If X changes into Y, then there must be something which is identifiable as X and something latter which is identifiable as Y. The concept of change presupposes the concept of pure identity. I never thought I would find an objectivist who denies that things have identity. After all, isn’t A supposed to be A?

A necessary being is, by definition, a being which exists in all possible worlds. If such is a coherent concept, then there is at least one possible world in which such a being exists. It is a contradiction to assert that a being that must exist in all possible worlds, exists in at least one possible world but not in others.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>