Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Moral Orel]

So, you'll notice that they're not only self-refuting (i.e. illogical), but they're also hypocritical. Therefore the assertion, "There is no objective definition of any word," would also be meaningless, since there would be no objective definition of any word in the very same statement. It cancels itself out.

If it's meaningless, it isn't true or false.

But it isn't meaningless, and if you'll bear with me for just three posts, I'll demonstrate it. Can you play along for three posts without trying to make an argument about everything?

 

[Amoranemix]

My point is that it has to be a rationally cogent proposition to begin with before demonstrating it.

So far no one has been able to demonstrate a maximally great being (MGB) is rationally cogent.

2. A rational proposition is possible, but not probable without some demonstration of it (proof or evidence).

Can you prove that ?

Can you give some examples of necessary things ? I can only think of abstract concepts like numbers and the laws of logic. God would seem to be out of place in that list.

Yes logical necessity is easy to define but metaphysical necessity is difficult not just to prove but even to conceive.

Great. Then please do provide some examples of necessary things.
What kind of necessity is an MGB supposed to be ?
So far we have good reason to believe that maximally great beings are either not necessary, or impossible.

Is a non-contingent unicorn nonsensical or self-contradictory ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

A problem is that nonsensical was not defined. It seems to be a matter of opinion. A non-contingent unicorn could be qualified as non-sensical as its existence does not depend on anything else and yet it does not exist.

In that case, in order to know whether an MGB is nonsensical, one would have to establish whether one exists. If one does, then one can conclude it is possible for one to exist and then the conclusion of Anselm's argument would be true. So a prerequite for proving the
possibility of God's existence is to demonstrate the existence of an MGB. So far no one has been able to do that.

If you think you can design a maximally great being without encountering contradictions, then please do. Explain for example how that being breaks the laws of physics.

[no response]

I thought so.
So we have no good reason to believe that God is rationally cogent.

Can you prove that ? [If something is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory, it is possible.]

I can no more prove it than I can prove Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction is a valid first principle - for the same reason. It's a first principle and axiomatic principles can't themselves be proved. They're either self-evident or they're not.

It would be too easy too make one's argument sound by declaring premises one can't prove axiomatic. Otherwise, one could prove anything.
The alleged axiom you are relying on seems false. Can you point to an authoritative source claiming that axiom to be true ?

All rational propositions are possible prior to "showing" (or better, demonstrating) that they're probable. No need for "Katy bar the door" at mere possibility, because that's nothing to worry about. Which is why I learned it from an atheist. It's a very "Dana Scully, Season 1," mindset.

That would be merely epistemic possibility, meaning : “It is possible, as far as I know”. However, Anselm's argument is invalid with epistemic (im)possibility.

2. Science = only 1 part of reality; not the whole.
And science, while very useful, cannot be the sum-total explanation of reality, due to the greater fact that:
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate logic.
[more substantives science cannot demonstrate]

Science is in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements, not in demonstrating substantives.

[Criticism of empiricism]
These facts are simply irrefutable.

These claims can however be disputed, therefore they are not facts.
That science and empiricism have limitations (just like everything else) seems to be off topic, as most of the discussion since post 54.

Science is [ . . . ]

Okay. That's fine, but it's full of implicit assumptions that I don't believe you've taken the time to really get into:
1. This is a claim without evidence. Is there scientific evidence for science? No, because that would be circular reasoning. What is the "best method" of determining the claim of science itself? Doesn't that mean science exists without evidence, or is a belief based on blind faith?

That is a definition more than a claim.
One has to start with improvable assumptions, presupposition. In mathematics, these are axioms and in sciency postulates. You accept them because they appear to work and the only alternatives would be to choose different presuppositions or to cease to function.
Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious. Using science to confirm science improves the credence of science as long if the method of investigation allows for undermining science.

In your reply to this answer you did not quote the part where I said that this was a starting point.

Then in all honesty, it's a trainwreck of a definition. Nothing personal here, I'm sorry, but it's a real mess.

You are too harsh.


Returning back to the topic. For the argument to provide rational warrant for the belief in an MGB, rational warrant for the belief in the possibility of an MGB must exist. None can be provided, not surprisingly.

The argument is phisisophical trickery. An MGB has been defined such that 'It is possible for an MGB to exist.' is equivalent to 'An MGB exists.' The former formulation is one easier to believe in and that is why it is used.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

You forgot to answer my question.

A problem is that nonsensical was not defined. It seems to be a matter of opinion. A non-contingent unicorn could be qualified as non-sensical as its existence does not depend on anything else and yet it does not exist.

In that case, in order to know whether an MGB is nonsensical, one would have to establish whether one exists. If one does, then one can conclude it is possible for one to exist and then the conclusion of Anselm's argument would be true. So a prerequite for proving the
possibility of God's existence is to demonstrate the existence of an MGB. So far no one has been able to do that.

Sorry.

I think "non-contingent unicorn" is probably self contradictory?

Since all finite objects are contingent and a unicorn is a finite object?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Great. Then please do provide some examples of necessary things.
What kind of necessity is an MGB supposed to be ?
So far we have good reason to believe that maximally great beings are either not necessary, or impossible.

Well those examples whatever they are would have to be the opposite of contingent things. Contingent things are things which are dependent for their existence on other things. So by its definition a MGB would have to be the opposite of contingent.

I actually don't think there are any examples of that kind of non-contingent thing except a MGB. I.e. something which was dependent only upon itself for its own existence.

 

[Moral Orel]

I actually don't think there are any examples of that kind of non-contingent thing except a MGB. I.e. something which was dependent only upon itself for its own existence.

An eternal anything is non-contingent. That thing need not have omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence or even a mind.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

An eternal anything is non-contingent.

A thing can be eternal yet still be dependent for its existence on something else.

 

[Paulomycin]

So far no one has been able to demonstrate a maximally great being (MGB) is rationally cogent.

The point was that clear and consistent definitions must necessarily be made before demonstration.

Can you prove that ?

Been proven for over 700 years, actually. I don't have to re-invent the wheel. Just because we were raised in mostly secular schools doesn't mean that proof never existed to begin with. It's a gross assumption that we tend to make as Westerners.

It would be too easy too make one's argument sound by declaring premises one can't prove axiomatic. Otherwise, one could prove anything.

No one declares the basic Aristotelian laws of thought and other axioms of logic "axioms" arbitrariliy (such as Leibniz's PSR). The point at which doubt becomes irrational is proof that this handful of logical axioms are true.

That would be merely epistemic possibility, meaning : “It is possible, as far as I know”. However, Anselm's argument is invalid with epistemic (im)possibility.

How? By magically declaring it so? By pretending you know something the rest of us don't and hiding it? Please show your work.

Science is in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements, not in demonstrating substantives.

And yet, ironically, science cannot demonstrate the reality claim of ontological naturalism.

Science is limited to empirical substance (either directly or indirectly). Math and logic are in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements. Science depends upon what is measurable. Science cannot demonstrate measurement itself. This is such a mind-blowing revelation that it contradicts all secular dogma. The general atheist reaction to it is usually some form of cognitive dissonance. They usually can't even deal with the topic for more than 5 minutes.

^ These details cannot be blithely dismissed. Attempts at ad hoc facile rationalization won't cut it either.

These claims can however be disputed, therefore they are not facts.

Who taught you that?

- Your statement is self-refuting, because I can simply apply the same principle to your statement. If your claim can be disputed, then it's not a fact either. But if it doesn't apply to your claim, then it doesn't necessarily apply to other claims either.
- Just because something can be disputed doesn't make the disputation itself valid or sound.
- A mere claim of disputation without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Pretending they can be disputed without actual objective disputation does't somehow magically make them "non-facts."
- Subjective doubt alone never does anything substantial.

That science and empiricism have limitations (just like everything else) seems to be off topic, as most of the discussion since post 54.

It's not off-topic, because it curbs the general urge among secularists to elevate science as-if it were a prescriptive dogma that applies to every-single category of reality.

That is a definition more than a claim.

If so, then Clizby is trying to define it into existence.

One has to start with improvable assumptions, presupposition. In mathematics, these are axioms and in sciency postulates. You accept them because they appear to work and the only alternatives would be to choose different presuppositions or to cease to function.

And yet if the exact same atheist standards of forced incredulity were applied to to them, you'd have nothing. It's only fair.

Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious.

It always is when theists do it. I'm just asking for a little intellectual consistency here.

You are too harsh.

I don't see you helping.

Returning back to the topic. For the argument to provide rational warrant for the belief in an MGB, rational warrant for the belief in the possibility of an MGB must exist.

Except for rationality (reason) itself. Logic is math-based. Every argument for the existence of God for the past 700+ years can be more or less boiled down to logical notation. Deductive logic is bivalent algebra.

So no "trickery" necessary. "Word games" and "trickery" is just a sign that one fails to recognize the implicit math within a given argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

A thing can be eternal yet still be dependent for its existence on something else.

Hmm... I dunno. Maybe. If it's eternal it's uncaused, that's what I was getting at. It didn't need something else to cause it to exist. Now maybe there are two things that are eternal coexisting, and maybe one of those things can cause the other to stop existing or one of those things requires something from the other to continue existing... But does that really work?

Something eternal, in my mind at least, is outside of time and therefore has no beginning or end. Is it possible for an eternal thing to stop existing, wouldn't that mean it has an end, and wouldn't that mean it was never eternal to begin with?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Hmm... I dunno. Maybe. If it's eternal it's uncaused, that's what I was getting at. It didn't need something else to cause it to exist. Now maybe there are two things that are eternal coexisting, and maybe one of those things can cause the other to stop existing or one of those things requires something from the other to continue existing... But does that really work?

Something eternal, in my mind at least, is outside of time and therefore has no beginning or end. Is it possible for an eternal thing to stop existing, wouldn't that mean it has an end, and wouldn't that mean it was never eternal to begin with?

In that case I agree with you under that definition of eternal something would be uncaused or would be it’s own cause. I also agree that it would be impossible for that kind of eternal thing to begin or end.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

So now what you’re saying is that something that is eternal in that sense doesn’t need to be a MGB.

Not at my desk right now but according to Aquinas if we admit the existence of something eternal in the sense you mean then we can also deduce several properties that it would have to have.

I’ll try to refresh my recollection of the articles he wrote about it ...

 

[Moral Orel]

So now what you’re saying is that something that is eternal in that sense doesn’t need to be a MGB.

Not at my desk right now but according to Aquinas if we admit the existence of something eternal in the sense you mean then we can also deduce several properties that it would have to have.

I’ll try to refresh my recollection of the articles he wrote about it ...

I'd be interested to see someone make a deductive connection between being eternal and having a mind.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

I don’t know about having a mind but various perfections can be attributed to an eternal thing if we are prepared to concede that eternity in this sense is somehow a more perfect or fuller or more complete order of being than one that is contingent. Ie pure actuality means absolute perfection as opposed to something that is in potentiality to at least some degree. Eg existing in matter.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'd be interested to see someone make a deductive connection between being eternal and having a mind.

We have, but you just gainsay it to death.

 

[Moral Orel]

We have, but you just gainsay it to death.

No you gainsay things to death. Nyah Nyah!

But seriously, if that's the level you bring to the conversation, no thanks.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

The first part of Aquinas’ Summa is pretty limited in terms of what we can deduce about God. Ie if we concede that there is a non-contingent thing the items we can deduce about it are fundamental but limited. Ie simplicity, unity, goodness, infinity etc.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Article 3. Whether life is properly attributed to God?
Objection 1. It seems that life is not properly attributed to God. For things are said to live inasmuch as they move themselves, as previously stated (Article 2). But movement does not belong to God. Neither therefore does life.

Objection 2. Further, in all living things we must needs suppose some principle of life. Hence it is said by the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 4) that "the soul is the cause and principle of the living body." But Godhas no principle. Therefore life cannot be attributed to Him.

Objection 3. Further, the principle of life in the living things that exist among us is the vegetative soul. But this exists only in corporeal things. Therefore life cannot be attributed to incorporeal things.

On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 83:3): "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God."

I answer that, Life is in the highest degree properly in God. In proof of which it must be considered that since a thing is said to live in so far as it operates of itself and not as moved by another, the more perfectly this power is found in anything, the more perfect is the life of that thing. In things that move and are moved, a threefold order is found. In the first place, the end moves the agent: and the principal agent is that which acts through its form, and sometimes it does so through some instrument that acts by virtue not of its own form, but of the principal agent, and does no more than execute the action. Accordingly there are things that move themselves, not in respect of any form or end naturally inherent in them, but only in respect of the executing of the movement; the form by which they act, and the end of the action being alike determined for them by their nature. Of this kind are plants, which move themselves according to their inherent nature, with regard only to executing the movements of growth and decay.

Other things have self-movement in a higher degree, that is, not only with regard to executing the movement, but even as regards to the form, the principle of movement, which form they acquire of themselves. Of this kind are animals, in which the principle of movement is not a naturally implanted form; but one received through sense. Hence the more perfect is their sense, the more perfect is their power of self-movement. Such as have only the sense of touch, as shellfish, move only with the motion of expansion and contraction; and thus their movement hardly exceeds that of plants. Whereas such as have the sensitive power in perfection, so as to recognize not only connection and touch, but also objects apart from themselves, can move themselves to a distance by progressive movement. Yet although animals of the latter kind receive through sense the form that is the principle of their movement, nevertheless they cannot of themselves propose to themselves the end of their operation, or movement; for this has been implanted in them by nature; and by natural instinct they are moved to any action through the form apprehended by sense. Hence such animals as move themselves in respect to an end they themselves propose are superior to these. This can only be done by reason and intellect; whose province it is to know the proportion between the end and the means to that end, and duly coordinate them. Hence a more perfect degree of life is that of intelligible beings; for their power of self-movement is more perfect. This is shown by the fact that in one and the same man the intellectual faculty moves the sensitive powers; and these by their command move the organs of movement. Thus in the arts we see that the art of using a ship, i.e. the art of navigation, rules the art of ship-designing; and this in its turn rules the art that is only concerned with preparing the material for the ship.

But although our intellect moves itself to some things, yet others are supplied by nature, as are first principles, which it cannot doubt; and the last end, which it cannot but will. Hence, although with respect to some things it moves itself, yet with regard to other things it must be moved by another. Wherefore that being whose act of understanding is its very nature, and which, in what it naturally possesses, is not determined by another, must have life in the most perfect degree. Such is God; and hence in Him principally is life. From this the Philosopher concludes (Metaph. xii, 51), after showing God to be intelligent, that God has life most perfect and eternal, since His intellect is most perfect and always in act.

Reply to Objection 1. As stated in Metaph. ix, 16, action is twofold. Actions of one kind pass out to external matter, as to heat or to cut; whilst actions of the other kind remain in the agent, as to understand, to sense and to will. The difference between them is this, that the former action is the perfection not of the agent that moves, but of the thing moved; whereas the latter action is the perfection of the agent. Hence, because movement is an act of the thing in movement, the latter action, in so far as it is the act of the operator, is called its movement, by this similitude, that as movement is an act of the thing moved, so an act of this kind is the act of the agent, although movement is an act of the imperfect, that is, of what is in potentiality; while this kind of act is an act of the perfect, that is to say, of what is in act as stated in De Anima iii, 28. In the sense, therefore, in which understanding is movement, that which understands itself is said to move itself. It is in this sense that Plato also taught that God moves Himself; not in the sense in which movement is an act of the imperfect.

Reply to Objection 2. As God is His own very existence and understanding, so is He His own life; and therefore He so lives that He has not principle of life.

Reply to Objection 3. Life in this lower world is bestowed on a corruptible nature, that needs generation to preserve the species, and nourishment to preserve the individual. For this reason life is not found here below apart from a vegetative soul: but this does not hold good with incorruptible natures.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's not mind-reading when you have already experienced the same pattern of response with other people. That's why I posted those questions. If you could answer them directly and without pressure, then you would have shown me you knew the subject. That's why I didn't twist your arm about it.

No that is exactly mind reading. What other people think has no bearing on what I think. If you want to know what I think ask me.

^ Except your words, of course. Doubles-standard much?

Again, mind reading huh. Where did I ever say my words have objective meaning while other peoples do not?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I care far less about your (subjective) definition of science than I do the (objective) definition of science.

There is no objective definition of science. If so, then tell me what it is?

Then in all honesty, it's a trainwreck of a definition. Nothing personal here, I'm sorry, but it's a real mess.

That is why I said it was a starting point. What do you disagree with? What is your definition?

Sorry, but like I already asked, you're going to need objective evidence of a standard of truth in-order to even make the credible accusation of "dishonesty" to begin with. I didn't write the rules. So don't hate the player.

Nope. But if you are unwilling to give up the idea that we cannot know anything if we cannot know with 100% certainty, then we will never agree. You don't live your life with 100% certainty of what you believe anyway.

 

[Paulomycin]

No that is exactly mind reading. What other people think has no bearing on what I think. If you want to know what I think ask me.

And yet. . .you're not answering the questions. See, what you're not saying speaks volumes here. No mind reading necessary.

Again, mind reading huh. Where did I ever say my words have objective meaning while other peoples do not?

If you really believed that words did not have objective meaning, then you wouldn't be trying to communicate relevant info. So, you either believe words have objective meaning, or you believe it only applies to you.

There is no objective definition of science. If so, then tell me what it is?

But that's entirely my argument.

That is why I said it was a starting point. What do you disagree with? What is your definition?

I don't really need one, because I'm just not obsessed with settling the demarcation problem, or covering it up, as others are.

Nope.

"Nope," what? You need an objective standard of truth by which to accuse someone of dishonesty. You're making an objective accusation here. If you're making a purely subjective accusation, then it is of no real concern to anyone else.

But if you are unwilling to give up the idea that we cannot know anything if we cannot know with 100% certainty, then we will never agree. You don't live your life with 100% certainty of what you believe anyway.

Look, most of what we're experiencing cannot be known with 100% certainty, because it's inductively reasoned. Okay? But the logic that the classical arguments for God utilize is deductive, meaning that it is in-fact based on 100% certainty. Only deduction yields certitude.

Some absolute truths exist and can be demonstrated. And it's on that handful of certainty that we can further demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent being from nature and nature's laws thereof.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And yet. . .you're not answering the questions. See, what you're not saying speaks volumes here. No mind reading necessary.

Please point to the question I am not answering.

If you really believed that words did not have objective meaning, then you wouldn't be trying to communicate relevant info. So, you either believe words have objective meaning, or you believe it only applies to you.

Nope. Words have meaning we as humans give them and the meaning and usage changes over time. How can that be objective? What objective standard are you referring to?

"Nope," what? You need an objective standard of truth by which to accuse someone of dishonesty. You're making an objective accusation here. If you're making a purely subjective accusation, then it is of no real concern to anyone else.

Do you mean ultimately objective of just objective? If the goal is to communicate the truth then I can objectively compare statements against reality to see if the statements are true or not.

Look, most of what we're experiencing cannot be known with 100% certainty, because it's inductively reasoned. Okay? But the logic that the classical arguments for God utilize is deductive, meaning that it is in-fact based on 100% certainty. Only deduction yields certitude.

Deductive reasoning only yields certitude if the premises are true.

Some absolute truths exist and can be demonstrated. And it's on that handful of certainty that we can further demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent being from nature and nature's laws thereof.

What are these truths?