Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[PuerAzaelis]

Perhaps omnipotence and omniscience is attainable over time. Say we build a robot that is effectively immortal, and has the ability to learn and alter itself. Over the course of a billion years of existing it learns everything there is to know, and learns about the very fabric of reality and how to manipulate it at will. That robot would still be contingent on us building it in the first place even though it is now greater than us, no?

If the robot was omnipotent I guess he would be able to alter even that contingency.

 

[Gene2memE]

But only something that is maximally "great" exists in all possible worlds.

Why?

Why is something that has maximal "greatness" the only thing that exists in all possible worlds?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I always wonder when this argument comes up why the apologist is so sure our imaginations have such impact on reality.

 

[JohnClay]

Perhaps omnipotence and omniscience is attainable over time. Say we build a robot that is effectively immortal, and has the ability to learn and alter itself. Over the course of a billion years of existing it learns everything there is to know, and learns about the very fabric of reality and how to manipulate it at will. That robot would still be contingent on us building it in the first place even though it is now greater than us, no?

I think this example is deeply flawed. Let's consider a fraction of omniscience - knowing the state of our Sun - that would involve detecting 10^57 atoms... (and during observation you've got to wait for the light to arrive). What if you wanted to know the state of the Sun a second ago.... that would involve simulating the 10^57 atoms backwards. (or remembering the state of the Sun's atoms a second ago)
Omnipotence would mean instant travel to anywhere in the universe... or create an Earth out of nothing at will, etc.... basically any action that could be conceived...
On the other hand if a robot created a simulation of a universe it would be able to have omnipotence and omniscience regarding that simulation - though it wouldn't be truly immortal....

 

[Moral Orel]

If the robot was omnipotent I guess he would be able to alter even that contingency.

No, that would be logically impossible. Every created thing is contingent, he can't be created and stop being contingent. Just because he can't do a logically impossible thing doesn't make him not omnipotent, though.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think this example is deeply flawed. Let's consider a fraction of omniscience - knowing the state of our Sun - that would involve detecting 10^57 atoms... (and during observation you've got to wait for the light to arrive). What if you wanted to know the state of the Sun a second ago.... that would involve simulating the 10^57 atoms backwards. (or remembering the state of the Sun's atoms a second ago)
Omnipotence would mean instant travel to anywhere in the universe... or create an Earth out of nothing at will, etc.... basically any action that could be conceived...

It's deeply flawed because it sounds very difficult?

 

[JohnClay]

It's deeply flawed because it sounds very difficult?

I don't think it is possible for the robot to be omniscient even regarding a single star - our Sun (and its 10^57 atoms... that's a 1 with 57 zeroes). To be truly omniscient would include knowing the exact state of every star in the universe - at all times (even though it could take billions of years for the information to reach the observer). BTW there is an "event horizon" that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light. It doesn't appear to be possible for stars beyond it to ever be observed (and have knowledge about it)
I'd say that omnipotence involves doing any conceivable action that isn't logically impossible. That would include being able to teleport any object from anywhere and any time in the universe... and millions of other actions including being able to create infinite free energy and matter. Or to stop the universe from expanding...
Knowledge of a single star is an incredibly small fraction of omniscience. If the fraction can't even be possible that means that complete omniscience isn't possible. If I were the robot I'd just give up on the quest for omniscience and omnipotence in our universe and create its own simulated universe in which it could very easily be god-like.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think it is possible for the robot to be omniscient even regarding a single star - our Sun (and its 10^57 atoms... that's a 1 with 57 zeroes). To be truly omniscient would include knowing the exact state of every star in the universe - at all times (even though it could take billions of years for the information to reach the observer). BTW there is an "event horizon" that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light. It doesn't appear to be possible for stars beyond it to ever be observed (and have knowledge about it)
I'd say that omnipotence involves doing any conceivable action that isn't logically impossible. That would include being able to teleport any object from anywhere and any time in the universe... and millions of other actions including being able to create infinite free energy and matter. Or to stop the universe from expanding...

What makes it impossible to do these things? It's impossible with our current technology, sure. But we're talking about a robot with a billion years to advance technology at the rate of a computer's processor. What makes it impossible for any technology to be sufficiently advanced to do these things?

 

[JohnClay]

What makes it impossible to do these things? It's impossible with our current technology, sure. But we're talking about a robot with a billion years to advance technology at the rate of a computer's processor. What makes it impossible for any technology to be sufficiently advanced to do these things?

"To do these things" involves being able to do ANYTHING and know EVERYTHING. It is unlikely that there are loop holes in the laws of physics that allows the robot to have complete control over space and time and to have knowledge of the entire universe constantly. At the present it seems like information can't travel faster than the speed of light - so you can't instantly know what is happening to a star a billion light years away. Sure in a billion years the robot could develop very advanced technology but it would be limited. As far as I know there is no writer that thinks the expansion of the universe can be stopped by anyone. And that is a single thing - far from involving omnipotence. Also the universe is only expected to last several more billions of years. Omnipotence would allow the universe to exist literally forever. I'd suggest you learn more about actual astrophysics and sci-fi technology than to believe it is reasonable to think that the robot could have literal omniscience and literal omnipotence.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is unlikely that there are loop holes in the laws of physics that allows the robot to have complete control over space and time and to have knowledge of the entire universe constantly.

How in the world did you calculate this probability? You don't know whether or not you don't know something you don't know.

At the present it seems like information can't travel faster than the speed of light - so you can't instantly know what is happening to a star a billion light years away.

Not true. Look into quantum entanglement. We can't yet, but we're aware of the mechanism that will allow us to do so.

Sure in a billion years the robot could develop very advanced technology but it would be limited.

How could you possibly know this? Limited by what?

As far as I know there is no writer that thinks the expansion of the universe can be stopped by anyone. And that is a single thing - far from involving omnipotence.

Like you said, "at the present".

Also the universe is only expected to last several more billions of years. Omnipotence would allow the universe to exist literally forever.

No, the universe will likely last indefinitely. It will suffer heat death, but that isn't to say all the stuff won't exist anymore.

I'd suggest you learn more about actual astrophysics and sci-fi technology than to believe it is reasonable to think that the robot could have literal omniscience and literal omnipotence.

That was a bad assumption to make. Let's be honest, you think it's impossible because it seems unfathomable to you, that's it. You haven't the foggiest clue what scientific discoveries can be made one thousand or one million or one hundred million years from now, no one does.

 

[JohnClay]

How in the world did you calculate this probability? You don't know whether or not you don't know something you don't know.

To be literally omnipotent and literally omniscient there would need to be a complete set of loop-holes... like a loophole to create infinite free energy and infinite free matter... and have complete control over time... and have knowledge of the 10^57 atoms in each star instantly.... and stop the expansion of the universe... ALL of those things and much much more. I don't think it is reasonable to think that it is likely that all of those loop-holes will become a reality.

Not true. Look into quantum entanglement. We can't yet, but we're aware of the mechanism that will allow us to do so.

The Real Reasons Quantum Entanglement Doesn't Allow Faster-Than-Light Communication
"....he correctly notes that it's not possible to use entangled particles to send messages faster than the speed of light..."
Anyway to entangle particles they've got to begin together and this connection doesn't last. What possible method could allow you to constantly know the state of each of the 10^57 atoms in every single star?

How could you possibly know this? Limited by what?

Limited in the way that it wouldn't truly have omnipotence due to being an incomplete in terms of the loop-holes it would need....

No, the universe will likely last indefinitely. It will suffer heat death, but that isn't to say all the stuff won't exist anymore.

But will the universe have useful energy and matter forever and ever? (if that is what the robot wants)

That was a bad assumption to make. Let's be honest, you think it's impossible because it seems unfathomable to you, that's it. You haven't the foggiest clue what scientific discoveries can be made one thousand or one million or one hundred million years from now, no one does.

I'm talking about your claim of literal omniscience and literal omnipotence. That is only possible if there are all of the loop-holes in the laws of physics that allow that.
You keep on ignoring me saying that it would be quite simple for the robot to create an approximated simulation of the universe and then have genuine omnipotence and omniscience....
The robot could easily create trillions of simulations of universes that seem to be indistinguishable from reality and involve omnipotence and omniscience rather than try to find all of the loop-holes necessary to have god-like power within a single universe.

 

[Moral Orel]

To be literally omnipotent and literally omniscient there would need to be a complete set of loop-holes... like a loophole to create infinite free energy and infinite free matter... and have complete control over time... and have knowledge of the 10^57 atoms in each star instantly.... and stop the expansion of the universe... ALL of those things and much much more. I don't think it is reasonable to think that it is likely that all of those loop-holes will become a reality.

I know it seems unfathomable to you. That isn't a reason to say it's impossible though.

The Real Reasons Quantum Entanglement Doesn't Allow Faster-Than-Light Communication
"....he correctly notes that it's not possible to use entangled particles to send messages faster than the speed of light..."
Anyway to entangle particles they've got to begin together and this connection doesn't last. What possible method could allow you to constantly know the state of each of the 10^57 atoms in every single star?

No method at present.

Limited in the way that it wouldn't truly have omnipotence due to being an incomplete in terms of the loop-holes it would need....

I didn't ask how it was limited, I asked by what.

But will the universe have useful energy and matter forever and ever? (if that is what the robot wants)

An omnipotent being could make that be so.

I'm talking about your claim of literal omniscience and literal omnipotence. That is only possible if there are all of the loop-holes in the laws of physics that allow that.

Here's the bottom line. It's logically possible, and none of us are omniscient so we have no idea whether or not it is actually possible. That's it.

You keep on ignoring me saying that it would be quite simple for the robot to create an approximated simulation of the universe and then have genuine omnipotence and omniscience....
The robot could easily create trillions of simulations of universes that seem to be indistinguishable from reality and involve omnipotence and omniscience rather than try to find all of the loop-holes necessary to have god-like power within a single universe.

Because who cares if he has complete control and knowledge over a simulation? That isn't genuine omnipotence or genuine omniscience. If you think my point was to find a way for a robot to achieve maximal greatness, then you missed my point completely.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

How have you determined in 3. that a Perfect Being is possible? This needs to be demonstrated before you can state it.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

How have you determined in 3. that a Perfect Being is possible? This needs to be demonstrated before you can state it.

It's perfectly rational to state that a perfect being is not possible. I also think it's perfectly rational to say that it is.

In which case the issue becomes one of who has the heavier burden of proof.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's perfectly rational to state that a perfect being is not possible. I also think it's perfectly rational to say that it is.

In which case the issue becomes one of who has the heavier burden of proof.

No, I am not saying a perfect being is or is not possible. You are saying that it is. You have a burden of proof, I don't have any.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Well if something is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory, it is possible.

It seems invalid to me to claim that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", for example is nonsensical or self-contradictory. Therefore, it's possible.

 

[Gene2memE]

Well if something is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory, it is possible.

In logic and metaphysics, but not in the real world. Possibility needs to be demonstrated.

Given the physical limits of reality, it may not be sensible or logical to conclude that a being with 'maximal greatness' exists.

It seems invalid to me to claim that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", for example is nonsensical or self-contradictory. Therefore, it's possible.

That's just personal incredulity.

It seems invalid to me to claim that that "Eric, the God eating concept, has not eaten God", for example, is nonsensical or self-contradictory. Therefore, it's possible.

 

[JohnClay]

Because who cares if he has complete control and knowledge over a simulation? That isn't genuine omnipotence or genuine omniscience. If you think my point was to find a way for a robot to achieve maximal greatness, then you missed my point completely.

Yes it is still genuine omnipotence and omniscience.... it means that it can do all things and know all things within a certain domain. God is said to have created the universe and his omnipotence and omniscience works in a similar way.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well if something is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory, it is possible.

I disagree with this. You need to demonstrate possibility. Also, nonsensical is subjective. Some say the supernatural is nonsensical and some say it is not.

It seems invalid to me to claim that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", for example is nonsensical or self-contradictory. Therefore, it's possible.

Again, possibility needs to be demonstrated.

 

[Paulomycin]

I disagree with this. You need to demonstrate possibility. Also, nonsensical is subjective. Some say the supernatural is nonsensical and some say it is not.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, Clizby, but I need to make a couple points of clarification for everyone:

1. Possibility itself doesn't need to be demonstrated, because it is merely possible. Meaning that it hasn't been demonstrated yet. It's merely possible. Probability needs to be demonstrated. Just because something is merely possible doesn't necessarily mean it's probable.

2. "Nonsensical" refers to errors in logic. One cannot pretend to rationally propose a pure contradiction, for example. Example: Asking, "Does God make squared circles," is not a rational question, given that the question itself is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

"Nonsense" isn't something one asserts from forced incredulity or arbitrary non-belief. It's an implicit referral to violations of objective logic. Like informal fallacies and such.