The Ontological Modal "Proof" of God--it's a joke, right?

[Fenris]

Ok. If I understand it, the "proof" goes like this:

1) God is perfect (or he's not God). S/He knows everything perfectly, loves everything perfectly, has total perfect power which is used perfectly morally, etc. God's 100% perfect in every possible way.

2) Something that doesn't exist can't be perfect.

Therefore

3) If God is perfect in every way, and existence is necessary for perfection, it's necessary for God to exist 'cause if He didn't, He'd be imperfect.

No. Really. That's my understanding of it. I'm hoping I'm wrong. (And thanks to Cerveche on the SDMB for helping me understand that much).

Doesn't it completely break down at step 2? Geometry uses perfect circles, perfect lines, etc all the time...and they don't (and can't) exist.

Besides, can't something be perfectly non-existent?

Seriouisly--this is like some sort of jokes that philosophy majors play on underclassmen, the way apprentice carpenters get sent out for left-handed hammers or buckets of striped paint, right?

[Iris]

Sounds like our good friend DeCartes, if I remember college philosophy. He did a great job proving he exists, then tried to prove God for extra credit. It didn't work out so well.

[Baldwin]

Isn't that Descarte's argument? Never thought much of it. The argument "proves" the existence of absolutely any perfect thing you can think of.

Of course it relies on defining "perfection" as necessarily including the quality of existence. Using them as synomyms, the argument becomes: God exists, therefore God exists.

Descarte was a brilliant mathematician, though, and gave us Cogito ergo sum as well as a damn useful coordinate system.

[Contrapuntal]

How is cogito ergo sum any less question begging than "God exists, therefore God exists"?

[WednesdayAddams]

Because proof of self is as much physical as metaphysical.

[Hi, Neighbor!]

2) Something that doesn't exist can't be perfect.


I agree with you here that the above statement doesn't make much sense. Why is existence a qualification for perfection? It's not to say that these two traits are mutually exclusive - it's just that they don't have to have anything to do with each other.

Doesn't it completely break down at step 2? Geometry uses perfect circles, perfect lines, etc all the time...and they don't (and can't) exist.

Do you mean they can't physically exist? In which case, that's probably true. But we all know the idea of a perfect circle exists. It can also be quantified, has measurable dimensions, etc. The idea of a perfect shape is more tangible than, say, a supreme being that supposedly can exist beyond the limitations of any known laws of physics.

[Contrapuntal]

Because proof of self is as much physical as metaphysical.Can you elaborate on that? I don't know what you mean?

[WednesdayAddams]

I'll do my best.

Descartes' statement of existence relies on a physical process: thinking, whereas your statement "god exists because he exists" relies on a self referential argument. There are holes in both and I'm not discounting them so much as trying to make a distinction.

[Islander]

It seems to me that your first assertion relies on an a priori believe in god's existence. It's the same kind of head game as, "Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

[Fenris]

If I understand Decartes correctly, the idea is:

*"I am thinking" is a testable hypothesis. I know what it feels like when I don't.
*For me to think, I have to exist. Something that doesn't exist can't think.
*Therefore, if I think, I exist.

[Contrapuntal]

I'll do my best.

Descartes' statement of existence relies on a physical process: thinking, whereas your statement "god exists because he exists" relies on a self referential argument. There are holes in both and I'm not discounting them so much as trying to make a distinction.But they both assume the premise. As soon as Descartes said "I" he was asserting existence, and therefore saying, in essence, "I exist, therefore I exist," which is equally as valid as saying "God exists, therefore God exists." Both statements beg the question totally. One is not less logical than the other.

[AHunter3]

Heh. Totally reminiscent of the very first Straight Dope thread I ever started!

God is a CAT! a Proof...

Hi! I am Schrodinger's cat. Oh, you remember, the one that is in the box to demonstrate quantum probabilities, and I am alive and dead rather than one or the other, although each probability is a little fuzzy, but I'm a cat and I'm a little fuzzy anyway...yeah, I knew you'd remember!

So, let's go about this God thing as the logicians do. I want you to conceive of the CAT ALMIGHTY. The Cat such that nothing more noble or good or powerful or perfect can exist, OK? Yes, you have such a Cat in mind, do you?

Oh no you don't! You are still conceiving of such a divine Cat as a *hypothetical* Cat, and I am sitting here and conceiving, in betweenst licking my fur, of such a divine Cat as a REAL, GENUINELY EXISTENT Cat, which is a shade more noble and a bit better and definitely more powerful and perfect where your hypothetical "Cat" is less than so, so you are going to have to do a bit better than that...

Ah, NOW you have it! So you BELIEVE! Come, and bring with you some cheddar cheese and lasagna and tuna fish, and make your offering in this bowl over here! <purr purr>


Onwards to Descartes.


D: I think, therefore I am.

A: You think, therefore you think you are.

A: Actually I don't know that. I think you think you think, therefore I think you think you are.


Actually he's right, in the only way that matters. Conscious existence is the only verb in town. To me, it is considerably more self-evident than x=x to say that my own consciousness is not an illusion. Yours may be (to me) but mine cannot be (to myself). It's the inverse of assuming the premise: in order for my consiousness to be an illusion it would have to be an illusion to someone. Which wraps us right back around in a tight loop: that someone is MY consciousnesses seat of existence, and cannot be illusory except insofar as it is illusory to someone. Etc .

[WednesdayAddams]

But they both assume the premise. As soon as Descartes said "I" he was asserting existence, and therefore saying, in essence, "I exist, therefore I exist," which is equally as valid as saying "God exists, therefore God exists." Both statements beg the question totally. One is not less logical than the other.

I disagree; Descartes is stating that thinking is proof of self and existence, not equal to existence. Or on review, what AHunter3 said.

[Roo]

The OP looks like a parody of an ontological argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/):
5. Parodies of Ontological Arguments

Positive ontological arguments — i.e., arguments FOR the existence of god(s) — invariably admit of various kinds of parodies, i.e., parallel arguments which seem at least equally acceptable to non-theists, but which establish absurd or contradictory conclusions. For many positive ontological arguments, there are parodies which purport to establish the non-existence of god(s); and for many positive ontological arguments there are lots (usually a large infinity!) of similar arguments which purport to establish the existence of lots (usally a large infinity) of distinct god-like beings. Here are some modest examples:

(1) By definition, God is a non-existent being who has every (other) perfection. Hence God does not exist.

[susan]

The argument that God is perfect is not an assumption shared by all religions. Many gods are nasty and fallible. In addition to the "not existing != imperfect" question, I suggest that the statement that God is perfect is suspect.

[Zeener Diode]

You killed GOD!

You bastard!

[3acres]

Bah! Descartes just stole his argument from St. Anselm, whose "proof" we studied when I took philosophy in college (I suppose Descartes was too new and faddish for my professor). I can't remember my reasoning, but I mimicked St. Anselm to prove the existence of banshees for my professor. When he tried to explain the difference, I asserted that the only difference was that he believed in god, but not banshees. Whereas, to me, neither existed and the reasoning was therefore equivalent. Turned out my professor had a Doctor of Divinity degree and was an ordained minister: after several arguments lasting the entire class period, he gave me an A and threw me out of class with instructions not to return (there was only a week or so left in the semester anyway). Ahh, good times! :D

But to answer the OP, as far as I could see it wasn't a joke; he was completely serious about it.

[Stubby Boardman]

Bah! Descartes just stole his argument from St. Anselm, whose "proof" we studied when I took philosophy in college (I suppose Descartes was too new and faddish for my professor). I can't remember my reasoning, but I mimicked St. Anselm to prove the existence of banshees for my professor. When he tried to explain the difference, I asserted that the only difference was that he believed in god, but not banshees. Whereas, to me, neither existed and the reasoning was therefore equivalent. Turned out my professor had a Doctor of Divinity degree and was an ordained minister: after several arguments lasting the entire class period, he gave me an A and threw me out of class with instructions not to return (there was only a week or so left in the semester anyway). Ahh, good times! :D

But to answer the OP, as far as I could see it wasn't a joke; he was completely serious about it.

Ah, good ol' St. Anselm. You gotta love those Medieval schoolmen. Course, we've learned a thing or two since those days.

I'm amazed, though, that you had a philosophy professor who believed in God. I've heard rumours of such a thing, but it's still astounding.

[Digital Stimulus]

It's the inverse of assuming the premise: in order for my consiousness to be an illusion it would have to be an illusion to someone.
Exactly. In a catchy phrase, it's radical doubt -- the very act of which affirms that something (in a metaphysical sense) is doubting and thus exists.

[Ratel]

....Seriouisly--this is like some sort of jokes that philosophy majors play on underclassmen, the way apprentice carpenters get sent out for left-handed hammers or buckets of striped paint, right?

Try being sent to the store for a long weight. "What took you so long?" Fuck off....

[Contrapuntal]

I disagree; Descartes is stating that thinking is proof of self and existence, not equal to existence. Or on review, what AHunter3 said.That may be what he's thinking, but what he's saying is an assertion of existence in the premise. Given that his conclusion is also an assertion of existence, his reasoning is circular.

As an exercise, give me an example of something that does not exist, but can still assert "I".

[WednesdayAddams]

Okay, now I'm the one who's confused. You want me to disprove Descartes? I'm not the one arguing against his assertion.

[Contrapuntal]

Okay, now I'm the one who's confused. You want me to disprove Descartes? I'm not the one arguing against his assertion.I don't want you to disprove it. I want you to find one example where simply stating "I" is not an assertion of existence. That would go a ways toward supporting it, not disproving it. As things stand, he is simply claiming that he exists, therefore he exists.

[The Second Stone]

Bah! Descartes just stole his argument from St. Anselm, whose "proof" we studied when I took philosophy in college (I suppose Descartes was too new and faddish for my professor). I can't remember my reasoning, but I mimicked St. Anselm to prove the existence of banshees for my professor. When he tried to explain the difference, I asserted that the only difference was that he believed in god, but not banshees. Whereas, to me, neither existed and the reasoning was therefore equivalent. Turned out my professor had a Doctor of Divinity degree and was an ordained minister: after several arguments lasting the entire class period, he gave me an A and threw me out of class with instructions not to return (there was only a week or so left in the semester anyway). Ahh, good times! :D

But to answer the OP, as far as I could see it wasn't a joke; he was completely serious about it.

Banshees are the best thing that can possibly be imagined? You will have to explain this to me.

[WednesdayAddams]

I don't want you to disprove it. I want you to find one example where simply stating "I" is not an assertion of existence. That would go a ways toward supporting it, not disproving it. As things stand, he is simply claiming that he exists, therefore he exists.

No he isn't. That's your interpretation.

[rayh]

You killed GOD!

You bastard!

That was Nietzsche.

[Contrapuntal]

No he isn't. That's your interpretation.Fine. Then please provide one example where it is possible to assert "I" without asserting existence.

[3acres]

Banshees are the best thing that can possibly be imagined? You will have to explain this to me.

First, a clarification: when I reread my post, it might seem like my professor tossed me out of class because I disagreed with him. Poor phrasing on my part, but that was not what happened; he threw me out because he wanted to review the semester's material with the class prior to the final, and our discussions were preventing that. He also excused me from the final, to stop my protest that I needed to review for the final too.

That was over 30 years ago, so I don't remember the details, as I stated previously. But basically I didn't claim that banshees were the best thing that can be imagined, I argued that the Christian God was not the best thing that could be imagined either and that any perfection they claimed for him was simply part of the definition of God accepted by the faithful. I threw in supporting examples, taken from the point of view of an individual who was not a believer. My main point in all our arguments was that none of the proofs we were discussing worked for anyone who didn't already accept the existance of God. Heck, I can't even remember why I chose banshees; maybe I'd recently seen Darby O'Gill and the Little People or something. That was one spooky banshee!

[Fish]

1) God is perfect (or he's not God). S/He knows everything perfectly, loves everything perfectly, has total perfect power which is used perfectly morally, etc. God's 100% perfect in every possible way.

2) Something that doesn't exist can't be perfect.

Therefore

3) If God is perfect in every way, and existence is necessary for perfection, it's necessary for God to exist 'cause if He didn't, He'd be imperfect.
The holes in this reasoning are legion, as you observe.

1. God is a being that I declare to be perfect, whose existence I am trying to prove. God, as I imagine Him, has all qualities of perfection. Because I cannot physically see, hear, feel, smell, or taste God or verify his presence in any concrete, measurable way that is consistent with scientific theory, I cannot prove that God is perfect, but I assert that it is so by axiom.

2. Perfection necessarily includes existence. I declare this is so, also by axiom, because I have never seen, measured, or quantified the quality called "perfection" as it relates to various concrete objects and abstract concepts. A perfect circle exists in my head and can be described by equations; a perfect circle cannot be created in nature due to the granular nature of known matter. A so-called "perfect fifth" exists in music theory, but a perfect rendering of the interval to infinite decimal precision can be neither created nor detected given the limitations of our equipment.

3. Assuming my axioms are true, God exists. However, I cannot prove that God exists in reality; I have only proved that the theory of God exists in my head.

[AHunter3]

I disagree; Descartes is stating that thinking is proof of self and existence, not equal to existence. Or on review, what AHunter3 said.
That may be what he's thinking, but what he's saying is an assertion of existence in the premise. Given that his conclusion is also an assertion of existence, his reasoning is circular.

As an exercise, give me an example of something that does not exist, but can still assert "I".


Your requested exercise has no bearing that I can perceive on what you (erroneously, in my opinion as well as that of MarissaW) understand Descartes to be asserting.

Descartes: I think, therefore I am

Contrapuntal: D is saying I am therefore I am, that's begging the question.

MarissaW: No, he is saying that thinking is in and of itself proof of existence.

AHunter3: 'Think' means 'consciousness'. That can't be an illusion (at least not to the one experiencing it) so the one experiencing it must indeed exist, consciously.

Contrapuntal: Well show me an example of something that isn't there that can say "I"

AHunter3: :confused:


::stares long and hard at Contrapuntal's sentences::

Maybe it's a grammar problem?

AHunter3 hears/reads: I THINK therefore I AM

Contrapuntal perhaps hears/reads: I think therefore I AM -- ??

Do you have less problem with the phrasing I used?: "my own consciousness is not an illusion"

Never mind "I". What is being asserted (by me, and I think by Descartes) is that consciousness is a priori proof of existence. The only place "I" or "me" comes into place in that assertion is context (that is to say, that I am not saying YOUR consciousness is proof to ME of YOUR existence; without "locating" it here or there, or bothing to call it "I" or "me", it's "this one").

[Fish]

I would also like to add to my analysis that testing God for "perfection" requires verifying everything God does, says, thinks, feels, etc., to be without any flaw, no matter how small, throughout the entirety of space and time, on Heaven and Earth, and even in Hell (because God is everywhere). It is beyond any human to judge whether God is truly perfect.

At best, we can say, "Wow, God sure has a lot going for him. I've read a few pages of a book some guy read, and He sure seems pretty good to me. I don't get some of God's motives, like why He allows Evil to exist, but heck, I'm told on very good authority that He's perfect, so who am I to judge?"

But you can't make logical axioms out of a statement like that.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

This is going to be the second time I'll quote Eco in a fairly short time (and it's from exactly the same exchange, funnily enough):

"Morons are tricky. You can spot the fool right away (not to mention the cretin), but the moron reasons almost the way you do; the gap is infinitesimal. A moron is a master of paralogism. For an editor, it's bad news. It can take him an eternity to identify a moron. Plenty of morons' books are published, because they're convincing at first glance. An editor is not required to weed out the morons. If the Academy of Sciences doesn't do it, why should he?"
"Philosophers don't either. Saint Anselm's ontological argument is moronic, for example. God must exist because I can conceive Him as a being perfect in all ways, including existence. The saint confuses existence in thought with existence in reality."
"True, but Gaunilon's refutation is moronic, too. I can think of an island in the sea even if the island doesn't exist. He confuses thinking of the possible with thinking of the necessary."
"A duel between morons."
"Exactly. And God loves every minute of it. He chose to be unthinkable only to prove that Anselm and Gaunilon were morons. What a sublime purpose for creation, or, rather, for that act by which God willed Himself to be: to unmask cosmic mo-ronism."

Understand that I'm not calling anyone a moron here (Eco described everyone as being a combination of moron, fool, cretin and idiot, in various parts, with a moron just being a fallacious thinker). The ontological argument and its various little off-shoots are astonishingly stupid, but it is an obviously fallacious argument which it's quite hard to find out where the fallacy lies (which supposedly Bertrand Russel said, according to Wiki, but the statement is true regardless of who spoke it). It is not uncommon to see equally flawed arguments against it.

But the question is ultimately, as Eco said, one of necessity, which is where most of the parody-rebuttals miss their mark. I also have an issue with the distinction between the 'perfect pen/dog/circle/island/whatever' and 'the greatest thing ever' (that is, big-G God).

Here are the major problems I have with it:
a). I reject the concept of an a priori proof of the existance of anything, even something as nebulous as 'God.' That to me is a patent absurdity. The only was I could see it done is if not existing logically entailed some kind of contradiction, but I can't imagine how that could ever be possible (not to say it may not be, but it's at the limit of my imagination).
b). I reject 'perfection' as a concept and I cannot see in any abstract way how existance or non-existance are in any way related to 'perfection.' Going back to the 'perfect circle' analogy, the use of 'perfect' makes sense only with reference to some definition or criteria (that is, the perfect circle is perfect only in reference to some mathematical criteria).

Going back to the distinction between the 'perfect pencil' and the 'greatest thing ever,' I can't help but see a lot of this argument as the special pleading of the religious. So much of it seems to be inserting 'God can/is' in front of nonsense and expecting it to be digestable (because of that strange condition we have where, if we associate a word with something, that makes it less nonsense). Like always, God can be used in certain kinds of proofs that nothing else can be used in because God's special.

[The Second Stone]

First, a clarification: when I reread my post, it might seem like my professor tossed me out of class because I disagreed with him. Poor phrasing on my part, but that was not what happened; he threw me out because he wanted to review the semester's material with the class prior to the final, and our discussions were preventing that. He also excused me from the final, to stop my protest that I needed to review for the final too.

That was over 30 years ago, so I don't remember the details, as I stated previously. But basically I didn't claim that banshees were the best thing that can be imagined, I argued that the Christian God was not the best thing that could be imagined either and that any perfection they claimed for him was simply part of the definition of God accepted by the faithful. I threw in supporting examples, taken from the point of view of an individual who was not a believer. My main point in all our arguments was that none of the proofs we were discussing worked for anyone who didn't already accept the existance of God. Heck, I can't even remember why I chose banshees; maybe I'd recently seen Darby O'Gill and the Little People or something. That was one spooky banshee!


My recollection is that St. Anselm's proof is that the very best thing that could possibly be imagined is God by definition. Question begging, yes it is. But that's the first step. The second step is that it really is only the very best thing that could possibly be imagined if it were true, because then it really would be the best. More question begging. You could prove the opposite (the worst) for the devil.

[AHunter3]

At best, it sounds like a good argument to the effect that "if there ain't no God then there oughta be, or shoulda been".

[rayh]

At best, it sounds like a good argument to the effect that "if there ain't no God then there oughta be, or shoulda been".

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire

[Fish]

My recollection is that St. Anselm's proof is that the very best thing that could possibly be imagined is God by definition. Question begging, yes it is. But that's the first step.
See, that's the problem I have with it. You can start the ontological discussion two ways:

"I imagine a being, who is perfect, whom I shall declare is the God we read about in the Bible."

or

"The God of whom is spoken in the Bible is perfect."

In the first case, I grant that yes, it is possible to imagine a being who is perfect in all ways. You can stipulate that this is so, for the purpose of the exercise, in the same way you can imagine a hydrogen atom, a frictionless surface, or phlogiston. Sure ... go ahead and prove that the Perfect Being exists. Now prove that God, your God, is that same Perfect Being.

In the second case, you must accept or reject the axiom, because the only proof we have that God is perfect is that He said so. Or, someone with a pen and a bunch of papyrus claims that God said so.

In either case, to prove God is truly perfect requires powers so godlike that proof would not be necessary. By having the power to prove God is perfect, you prove you are perfect, therefore you are God.

[Moon Dog]

Well after careful consideration and reading all that has been written in this thread I think it is safe to answer the OP's actual question.

Yes. It is. Just not a particularly funny one.

[The Second Stone]

In the first case, I grant that yes, it is possible to imagine a being who is perfect in all ways. You can stipulate that this is so, for the purpose of the exercise, in the same way you can imagine a hydrogen atom, a frictionless surface, or phlogiston. Sure ... go ahead and prove that the Perfect Being exists. Now prove that God, your God, is that same Perfect Being.



My understanding of the proof is just a little bit different than this. We cannot actually imagine a being perfect in all ways because we are imperfect beings. But posit that if we had such a capability we would imagine God. God would not be perfect if he didn't exist. The weak link in the argument is assuming that we can move from our poor imaginations to one so rich that it could imagine something so good. There are still assumptions made, implausible assumptions, but assumptions that pointy heads want to make. If you make the assumption that your imagination could imagine the perfect, then you do get a strong argument for God.

[Fish]

My understanding of the proof is just a little bit different than this. We cannot actually imagine a being perfect in all ways because we are imperfect beings. But posit that if we had such a capability we would imagine God.
I think this is skipping a step (bolding mine, of course). If we had the capability to imagine a Perfect Being, we would imagine it (or posit that it exists). I think we're on the same page here.

But then we assume, and this is where I feel we are skipping a step, that this is the same being called "God" in the Bible. It is entirely possible that there is a Perfect Being and it is not God, but some very-very-very powerful being several steps above God.*

"But there's nobody above God," the theists cry. "He is the Unmoved Mover, the Creator of all things!"

"According to the Bible, yes, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and nothing created God," I say, "but if we assume the Bible is true, and use this as the basis for our logic, then we are no longer operating from pure reason."

*It is also possible that there are a multitude of Perfect Beings, only one of which is the Biblical God. God may be an extremely powerful being, worthy of worship, who really did create the Heavens and the Earth, but we have only the word of the Bible to assume he's the only god, and the most powerful being imaginable.

[Moon Dog]

My confusion still lies in the assumption that even we did have the ability to imagine a perfect being that this would in any way be proof that such a being does exist. We seem to be saying one assumption leads to another assumption = proof ? :confused:

What am I missing here ?

[RedFury]

My confusion still lies in the assumption that even we did have the ability to imagine a perfect being that this would in any way be proof that such a being does exist. We seem to be saying one assumption leads to another assumption = proof ? :confused: ...

I take it a step further and question the logic behind being able to imagine anything and concluding from this thought experiment that said product of our imagination must necessarily entail existence.

IOW, if we can imagine it, it exists. Not.

[The Second Stone]

My confusion still lies in the assumption that even we did have the ability to imagine a perfect being that this would in any way be proof that such a being does exist. We seem to be saying one assumption leads to another assumption = proof ? :confused:

What am I missing here ?

3. Prophet.

[Fenris]

3. Prophet.
:p
Dude, that deserves applause. The phrase "laugh out loud funny" is overused, but in this case, I actually did. :D

[KidVermicious]

3. Prophet.

This is overflowing with win.

[Moon Dog]

3. Prophet.

This is one time I'm happy to play the comedic straight man. Pure gold. :D

[The Second Stone]

Yes, it was gold, I laughed at the straight line while writing the reply, so thank you.

Yes, I only know a summary of the proof of St. Anselm (which is different than the OP IMO) The final step is that a perfect entity must exist, because otherwise it is only a fantasy and not perfect.

This seems to me to be more than slightly platonic and like a form. Plato argues that the forms really exist, even though they are only known to us as concepts. Think of calculus. This is a thought tool (which I don't have education in) that does not exist as a physical object in the real world. But it makes the calculations of orbits and so many other neat things available to us. Calculus would be perfect for these applications if it existed. And lo it does! God is the thought. Kinda nifty, if you buy it. Annoying if you don't.

Once in a while, you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

[The Logos]

As an a priori argument, the ontological proof as explicated by the OP breaks down already within the first premise, with the conceptualization of perfection. Perfection in this context likely pertains to a logically supernatural entity, and necessarily embodying mutually contradictory traits (e.g. perfect qualities which cannot logically coexist). Like concepts for omnipotence, perfection is grounds for paradox and logical pathologies; it is an unfalsifiable concept and therefore unsusceptible to the methods of logic. The ontological proof is unsound, especially as propounded in the form of modal logic, where the property of necessary existence is still poorly understood.

The ontological proof is still subject to the criticisms of Hume and Kant, who indicate the property of existence is independent otherwise of it's conceptualization. To my thinking, the ontological proof relies also on an ontological bait-and-switch.

[Contrapuntal]

Do you have less problem with the phrasing I used?: "my own consciousness is not an illusion".I don't have a problem with it, but it is still circular logic. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

[Mr. Plumbean]

The principle fallacy of the argument is that it never makes a transition from propositional logic to factual case. We can argue that if God exists, God is perfect, and that if God is perfect, God exists, but where do we get removed from a circular argument of "If A then B" and "If B than A" to a conclusion that either A or B is true? We've only established that "Either A and B, OR Not A and Not B."

[AHunter3]

Do you have less problem with the phrasing I used?: "my own consciousness is not an illusion".
I don't have a problem with it, but it is still circular logic. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

There is no separate premise and conclusion. You're attempting to read a different and more complicated sentence than the one provided.



You are welcome to try out "My own consciousness IS an illusion".

It parses grammatically and you could use it as a different premise. There's no inconsistency or fallacy there either, it's just wrong, like the premise that 1=2.

[ulfhjorr]

The Ontological Modal "Proof" of God--it's a joke, right?

No, it's not a joke. Now, the people who seriously buy into it, on the other hand...

[Contrapuntal]

There is no separate premise and conclusion. You're attempting to read a different and more complicated sentence than the one provided.Well then it's a tautology. Real consciousnesses are necessarily non illusory, by definition. Non real consciousnesses can't assert anything. At any rate, "My consciousness is not an illusion" says nothing about the world, other than to define "consciousness."



You are welcome to try out "My own consciousness IS an illusion".

It parses grammatically and you could use it as a different premise. There's no inconsistency or fallacy there either, it's just wrong, like the premise that 1=2.Exactly. It's necessarily wrong.

[AHunter3]

It is not a tautology. It's a profundity.

The fact that you (= person making the observation that you think) are thinking when you make that observation is not embedded as an assumption of the statement. It's embedded as a FACT.



If you want to arrange the Cartesian thingie as a sequence of logic statements it would look like


a) In order for for the experience of "thinking" to occur, a consciousness must be real (non-illusory); it is being experienced by someone or something.

b) this is THINKING <—— right here right now, it's occurring

c) Therefore there does exist someone or something that is having that experience.

As actually expressed, the premise is unstated.


BUT b is not a built-in tautological assumption of a.

You're perfectly welcome to posit the opposite, e.g., "My consciousness IS an illusion; I am NOT, in fact, thinking at all, that's just a manifestation of electrochemical processes". You end up with:


a) In order for for the experience of "thinking" to occur, a consciousness must be real (non-illusory); it is being experienced by someone or something.

b) no THINKING is occurring, just electrochemical processes

c) No conclusion can be reached as to whether or not something or somebody exists, sorry


You just look damn silly doing so because you'd be claiming to be thinking that you're not thinking. Observing and proclaiming your absence. But not because the original is a tautology. It's no more a tautology than the premise "All zebras are mammals".

[RaftPeople]

3) If God is perfect in every way, and existence is necessary for perfection, it's necessary for God to exist 'cause if He didn't, He'd be imperfect.

What does it even mean to be perfect?

Who says that not existing is an imperfection?



It reminds me of a "proof" a friend provided in college of God's existence, this was the conversation:
She: "Since Jesus was resurrected..."

Me (interrupting): "Hold on a minute, you can't just assume that happened"

She (stunned): "What, you don't believe Jesus was resurrected? Well, then I can't continue."

Me: "Ok"

[Xploder]

After reading and re-reading this thread, MY HEAD ASPLODE!!! :foil:

Now then, I can conceive of and also believe in, zero dimensional objects (a point), one dimensional objects (a lin or a cosmic string), even ywo dimensional objects (domain walls), but I can not now, nor have I ever been able to before, believe in God as spoken of by the religious.

To me, trying to prove the existence of a non-existant entity/object/thing is an exercise in mental masturbation. You CAN'T prove a negative.

I've been reading up on quantum physics lately (within the last couple of years at any rate) because I thought it would be nice to edumacate mahself.

Quantum physics makes WAY more sense than all this metaphysical jizm you all seem to be talking about.

I have to admit that it's pretty damn entertaining though. I actually dug out some dusty old philosphy volumes that have been sitting around unopened for the last 15 years and began to TRY and struggle through them. Seems I've forgotten everything I ever read by Descartes, Nietzhe, etc.

Also, I am happy to see that y'all are able to actually, y'know discuss this issue without all the bullshit personal attacks so prevalent on other, unnamed boards.

Kudos for re-edumacating me.

[Contrapuntal]

It is not a tautology. It's a profundity.

The fact that you (= person making the observation that you think) are thinking when you make that observation is not embedded as an assumption of the statement. It's embedded as a FACT.



If you want to arrange the Cartesian thingie as a sequence of logic statements it would look like


a) In order for for the experience of "thinking" to occur, a consciousness must be real (non-illusory); it is being experienced by someone or something.

b) this is THINKING <—— right here right now, it's occurring

c) Therefore there does exist someone or something that is having that experience.

As actually expressed, the premise is unstated.Nothing that does not exist can assert "I". Asserting "I" and drawing the conclusion "I exist" is circular reasoning, because asserting "I" necessarily asserts existence. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Thinking has nothing to do with it.

I bake, therefore I exist.
I dance, therefore I exist.
I paint, therefore I exist.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

[Moon Dog]

Nothing that does not exist can assert "I". Asserting "I" and drawing the conclusion "I exist" is circular reasoning, because asserting "I" necessarily asserts existence. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Thinking has nothing to do with it.

I bake, therefore I exist.
I dance, therefore I exist.
I paint, therefore I exist.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So the very nature of asserting "I" equating to the conclusion of existence reduced to it's simplest would mean it is unnecessary to state anything beyond the statement;

"I exist"

?

[rayh]

So the very nature of asserting "I" equating to the conclusion of existence reduced to it's simplest would mean it is unnecessary to state anything beyond the statement;

"I exist"

?

But surely by saying "I" you are already asserting existance? If there is no existance there is no "I" to exist in. Merely by saying "I" there is existance, the existance becomes a fact.

So the statement in fact reduces down to -

"I"

Thus everything is proved.

[WednesdayAddams]

Metaphysics, Existentialism and Self Awareness in one easy step as presented by the GiraffeBoard. That will be $249.99 TYVM.

[AHunter3]

Nothing that does not exist can assert "I". Asserting "I" and drawing the conclusion "I exist" is circular reasoning, because asserting "I" necessarily asserts existence. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Thinking has nothing to do with it.

I bake, therefore I exist.
I dance, therefore I exist.
I paint, therefore I exist.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Where did I use the word "I" in the red quoted secion that you quoted above (http://www.giraffeboards.com/showpost.php?p=124707&postcount=56) ?

You expect "I" but only because that's how our language is constructed. YOU are saying that I am saying "I think therefore I am" and that the conclusion is embedded in the premise; I'm actually saying "think therefore am". If your inclination is to reply that "am" is inherent in "think", all you are doing is agreeing with me, that nothing that can't "am" can "think".

[Moon Dog]

But surely by saying "I" you are already asserting existance? If there is no existance there is no "I" to exist in. Merely by saying "I" there is existance, the existance becomes a fact.

So the statement in fact reduces down to -

"I"

Thus everything is proved.

"I" have been proven but what about "you", "us" and "we" ?

[RedFury]

"I" have been proven but what about "you", "us" and "we" ?

Them's imaginary.

[AHunter3]

Them's imaginary.

Yeah. And it's my imagination that's doing the imagining. Because I. I, I, I, I, I. Nyaah!

[Anacanapuna]

Holy crap, and I thought literary critical theorists were a bunch of navel-gazers! 'Course, when it comes to God, I'm satisfied that I totally deconstructed the concept when I was in sixth grade and recognized the tribalistic ethnocentrism of all religions. (The priest, on the other hand, was not amused.)

[Moon Dog]

"I" have been proven but what about "you", "us" and "we" ?

Them's imaginary.

Yeah. And it's my imagination that's doing the imagining. Because I. I, I, I, I, I. Nyaah!

Even if they're imaginary they still exist.

So "you" is imaginary.

But if "we" and "us" are imaginary and even though "I" exist "I" am part of "we" and "us".

Then "I" must be imaginary.

So "I" am part of AHunter3's imagination.

But AHunter3 is a part of "we" and "us" and therefore is also imaginary.

So who or what is imagining all of "us" ?

[Xploder]

Them's imaginary.

And arbitrary.

[Xploder]

Even if they're imaginary they still exist.

So "you" is imaginary.

But if "we" and "us" are imaginary and even though "I" exist "I" am part of "we" and "us".

Then "I" must be imaginary.

So "I" am part of AHunter3's imagination.

But AHunter3 is a part of "we" and "us" and therefore is also imaginary.

So who or what is imagining all of "us" ?

Larry Finkelstein?

[RedFury]

Even if they're imaginary they still exist.

So "you" is imaginary.

But if "we" and "us" are imaginary and even though "I" exist "I" am part of "we" and "us".

Then "I" must be imaginary.

So "I" am part of AHunter3's imagination.

But AHunter3 is a part of "we" and "us" and therefore is also imaginary.

So who or what is imagining all of "us" ?

Nurse!

Should I exist, methinks I need some extra-strength Tylenol.

:::grumble grumble:::

[sailor]

Them's imaginary.Maybe, but she had the best butt I've imagined in ages. It was the second coming right there.