Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Paulomycin]

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.

Define your terms:

- "logically possible"
- "actually possible"

You certainly appear to be a huge fan of these concepts, but such terms have no hard definitions. --> I found this on philosophy.stackexchange, but the original poster provided their own definitions, which might not necessarily be what you mean.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

In logic ... but not in the real world.

You mean logic has nothing to do with the real world? What kind of world is "real" the naturalistic world?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Possibility needs to be demonstrated.

Logically. That's the only way it could be demonstrated since possibility is a logical concept.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

So do you think everything is possible then? Impossibility has a probability of 0. If something is possible then the probability is between >0 and 100%. Unless you think everything is possible with a different probability range then I get your point. But that is not the case. You need to show something is possible before you can calculate a probability.

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.

So God making a square circle is not possible then. So you agree that not everything is possible. You demonstrated why God making a square circle is impossible. So going forward anything you say such as "God creating everything" needs to be shown to be possible and you cannot do that without showing that a god is real.

 

[Paulomycin]

So do you think everything is possible then?

Atheists taught me that. On this particular occasion, they happened to be right, "Anything is possible, but what matters more is what is probable."

So God making a square circle is not possible then.

That is correct, because the proposition itself is an error on the one making it; has nothing to do with God at all. Floating a proposition like this is a fun way to troll believers if they aren't paying attention.

Another example is the so-called omnipotence paradox. The hidden contradiction is in, "Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big that omnipotence cannot. . .?" <-- *logic crash*

Logical contradictions are fundamental errors in reasoning. If one values reason, then one will avoid logical contradictions.

 

[Amoranemix]

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.

I'll ignore the 'perfect' (collection of) attribute(s) as it is even more vague than maximal greatness.

So, maximal greatness includes the attribute of non-contingence. Something non-contingent has allegedly one of the two derived attributes impossibility or necessity.

I think to understand reality it is useful to understand what we are talking about. I think examples help understand what we are talking about. Impossible thinks are easy to imagine, like square circles. But what are necessary things ? 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.

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

Objections have already been made against premise 3. Here is another one. A problem with Christianity is that not only no one can prove God's existence, no one can even prove the possibility of God's existence. Christians assume that one can just add attributes to a concept without creating problems. The reasoning being that if they don't see any problems, there must not be any. However, the real reason is that no one knows the intricacies of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibelevolence. If you don't know how something is supposed to work, then you can't know why it won't.

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.

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?

Although I can't be sure that would be impossible, I doubt it. Here are a few problems I can think of :

1. Technological progress may hit some hard walls, obstacles that cannot be circumvented. It may for example never be possible to time travel to a time prior to the creation of a time machine. The universe may also be a product of mathematics, which would make breaking some physical laws impossible.
2. The laws of physics appear to be deterministic. What does possibility mean in a deterministic world ? A future is either certain or impossible.
3. Even if some robot would for a billion years easily cross all technological obstacles, it would still not be omnipotent. It may then be able to travel at 10^500 lightyears per second, but not faster. A way around that problem may be mastery of time, as that would allow to give it an unlimited amount of time to progress.
4. This world might be a simulation, wich would limit the abilities of anything in it.

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

Can you prove that ?

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.

I disagree. A claim that intends to make a point and that is disputed requires support to be successful. The claim that a maximally great being is possible serves to make the point that the conclusion of the argument is true, i.e. that such being exists. Until the premise has been demonstrated, it fails to make its point.

Possibility needs to be demonstrated.

Logically. That's the only way it could be demonstrated since possibility is a logical concept.

That need has yet to be met.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Atheists taught me that. On this particular occasion, they happened to be right, "Anything is possible, but what matters more is what is probable."

I disagree as I have explained before.

That is correct

, because the proposition itself is an error on the one making it; has nothing to do with God at all. Floating a proposition like this is a fun way to troll believers if they aren't paying attention.

Another example is the so-called omnipotence paradox. The hidden contradiction is in, "Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big that omnipotence cannot. . .?" <-- *logic crash*

Logical contradictions are fundamental errors in reasoning. If one values reason, then one will avoid logical contradictions.

Yes, and you just gave good reasons why these are not possible. This is my point. We need to demonstrate if something is or is not possible before we can claim it is or is not.

 

[Paulomycin]

I disagree as I have explained before.

I was hoping you'd at least agree that possibility and probability are two completely separate things.

Yes, and you just gave good reasons why these are not possible. This is my point. We need to demonstrate if something is or is not possible before we can claim it is or is not.

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

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I was hoping you'd at least agree that possibility and probability are two completely separate things.

they are different things but both need to be demonstrated.

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

showing it is not rational or cogent demonstrates it is not possible. You can’t say something is impossible without giving reasons why it is impossible.

 

[Paulomycin]

they are different things but both need to be demonstrated.

Possibility does need to be demonstrated in-order to change possibility into a probability. Otherwise, it's still merely a possibility. Probabilities, by extension, already have demonstrable evidence to make them so.

showing it is not rational or cogent demonstrates it is not possible. You can’t say something is impossible without giving reasons why it is impossible.

My point is (and in this order):

1. A proposition must first be logically rational. <-- If it's not logical, then it is impossible. That means it doesn't even rate "possibility" status without first being logically true.

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

3. A probability remains merely inductively probable. There is always room for doubt. <-- This refers to the classical Problem of Induction. All scientific demonstrations and observations depend on inductive reason.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

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.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Can you prove that?

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.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Possibility does need to be demonstrated in-order to change possibility into a probability. Otherwise, it's still merely a possibility. Probabilities, by extension, already have demonstrable evidence to make them so.

I disagree but I think it is a small point.

My point is (and in this order):

1. A proposition must first be logically rational. <-- If it's not logical, then it is impossible. That means it doesn't even rate "possibility" status without first being logically true.

I agree. This is what I have been saying. For something to be possible it must be shown to be possible, if it is not rationally logical then I agree it would be impossible. The at of showing something is rationally logical is part of demonstrating that it is possible. We cannot assume possibility.

2.

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

Well, I would say that not all rational propositions are possible. But again, this is a small point. Can you show that all rational propositions are possible?

3.

A probability remains merely inductively probable. There is always room for doubt. <-- This refers to the classical Problem of Induction. All scientific demonstrations and observations depend on inductive reason.

I agree. Science does not say anything with 100% certainty. It has however shown to be the best method we have to determine truth.

 

[Paulomycin]

They're either self-evident or they're not.

Agreed! But, did you ever notice that when someone demands proof of first principles, it implies necessary doubt of first principles to begin with? In which case, you must necessarily become absurd or a misologist in-order to even cast doubt upon first principles to begin with.

This is where I think they can be proved, via an inverse principle of forced doubt going beyond reasonable limits. <-- Literally.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Paulomycin]

Well, I would say that not all rational propositions are possible. But again, this is a small point. Can you show that all rational propositions are possible?

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.

I agree. Science does not say anything with 100% certainty. It has however shown to be the best method we have to determine truth.

But stop and ask yourself, "Who taught me that?"
Is that absolutely true?
What does it mean, "truth," if it's always inductive and we'll never get there? Doesn't that mean we're not really pursuing the goal we claim to be after?

Sure, that's the general dogma we always hear, "Science has been shown to be the best method we have to determine truth." It's academically taboo to even question it.

The problem is though, on closer inspection. . .

1. There is in-reality no universal and prescriptive scientific method. Yes, our teachers in Jr. High either lied to us, or were misinformed. There are individual methods that scientists use, but there have been so many in scientific history, that they're all as individually diverse as the innovators themselves.

SCIENCE HOBBYIST: Misconceptions Page <-- See Myth #3.

Epistemological anarchism

And if one continues to insist on the claim that there is one singularly-prescriptive "the scientific method," then it's their burden of proof.

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.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate math.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate morals.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate ethics.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate metaphysics*
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate aesthetics.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate science itself.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate uniformitarianism.

Empiricism itself being very limited:

1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

* Such as the metaphysical claim known as "scientism."

These facts are simply irrefutable.

3. Who decides what the "best" method is for determining truth? --> "Truth" is unfalsifiable. But if it's unfalsifiable, doesn't that mean it's unscientific, and therefore should be thrown out? lol. No.

Yes, these realizations can be very jarring. It's like the day you first discovered that your Dad the hero was just a regular guy all along, with feet of clay, just like everyone else.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

All rational propositions are possible prior to "showing" (or better, demonstrating) that they're probable.

How do you know this? You are just asserting this is the case.

But stop and ask yourself, "Who taught me that?"
Is that absolutely true?
What does it mean, "truth," if it's always inductive and we'll never get there? Doesn't that mean we're not really pursuing the goal we claim to be after?

Sure, that's the general dogma we always hear, "Science has been shown to be the best method we have to determine truth." It's academically taboo to even question it.

It is not taboo to question it. That is what science does to itself. But the fact is everything we believe to be true with good evidence has been achieved through science. Name one thing theology as produced that we believe to be true with good evidence?

The problem is though, on closer inspection. . .

1. There is in-reality no universal and prescriptive scientific method. Yes, our teachers in Jr. High either lied to us, or were misinformed. There are individual methods that scientists use, but there have been so many in scientific history, that they're all as individually diverse as the innovators themselves.

SCIENCE HOBBYIST: Misconceptions Page <-- See Myth #3.

Epistemological anarchism

And if one continues to insist on the claim that there is one singularly-prescriptive "the scientific method," then it's their burden of proof.

Please show me where I said there is. This is a strawman.

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.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate math.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate morals.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate ethics.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate metaphysics*
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate aesthetics.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate science itself.
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate uniformitarianism.

Empiricism itself being very limited:

1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

* Such as the metaphysical claim known as "scientism."

These facts are simply irrefutable.

Maybe, but that doe snot mean we cannot "know" a lot through science. Again, science has demonstrated itself to be the best path to truth we have. Do yo have a better method?
[/quote]
3. Who decides what the "best" method is for determining truth? --> "Truth" is unfalsifiable. But if it's unfalsifiable, doesn't that mean it's unscientific, and therefore should be thrown out? lol. No.

Yes, these realizations can be very jarring. It's like the day you first discovered that your Dad the hero was just a regular guy all along, with feet of clay, just like everyone else.[/QUOTE]These revelations are not jarring. They are consequences of our reality. The fact that we cannot have certainty about what is truth does not mean we cannot have a high confidence in what is true and what is not true. The rest is "I don't know".

 

[Paulomycin]

How do you know this? You are just asserting this is the case.

Okay, let's step back a bit. Which definition of "possible" are you working from? I'm defining "possible" according to, "something that might or might not happen," (Cambridge Dictionary), based on the popular idiom: "anything's possible."

It is not taboo to question it. That is what science does to itself.

Is there any way we can say this while avoiding speaking of science as a concrete entity that "does things" to itself? I'd really prefer to avoid reification fallacy, if I can.

But the fact is everything we believe to be true with good evidence has been achieved through science.

- How do you know for certain that this is a fact?
- Yes, everything we believe to be true with good scientific evidence has been achieved through science, but that's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. The cause is specially prepared to create that intended effect.

Name one thing theology as produced that we believe to be true with good evidence?

- First, you mean empirical evidence or scientific evidence, which makes it a category error.
- Second, if I assumed you were malicious, this could be read as a loaded question fallacy. I don't assume you're malicious, but I'm saying it's very risky saying it that way.
- Third, I'm not talking theology, as much as I am talking about epistemology here. Even ontology, if you want to get real about it.

Please show me where I said there is. This is a strawman.

Not really, because you clearly said "method." Science isn't necessarily a method, "singular." I've got a lot of experience addressing this issue. Either you agree with it or not. Simple as that.

Maybe, but that doe snot mean we cannot "know" a lot through science.

True, but only within the limits of science itself (such as I already listed).

Again, science has demonstrated itself to be the best path to truth we have. Do yo have a better method?

- Note the ^ repeat affirmation of the singular "method" here. See above.

- Science is not a reified entity that "demonstrates itself," like a god. This is why so many theists accuse science of being a substitute religion, btw. Just saying.

- Again, if science is inductively reasoned, then the classical Problem of Induction demonstrates that there is no genuine and honest goal of "truth." One cannot claim to be pursuing truth while riding an inductive merry-go-round.

These revelations are not jarring.

That's just because. . .

They are consequences of our reality.

. . .the cognitive dissonance is kicking in. I get it.

The fact that we cannot have certainty about what is truth does not mean we cannot have a high confidence in what is true and what is not true. The rest is "I don't know".

Then we're appealing to ignorance, instead of honestly pursuing truth.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Okay, let's step back a bit. Which definition of "possible" are you working from? I'm defining "possible" according to, "something that might or might not happen," (Cambridge Dictionary), based on the popular idiom: "anything's possible."

The problem is that not everything is possible.

Is there any way we can say this while avoiding speaking of science as a concrete entity that "does things" to itself? I'd really prefer to avoid reification fallacy, if I can.

No.

- How do you know for certain that this is a fact?
- Yes, everything we believe to be true with good scientific evidence has been achieved through science, but that's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. The cause is specially prepared to create that intended effect.

This is not what I am saying. I never said good scientific evidence, I said good evidence.

- First, you mean empirical evidence or scientific evidence, which makes it a category error.
- Second, if I assumed you were malicious, this could be read as a loaded question fallacy. I don't assume you're malicious, but I'm saying it's very risky saying it that way.
- Third, I'm not talking theology, as much as I am talking about epistemology here. Even ontology, if you want to get real about it.

Using good epistemology, I have never come by good evidence that the supernatural exists.

Not really, because you clearly said "method." Science isn't necessarily a method, "singular." I've got a lot of experience addressing this issue. Either you agree with it or not. Simple as that.

So I am supposed to describe all of science in all of its facets? I think you know what I mean by science.

True, but only within the limits of science itself (such as I already listed).

I agree. We can know things without using science as well. I never said we could not.

- Note the ^ repeat affirmation of the singular "method" here. See above.

Again, I cannot write all of what science is and does on every post I make. I think you know what I mean by science.

- Science is not a reified entity that "demonstrates itself," like a god. This is why so many theists accuse science of being a substitute religion, btw. Just saying.

I never said it was.

- Again, if science is inductively reasoned, then the classical Problem of Induction demonstrates that there is no genuine and honest goal of "truth." One cannot claim to be pursuing truth while riding an inductive merry-go-round.

Ridiculous. We can pursue truth without ever getting to 100% certainty. That is what we have been doing for centuries now, pretty successful by the way.

Then we're appealing to ignorance, instead of honestly pursuing truth.

No, How did you get here from what I said? When pursuing truth there are three outcomes. I believe something to be true, I don't believe something to be true and I don't know. There is no 100% certainty anywhere.

 

[Paulomycin]

The problem is that not everything is possible.

So you don't accept the definition I provided?

No.

That's too bad. I guess we're done here. I'll just tie up the loose ends on this discussion and call it a day, then.

This is not what I am saying. I never said good scientific evidence, I said good evidence.

I'm hearing "good evidence" as either:

1. "Scientific evidence that will impress, entertain, or make me happy."
2. "Empirical evidence that will impress, entertain, or make me happy."

I know there's not much difference between the two, but I want to come across as flexible as I can be.

Using good epistemology,

But how do you even know good epistemology from bad? For example, epistemological naturalism is self-defeating, because if human cognitive faculties have evolved through naturalistic processes (ie. natural selection), they are not targeted at truth, but rather at survival, and so cannot be depended upon to form true beliefs.

I have never come by good evidence that the supernatural exists.

1. "Good" evidence, as in evidence you prefer? You're appealing to personal preference, right?

2. Math is real, but unfalsifiable, and therefore rationally supernatural. <-- Literally "supra-natural."

BTW, if you claim math is an arbitrary invention of man, then build a functioning bridge over a river without math as it currently exists (& no equivalent derivations), and then drive your car over it.

So I am supposed to describe all of science in all of its facets? I think you know what I mean by science.

I think you want me to just take your word for it without having to think too much about it. See, Richard Feynman got it, and he wasn't religious: What is Science? – Richard Feynman tl;dr - he knows why he can't answer that question.

No matter what anyone tells you, there is no universal prescriptive dogma of science. That's the "Santa Claus" of the secularist community. Sorry.

I agree. We can know things without using science as well. I never said we could not.

But you said science was "the best method we have to determine truth." <-- Truth is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science is clearly not the best method we have to determine truth, in any case.

Ridiculous. We can pursue truth without ever getting to 100% certainty. That is what we have been doing for centuries now, pretty successful by the way.

The game is fixed. There are zero possible "true" outcomes in inductive reasoning. Therefore, no one is really being truthful with themselves when they claim they're pursuing truth inductively through science. Sustained doubt itself is the ends that justify the means, here.

Now then, unless you're claiming that sustained and forced doubt = "the truth" you're pursuing, then I'm afraid we can't go any further.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So you don't accept the definition I provided?

No, not if you think anything is possible.

That's too bad. I guess we're done here. I'll just tie up the loose ends on this discussion and call it a day, then.

Do what you like.

I'm hearing "good evidence" as either:

1. "Scientific evidence that will impress, entertain, or make me happy."
2. "Empirical evidence that will impress, entertain, or make me happy."

I know there's not much difference between the two, but I want to come across as flexible as I can be.

Neither is a good definition.

But how do you even know good epistemology from bad? For example, epistemological naturalism is self-defeating, because if human cognitive faculties have evolved through naturalistic processes (ie. natural selection), they are not targeted at truth, but rather at survival, and so cannot be depended upon to form true beliefs.

This is a long discussion. But out cognitive abilities can be directed at finding truth. This has been demonstrated over and over again.

1. "Good" evidence, as in evidence you prefer? You're appealing to personal preference, right?

Nope. Good evidence is evidence that convinces me using my standards of evidence. The same is for you and any other person on the planet. Everyone gets to determine if some evidence convinces them or not for themselves. No one else gets to. What I consider good evidence may not be what you think is good evidence. This is a larger discussion so please don't take what I say and read into it. Just ask if you have more questions.

2. Math is real, but unfalsifiable, and therefore rationally supernatural. <-- Literally "supra-natural."

You are just redefining supernatural.

BTW, if you claim math is an arbitrary invention of man, then build a functioning bridge over a river without math as it currently exists (& no equivalent derivations), and then drive your car over it.

I never claimed such a thing.

I think you want me to just take your word for it without having to think too much about it. See, Richard Feynman got it, and he wasn't religious: What is Science? – Richard Feynman tl;dr - he knows why he can't answer that question.

Ok, that is not me.

No matter what anyone tells you, there is no universal prescriptive dogma of science. That's the "Santa Claus" of the secularist community. Sorry.

Again and again I never said such a thing. You seem to keep placing beliefs on me that I never said I held. makes arguing easier huh.

But you said science was "the best method we have to determine truth." <-- Truth is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science is clearly not the best method we have to determine truth, in any case.

I said best method, not only method.

The game is fixed. There are zero possible "true" outcomes in inductive reasoning. Therefore, no one is really being truthful with themselves when they claim they're pursuing truth inductively through science. Sustained doubt itself is the ends that justify the means, here.

Now then, unless you're claiming that sustained and forced doubt = "the truth" you're pursuing, then I'm afraid we can't go any further.

I Have admitted that 100% certainty about truth is not attainable at least that is what I believe. But that does not mean we can't be really close to it. The only reason we cannot be 100% certain is because no one has solved solipsism. However, truth can be demonstrated to a high degree. Just look at a plane. We understand the truth of the physics behind a plane. We know this because we demonstrate it everyday thousands of times. You can deny it but we see it everyday.