Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Eh, it's prettier than most contemporary art.

---

Is it? Unfortunately, the prettiness factor isn't determinative.

Quote:

---

Why are there no other options?

---

Because nothing else meets the criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Because nothing else meets the criteria.

---

The criteria is "necessary being" right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The criteria is "necessary being" right?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes.

---

Surely something that is the necessary being and nothing else would meet the criteria for necessary being?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Surely something that is the necessary being and nothing else would meet the criteria for necessary being?

---

Obviously. Just as something that is a perfect being and nothing else would meet the criteria of a perfect being, yes: A equals A. Such an 'A' insofar as it connotes a positive maximal attribute, is God. This is definitional. That is what the word means under a rational rubric.

@Pindar: actually necessary being according to your own definition is the same as "necessary" in modal logic. Such necessity is concerned with the truth values of statements, not with metaphysical existence. A necessary being is a statement that would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic if it were to be true. Plenty of statements fulfill the requirement for necessary being, among them the statement "A or not A". The statement "A or not A" isn't God, but is a necessary being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

@Pindar: actually necessary being according to your own definition is the same as "necessary" in modal logic. Such necessity is concerned with the truth values of statements, not with metaphysical existence. A necessary being is a statement that would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic if it were to be true. Plenty of statements fulfill the requirement for necessary being, among them the statement "A or not A". The statement "A or not A" isn't God, but is a necessary being.

---

Alas, no. In necessary being: necessary is an adjective. It informs the noun, being. Being is concerned with existence i.e. ontology. This is metaphysics.

There is nothing contradictory about the notion necessary being.

A statement is not a necessary being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Obviously. Just as something that is a perfect being and nothing else would meet the criteria of a perfect being, yes: A equals A. Such an 'A' insofar as it connotes a positive maximal attribute, is God. This is definitional. That is what the word means under a rational rubric.

---

Are you saying "necessary" is a positive maximal attribute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Are you saying "necessary" is a positive maximal attribute?

---

Not necessary as a simple adjective alone, but necessary being. Being (or existence) is taken as a positive (in that it is superior to its opposite which is nothingness). Moreover, the maximalization of being (necessary being) is superior to what is contingent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not necessary as a simple adjective alone, but necessary being. Being (or existence) is taken as a positive (in that it is superior to its opposite which is nothingness). Moreover, the maximalization of being (necessary being) is superior to what is contingent.

---

Now wait a minute. Why is existence certain to be positive?

I don't see why you say necessary is a maximalization of being or superior to contingent either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Alas, no. In necessary being: necessary is an adjective. It informs the noun, being. Being is concerned with existence i.e. ontology. This is metaphysics.

There is nothing contradictory about the notion necessary being.

A statement is not a necessary being.

---

Your necessary being is a notion of "something that must exist, otherwise there would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic". Correct me if that was an incorrect interpretation of your definition.

Now, the problem is that it's illegal to define words that have the property of existence along with other properties (see the logic handbook thread), and even worse to define words containing logical modalities in their definitions. By adding "necessary existence" into your definition, your very definition itself has already claimed that necessary beings must exist or there would be a contradiction towards logic - before even starting the argumentation! A logically necessary statement is something which can't be false, or it would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic. Before you have shown that the laws of logic make it necessary that something metaphysically exists, your definition is illegal. Imagine if it is the case that the laws of logic don't necessitate the metaphysical existence of something - then your very word definition is a contradiction. In fact, to be honest, there's nothing in the laws of logic that necessitate metaphysical existence of anything - more things are logically possible than are possible in reality - in reality only one option is the case, whereas logic in many cases state it is logically possible with multiple options. Logic isn't as restrictive as reality. All arguments trying to show that something metaphysically exists have relied on additional assumptions than the validity of logical laws alone. Assumptions such as "there exist metaphysically things that haven't been created". I'd say your chances of actually proving that something must metaphysically exist by the laws of logic themselves are zero, unless you choose an unusual definition of metaphysical existence. By the way - what is your definition of metaphysical existence in your argument?

As for your argument, your best option is to remove necessary existence from the definition of necessary being, leaving only the property "hasn't been created" in the definition, and then you can try to prove that something that hasn't been created must necessarily exist, given some more assumptions than that the laws of logic are correct. You did have an argument for that - an argument that was valid once you stated your assumptions more clearly, and rather that claiming to have proven God, claim to have proven what the argument actually proves, i.e. that: "there must exist something that wasn't created, assuming that ex nihilo creation is impossible and there exist things that haven't existed always." This of course wouldn't be a proof of God, since matter and energy has existed forever and can fulfill the role of "something that wasn't created", according to many. However, if you don't believe matter and energy have existed forever, it could be a strong argument for a God/Gods, however it doesn't say which God/what Gods.

Alternatively, you can define your being as something that "hasn't been created" and has all the other properties of God, and then try to prove that they logically exist. This fulfills points one to three in this quote:

Quote:

---

To prove the existence of God you must prove that his properties are possible, that a combination of them is possible, that there exists at least one being that has the combination of the properties, and that there is at most one being that has the combination of the properties.

---

As usual you must also complete the proof by showing that there can exist at most one, fulfilling point four in the quote.

As a final word, because logic is less restrictive than reality regarding what is impossible and necessary, I'd say logic isn't a good method for trying to reason about existence of God. Both because logic repeatedly demonstrates that logic alone can't prove the existence of God without adding further assumptions, and because logic also theoretically has the property that it alone isn't as restrictive as reality, meaning that the lack of a proof of God by the laws of logic doesn't mean it isn't necessarily the case that the existence of God isn't necessary (to rewrite Kurt Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem somewhat).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurt Gödel

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true1 but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not necessary as a simple adjective alone, but necessary being. Being (or existence) is taken as a positive (in that it is superior to its opposite which is nothingness). Moreover, the maximalization of being (necessary being) is superior to what is contingent.

---

Now you're using the Anselm style of argument, which has been demonstrated useless, since it contains a subjective value, where it is undefined whose subjective value it is. Whose value is it that existence is superior to non-existence? Words such as "superior" leave something to be wished in terms of specification. Using the word "superior" requires us to specify in which sense we mean better, or in whose opinion we're talking about "superior". Before that has been done, it is unspecified what the statement is trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Now wait a minute. Why is existence certain to be positive?

I don't see why you say necessary is a maximalization of being or superior to contingent either.

---

Traditionally existence is taken as a positive in that it is necessary precursor by and through which any possible valuation or attribution can occur: truth, beauty, morality etc.

Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Your necessary being is a notion of "something that must exist, otherwise there would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic". Correct me if that was an incorrect interpretation of your definition.

---

Who are you quoting? That is not a statement I've made.

Quote:

---

Now, the problem is that it's illegal to define words that have the property of existence along with other properties (see the logic handbook thread), and even worse to define words containing logical modalities in their definitions. By adding "necessary existence" into your definition, your very definition itself has already claimed that necessary beings must exist or there would be a contradiction towards logic - before even starting the argumentation!

---

Illegal? Logic isn't about legality. Nothing in the above flurry responds to necessary being as a metaphysical notion or supports the idea the very concept is a breach of reason. Also note: defining a thing is not in and of itself to demonstrate existence or constitute a proof. Definitions simply provide coherence to a concept.

Quote:

---

By the way - what is your definition of metaphysical existence in your argument?

---

'Metaphysical existence' doesn't appear in the proof, but metaphysics refers to ontology: what exists, being.

Quote:

---

As for your argument, your best option is to remove necessary existence from the definition of necessary being, leaving only the property "hasn't been created" in the definition, and then you can try to prove that something that hasn't been created must necessarily exist, given some more assumptions than that the laws of logic are correct. You did have an argument for that - an argument that was valid once you stated your assumptions more clearly...

---

The base meaning of necessary being has always been the standard notion. There is nothing revolutionary or strained in it. The argument has never changed. It is and always has been valid. All that has changed was your varying and shifting degrees of understanding.

Quote:

---

This of course wouldn't be a proof of God, since matter and energy has existed forever and can fulfill the role of "something that wasn't created", according to many. However, if you don't believe matter and energy have existed forever, it could be a strong argument for a God/Gods, however it doesn't say which God/what Gods.

---

Belief isn't relevant. Matter and energy are attributes of a thing, not a thing singular. This has been discussed.

Quote:

---

As a final word, because logic is less restrictive than reality regarding what is impossible and necessary, I'd say logic isn't a good method for trying to reason about existence of God. Both because logic repeatedly demonstrates that logic alone can't prove the existence of God without adding further assumptions, and because logic also theoretically has the property that it alone isn't as restrictive as reality, meaning that the lack of a proof of God by the laws of logic doesn't mean it isn't necessarily the case that the existence of God isn't necessary (to rewrite Kurt Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem somewhat).

---

Do you recall the point of this tangent on god? The point was to show young master Sasaki that not all strong statements about god are illogical. The proof is a simple demonstration to that effect. Its only concern is and has been a rational demonstration.

Also note: logic has multiple proofs for god. This has been demonstrated. Gödel has his own as well. My guess is your unfamiliar with it.

Quote:

---

Now you're using the Anselm style of argument, which has been demonstrated useless, since it contains a subjective value, where it is undefined whose subjective value it is. Whose value is it that existence is superior to non-existence? Words such as "superior" leave something to be wished in terms of specification. Using the word "superior" requires us to specify in which sense we mean better, or in whose opinion we're talking about "superior". Before that has been done, it is unspecified what the statement is trying to say.

---

The above demonstrates an ignorance of St. Anselm. The rest of the post has no value as my statement: "Being (or existence) is taken as a positive..." is obviously a judgment: note the verb usage.

As for superior in regard to necessary being: specification can be given as asked for. This is how discourse proceeds, to whit: necessary being is seen as superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Traditionally existence is taken as a positive in that it is necessary precursor by and through which any possible valuation or attribution can occur: truth, beauty, morality etc.

---

...lies, ugliness, depravity etc.

Quote:

---

Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

---

This is judgement as well. Has no place in a proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

...lies, ugliness, depravity etc.

---

Quite. Lies, ugliness, depravity all depend on an extant.

(why did you choose these references to liberals?)

Quote:

---

This is judgement as well. Has no place in a proof.

---

? The second sentence is a fragment. I don't know what you are referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Quite. Lies, ugliness, depravity all depend on an extant.

(why did you choose these references to liberals?)

---

So, existence can hardly be said to be positive when the possibility of negative exists.

Quote:

---

? The second sentence is a fragment. I don't know what you are referring to.

---

The proof you originally gave shows necessary being. But you only get from necessary being to god by claiming that existence is positive etc. But that is not a proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So, existence can hardly be said to be positive when the possibility of negative exists.

---

You are confused. The content of a judgment isn't the issue, rather the mere ability to make judgments, valuation, attributions etc. requires being. Even were one to charge 'life isn't worth living' that statement requires being in order to make the judgment. Thus, any knowledge claim has an ontic precursor. Do you see?

Quote:

---

The proof you originally gave shows necessary being. But you only get from necessary being to god by claiming that existence is positive etc. But that is not a proof.

---

No, one gets to god by simply recognizing point one of the proof. Necessary being is a standard characteristic of god. It is definitional and turns on ontic criteria that entails necessary being: uncaused, self-sustaining etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, one gets to god by simply recognizing point one of the proof. Necessary being is a standard characteristic of god. It is definitional and turns on ontic criteria that entails necessary being: uncaused, self-sustaining etc.

---

This doesn't matter. You already said something that was a necessary being and nothing else would qualify as the necessary being from your proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

This doesn't matter. You already said something that was a necessary being and nothing else would qualify as the necessary being from your proof.

---

Actually, what I said was: "Obviously. Just as something that is a perfect being and nothing else would meet the criteria of a perfect being, yes: A equals A. Such an 'A' insofar as it connotes a positive maximal attribute, is God. This is definitional. That is what the word means under a rational rubric."

Right, but you can't prove that necessary being is a positive maximal attribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Right, but you can't prove that necessary being is a positive maximal attribute.

---

Read this sentence again: Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Read this sentence again: Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

---

Why do you say ontical dependance mean inferiority?

What is it about possessing one positive maximal attribute that would lead you to conclude a being possessed other positive maximal attributes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Definitions simply provide coherence to a concept.

---

That is the idea of definitions when you make them correct. But if you define a concept where existence or another property which you're trying to prove is part of the very definition, you attempt to escape the burden of proof. I can prove the existence of Leprechauns in the same way: define Leprechauns as things that can't not exist and can do magic. It follows from the definition that Leprechauns can't not exist. As you can see, this type of definition causes a problem, since it allows people to prove the existence of everything they can imagine, even though not every imaginable thing exists in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

'Metaphysical existence' doesn't appear in the proof, but metaphysics refers to ontology: what exists, being.

---

What type of existence are you trying to prove then? There are many forms of existence:
- logical existence, which means that there is at least 1 and possibly many ways of specifying a particular predicate so it becomes a true proposition. If we pick our possible ways of specifying the predicate from a set containing things that don't metaphysically exist, then we can prove logical existence of things that don't exist metaphysically. For example:
P(x) = x can blow fire through it's nostrils
Take x from the set of all mythological creatures
It's not difficult to see that there exists an x such that P(x) is true, for example if we choose x to be a dragon
So if you prove logical existence you haven't proven metaphysical existence.
- metaphysical existence, which is the usual view of existence, i.e. that it is something that exists in reality. Some different proposals have been given for how to give a more specific definition of this, i.e. for example if something has a potential to interact with all other things that exist, then it exists too (which gives us a problem of finding a base case for specifying which such set of interacting beings we refer to as the set of existing beings).
- solopsism, which claims that nothing really exists outside our own imagination
etc.
Which type of existence you try to prove matters a lot both to the proof technique, and the validity, since there are things which logically exist that don't metaphysically exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Also note: logic has multiple proofs for god. This has been demonstrated. Gödel has his own as well. My guess is your unfamiliar with it.

---

I demonstrated Gödel's proof earlier in this discussion, so either your memory is very short, or you're trying to poison the well. As I mentioned before, Gödel didn't have his own proof, but simply tried to rewrite Leibniz' proof into formal logic, and he himself was very critical to the proof, since it contained several unfounded conclusion steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The above demonstrates an ignorance of St. Anselm. The rest of the post has no value as my statement: "Being (or existence) is taken as a positive..." is obviously a judgment: note the verb usage.

---

Huh? Didn't I just say that it IS a judgement, and therefore it's invalid. You can't build an argument on values, without specfying whose values it is, or specifying a way in which it can be objectively determined for every pair of items which will be superior to the other. Without that requirement, it is possible to prove the existence of everything imagineable, since we can arbitrarily choose what is better than something else: "if God is 1000 naked chicks with D cup who want to have sex with me, then that is superior than if that isn't the case. Since God was defined as the best thing that could possibly be imagined, then that means God must be 1000 naked chicks with D cup who want to have sex with me". Using this pattern we can use seemingly correct logical reasoning to prove everything we want (strict logical scrutiny of course shows that it doesn't follow the laws of logic). I hope you can understand and admit that a proof of the existence of God that uses methods that could be used to prove the existence of anything - even clearly non-existing things - isn't really a realiable proof that anyone should have any reason to take seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Why do you say ontical dependance mean inferiority?

---

To depend is to rely on, be subject to a thing. If this trait (dependence) is assigned a being who is by definition the ultimate expression of being and perfection it would be an absurdity.

Quote:

---

What is it about possessing one positive maximal attribute that would lead you to conclude a being possessed other positive maximal attributes?

---

Other attributes aren't relevant to the proof. I choose a basic one, the type of being of a thing, in this case god's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

That is the idea of definitions when you make them correct. But if you define a concept where existence or another property which you're trying to prove is part of the very definition, you attempt to escape the burden of proof.

---

The above is confused. The proof does not simply assert A therefore A. The existence of necessary being is not asserted in any premise.

Conceptually, there is no issue with defining necessary being. It is simply a notion where the attending adjective informs the noun.

Quote:

---

What type of existence are you trying to prove then? There are many forms of existence...Which type of existence you try to prove matters a lot both to the proof technique, and the validity, since there are things which logically exist that don't metaphysically exist.

---

The proof concerns god. God is a metaphysical notion.

Quote:

---

I demonstrated Gödel's proof earlier in this discussion, so either your memory is very short, or you're trying to poison the well.

---

Did you? Where did you demonstrate Gödel's proof for god?

Quote:

---

As I mentioned before, Gödel didn't have his own proof, but simply tried to rewrite Leibniz' proof into formal logic, and he himself was very critical to the proof, since it contained several unfounded conclusion steps.

---

Gödel did have his own proof. He worked on it over a period of years going from the early Forties to the mid Fifties at lest. Do not confuse opting for a species of proof i.e. an ontological argument, with not being independent work.

Are you wanting to argue Gödel didn't believe his own proof or consider it valid? If that is not your intent then your comment is specious. If that was your intent: what do you base this idea on? According to the testimony of Oskar Morgenstern from a conversation with Gödel in 1970: "Gödel was satisfied with the proof, but he hesitated to publish it, for fear it would be thought "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions, correspondingly axiomatized, is possible).""

Quote:

---

Huh? Didn't I just say that it IS a judgment, and therefore it's invalid. You can't build an argument on values ...

---

You are confused, again. This statement to Sasaki: "Being (or existence) is taken as a positive..." and the thinking behind it isn't an argument. It is an explanation of the standard notion of being within the Rational Tradition.