"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[Eudaimonist]

Is it logical for you... for something to be able to do this... without a mind?

Yes, perfectly logical.

IOW, it begs the question... "What caused it to cause itself to change....etc."

Its own nature. Its very existence as a certain sort of something, which includes its powers and potentials.

self cause is logical when there is mind to self-generate... but if there
is no mind... how does it "decide" to change rather than external forces affecting it?

How does the human body "decide" to grow and mature? It is in the nature of that body to do so.

Are we now talking about "self-creation" here also?

I don't know what you mean by that term.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Personally I still don't see the problem with using the ontological argument to define the world's greatest hot dog into existence.

I can imagine stuff which can't exist - e.g. a hot dog which tastes great and yet has zero calories. For some reason this hot dog isn't available in my local grocery store. The whole "greatest things must exist" premise is wrong.

 

[variant]

I'm sorry...

but you demonstrate here (like most atheists I encounter) that you "do not" understand the argument...

Your first sentence "relies on a rule that applies to everything except the one thing that it is trying to show." fully
demonstrates this (that you do not understand the philosophical quirk.. and the logical reason for the philosophical
quirk and how it is justifiable).

I don't personally use the ontological argument...because I believe a case can be made for an equivocation fallacy
..... how the first premise is an issue of concept verses reality. (but I do understand how it only applies to "God." Capital - G).

To falsely accuse the ontological argument of special pleading fully demonstrates that you do not understand
the uniqueness of "special cases." Justifiable special cases are self-evident in reason... unless you have a
bias against such reason (reasoning and logic).

Something is preventing you from seeing the difference in category...which is causing you (and many other
atheists who are allowing their bias to prevent them from seeing such reason) to miss the logic of the special
case.

Justifiable special cases are NOT special pleading fallacies... regardless of the uniqueness of what they
demonstrate philosophically. There is NOTHING else to compare "an infinite being for which nothing
greater can be imagined." It IS clearly a special case... which makes accusations of the special
pleading fallacy easily demonstrated as false accusations IF you understand the argument.

To even compare anything tangible to God clearly demonstrates that the person doesn't understand
the ontological argument. I don't like to use Anselm's argument...or even Kurt Godel's version of it..
but someone is misleading you if they are claiming it is a special pleading fallacy.

False accusations of the special pleading fallacy are so abundant these days it is an evidence that
the philosophical understanding has BECOME sophomoric. In fact, I would be very very very
interested in any publication before 1970 which accused the Ontological Argument of a special
pleading fallacy.

It simply IS special pleading in that it can be narrowed down to the idea that everything in the universe "the universe" as a whole requires a cause, and that God does not.

The question is whether everything in the universe does require a cause, and once you accept (which you must to make the argument) that at least one thing doesn't then any other number of things may not either. We simply don't know that "everything other than God" in the universe requires a cause, that is unsubstantiated by the argument (and even undermined by it).

I don't think this argument is helped by arguing for God to be a special case because, again, once you argue for one special case then you undermine the general rule. How can we enforce the general rule on everything else and not for God? Might we not simply have a "special" case that isn't a God and therefore God isn't supported via the argument.

As with most "philosophers" they try to make this more complicated to give the argument credence, but it boils down to either a case of special pleading or an assertion that is not in evidence, either way, not very convincing.

Here is what the cosmological argument looks like without all the pretentiousness:

1. Everything that we humans observe and understand fairly well has a cause.

2. Something must not be caused if the universe had a beginning (if the universe is indeed one of those things we observe and understand fairly well).

3. The universe has a beginning.

... Something that humans either have not observed or understand fully must have caused the beginning of the universe.

Now (given that these premises are far from indisputable), of course it doesn't lead to the conclusion theists like so they try to ramrod their God into it.

The correct conclusion (and this is as far as we can really go) to the argument (if true via flowing from true premises and proper logical structure) is that there is at least one thing in the universe that humanity has yet to observe or understand with respect to the causation of the universe.

 

[variant]

I'm curious here...

Do you believe that Bill Craig's version of the Kalam Argument (where he claims that you can not have an
infinite regress) is somehow a special pleading fallacy also?

FTR, I don't use WLC's version of the KA either.

And why should we think that infinite regresses are necessary for everything except a God?

So yes, he is just trying to couch the same premise (that all things require a cause except God) in a slightly different wording (which I don't think makes a real distinction).

Craig doesn't accomplish what he sets out to do and remove the pleading or the assertion from the argument.

 

[variant]

Personally I still don't see the problem with using the ontological argument to define the world's greatest hot dog into existence.

Because God would be a Superior hot dog, God being the greatest greatest, and thus the greatest of any category of great.

The greatest conceivable being must be the greatest of all conceivable categories of greatness, even if they have contradictory qualities.

No scratch that, ESPECIALLY if they have contradictory qualities, because it would be greater to transcend contradictions than to not.

(If you aren't following correctly I am making fun of this particular argument with as much sarcasm as I can muster)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[Breckmin]

Its own nature. Its very existence as a certain sort of something, which includes its powers and potentials.

But when you look at the human body... it doesn't just grow because it wants to without logical causes..
there are assembly instructions for the proteins which perform functions throughout the growth process.

The so called "powers" and "potentials" of biological systems clearly come from somewhere... and we
can trace this to both energy/matter AND information. The human body didn't originate this information.
When it comes to cause and effect "its own nature" doesn't address causes of origination. The same
is also true in the temporary appearance of particle-antiparticle pairs. "It's own nature" doesn't address
the cause which produced or resulted in any fluctuation.

 

[Breckmin]

I'll admit that Anselm's response of a necessary existence (or self-existence) begs the question in its assumption
and concision of the argument... however, Gaunilo clearly did not understand the argument...or he wouldn't have
used anything finite like an island (or a hot dog) to insert into the argument in comparison. Kant's criticism was
more congruous to addressing the point of the argument.

At least this video doesn't mislead the viewer into false charges of special pleading.

 

[Breckmin]

And why should we think that infinite regresses are necessary for everything except a God?

You mean apply. An infinite regress is a logical absurdity. It is never a special pleading to assert something whereas
to assert anything else BUT the premise is a logical absurdity. Special pleading deals with non-justifiable exceptions
where the circumstances are similar... there is nothing similar to an Infinite Creator so what you are doing is confusing
"different circumstances" with "special." What is very telling in your thinking is when you say "a" God rather than
understanding God as an assertion of the Fundamental Reality of the universe and how God would transcend any
time and space continuum by self-existing as either supratemporal or omnitemporal. The temporal must have a beginning because finite existence experiences time and space restriction(s). If you think of "God" as being some "being" that is part of the universe... then you "do not understand" what we mean when we say "God."

So yes, he is just trying to couch the same premise (that all things require a cause except God) in a slightly different wording (which I don't think makes a real distinction).

Well, then I would encourage you to think about this subject matter. Of course there is a distinction between
an infinite being which possesses aseity and ANY physical tangible thing which you could assert....including three
dimensional existence itself.

Craig's problem is NOT special pleading... it is the lack of a persuasive argument for what the universe should
be defined as... as well as whether or not the universe, energy/matter had a beginning.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But when you look at the human body... it doesn't just grow because it wants to without logical causes..there are assembly instructions for the proteins which perform functions throughout the growth process.

The cause, as I had said, is the nature of the thing, and in the case of human beings that includes DNA. I'm not saying that a human body changes for no explicable reason whatsoever, but rather that the reasons for the change have to do with what a human body is.

The so called "powers" and "potentials" of biological systems clearly come from somewhere...

Yes, the system itself -- its existence as a biological system.

and we can trace this to both energy/matter AND information.

The human body didn't originate this information.

True, but that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the body had originated its own "information" or not. Whether it was created by a mad scientist or by natural selection or by some wildly improbable quantum fluctuation, it would still grow and mature because it is a human body.

When it comes to cause and effect "its own nature" doesn't address causes of origination.

Origination is a separate issue. Nothing changes because of what originated that thing, but because of what that thing is. If entity A has origin Y, and entity B has origin Z, and entity A is nearly identical to entity B, entity A will still change in a way similar to entity B. The difference in origin is irrelevant.

The same is also true in the temporary appearance of particle-antiparticle pairs. "It's own nature" doesn't address
the cause which produced or resulted in any fluctuation.

I'm not suggesting that anything creates itself. You are choosing a poor example.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Breckmin]

It simply IS special pleading in that it can be narrowed down to the idea that everything in the universe "the universe" as a whole requires a cause, and that God does not.

That's not what special pleading is, however. You may have an issue with the concept of God and whether it (an uncaused Self-existence) is
cogent or whether it deserves consideration to the rational mind..but that is not an issue of a special pleading fallacy.

The question is whether everything in the universe does require a cause, and once you accept (which you must to make the argument) that at least one thing doesn't then any other number of things may not either. We simply don't know that "everything other than God" in the universe requires a cause, that is unsubstantiated by the argument (and even undermined by it).

I don't think this argument is helped by arguing for God to be a special case because, again, once you argue for one special case then you undermine the general rule. How can we enforce the general rule on everything else and not for God? Might we not simply have a "special" case that isn't a God and therefore God isn't supported via the argument.

Notice you keep saying "in the universe" as though God is somehow just a participant "in the universe." Notice also
that you say "special" case that isn't "a" God" as though God is just some "being" like any other being "in" the universe.

If you slap the label "special" on anything that is clearly different... you will end up with all sorts of false accusations
of special pleading... rather than understand how the circumstances are clearly different... and WHY there would be no
cause for God... why there would be no Designer for God... and most importantly here in this conversation - why there would be no infinite regress with God...

When I read what your posting I feel as though we are discussing two different subjects..

I'm wanting to discuss "God" but you appear to be thinking about "this being" which is "a God" and just part of
the universe or a fellow participant in the universe.

If God was a fellow participant in the universe... then perhaps you could make a case for some type of special
pleading (but you would still have to show how the circumstances are similar)... right now we are just missing
each other conceptually.

 

[Breckmin]

The cause, as I had said, is the nature of the thing,

What caused its so called "nature?"

It's not nice to blame Mother Nature....

 

[Breckmin]

I'm not suggesting that anything creates itself. You are choosing a poor example.

Our discussion has drifted quite a bit from what Cadet and Hieronymus were discussing regarding all effects having causes.
You wish to assert that something can cause itself to change because of its own nature... but this still regresses back to
"where did it get this nature?" What is the "first cause" for this particular ability? That is a question of origins... as was
the original subject regarding the necessity of an uncaused Being to begin causes...

 

[Eudaimonist]

You wish to assert that something can cause itself to change because of its own nature...

Yes, you didn't understand how something can cause itself to change. You seem to think that it involves an infinite regress of causes. I was explaining how that isn't so.

but this still regresses back to "where did it get this nature?"

No, it doesn't.

Yes, one may ask how something came to be what it is. For some discussions, that is a reasonable question to ask. However, whatever led to its existence, it is still a source of causes on itself, and that doesn't require any mind to cause anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

What caused its so called "nature?"

The particular configuration of matter it happens to be in. In the case of humans, that's caused by, well, when a mommy and daddy love each other very much...

 

[variant]

You mean apply. An infinite regress is a logical absurdity.

I mean we must assert that all other things other than God would require an infinite regress to exist.

(hence special pleading)

It is never a special pleading to assert something whereas
to assert anything else BUT the premise is a logical absurdity. Special pleading deals with non-justifiable exceptions
where the circumstances are similar... there is nothing similar to an Infinite Creator so what you are doing is confusing
"different circumstances" with "special." What is very telling in your thinking is when you say "a" God rather than
understanding God as an assertion of the Fundamental Reality of the universe and how God would transcend any
time and space continuum by self-existing as either supratemporal or omnitemporal. The temporal must have a beginning because finite existence experiences time and space restriction(s). If you think of "God" as being some "being" that is part of the universe... then you "do not understand" what we mean when we say "God."

If the argument could justify that God is (and is the only) exception to the rule rather than just defining it that way then we could get somewhere, otherwise it is just special pleading (making an unjustified exception to the rule you wish to assert).

The special pleading extends to the idea that GOD and not "some other thing" is specially pleaded for.

The argument literally has to rule out every other thing with the rule that it asserts and then turn around and claim that ONLY God is an exception in order to make the argument work.

Well, then I would encourage you to think about this subject matter. Of course there is a distinction between
an infinite being which possesses aseity and ANY physical tangible thing which you could assert....including three
dimensional existence itself.

Craig's problem is NOT special pleading... it is the lack of a persuasive argument for what the universe should
be defined as... as well as whether or not the universe, energy/matter had a beginning.

Craig's real problem is that he is arguing from ignorance, trying to rule out things that he can not possibly understand, and making an argument that the idea of God is a special case in answering the problem of the universes origins.

 

[variant]

That's not what special pleading is, however. You may have an issue with the concept of God and whether it (an uncaused Self-existence) is
cogent or whether it deserves consideration to the rational mind..but that is not an issue of a special pleading fallacy.

It's textbook special pleading. The argument asserts a rule and then defines God as the exception to it.

It is special pleading as long as the argument's assertion isn't thoroughly justified. Since the argument simply defines God as special it doesn't get over this hurdle.

Furthermore, both the exceptional case and the definition assert that God is in a special category which is only true if the conclusion of the argument "God exists" is true.

Notice you keep saying "in the universe" as though God is somehow just a participant "in the universe." Notice also
that you say "special" case that isn't "a" God" as though God is just some "being" like any other being "in" the universe.

Universe being defined as all things that exist. If God exists we must assume that it exists.

I understand that as a theist you might want God to be as ethereal, ill defined and as theoretical as possible, but category "exists" is what you are shooting for here or you don't have an augment.

If you slap the label "special" on anything that is clearly different... you will end up with all sorts of false accusations
of special pleading... rather than understand how the circumstances are clearly different... and WHY there would be no
cause for God... why there would be no Designer for God... and most importantly here in this conversation - why there would be no infinite regress with God...

God is only clearly different if it exists, try to stop putting the cart before the horse.

The argument in question asserts that God is differn't from everything else in order to try to establish that God in fact exists and in the process tries to draw conclusions about everything else.

When I read what your posting I feel as though we are discussing two different subjects..

I'm wanting to discuss "God" but you appear to be thinking about "this being" which is "a God" and just part of
the universe or a fellow participant in the universe.

If God was a fellow participant in the universe... then perhaps you could make a case for some type of special
pleading (but you would still have to show how the circumstances are similar)... right now we are just missing
each other conceptually.

I treat "God" the idea like any other that would be evaluated and is not necessarily correct.

If God doesn't participate in the universe then it can't begin one.... The entire argument presupposes that God participates in the universe so you can't really get around that.

Your ideas are tethered to unstated assertions that I don't think follow logically, so forgive me for not arriving at all the same conclusions as you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What caused its so called "nature?"

It's not nice to blame Mother Nature....

This is begging the question

 

[Breckmin]

Yes, one may ask how something came to be what it is. For some discussions, that is a reasonable question to ask. However, whatever led to its existence, it is still a source of causes on itself, and that doesn't require any mind to cause anything.

Please explain "causes on itself" and what you mean exactly. Please be specific with specific examples.

 

[Breckmin]

I mean we must assert that all other things other than God would require an infinite regress to exist.

Clearly if you have something temporal or finite then you can't have an infinite regress.... such is a logical absurdity.
You would have to have something infinite to begin the first movement or change in the universe. My take on the
Kalam is different from Craig's because I believe that the universe is infinite (and becomes effectual with such
finite existence, movement or change). I don't believe that 3 dimensional existence needed to be created exactly.
I don't argue that the universe "began" to exist the way in which Craig does.

If the argument could justify that God is (and is the only) exception to the rule rather than just defining it that way then we could get somewhere,.

Perhaps this is the error, then. The argument is not simply an argument made in concision... the justification is the
logic that you can't have infinite regress... and if you understand supratemporal and omnitemporal assertions in
theology...then you don't 'have' infinite regress with the Infinite Creator either. There is no eternity past...because
duration becoming effectual... (actually logically) has a beginning.

If we leave out all of the parentheticals... then perhaps you could isolate and not see the difference between
the Infinite Creator (God) and the temporal...

I do take issue with your use of terms such as "rule" and particularly the word "special" as though we are
involved in similar categories. The logic that you can't have an infinite regress of causes is a conclusion...
especially in how it applies to the temporal. Not having an infinite regress with the Creator because you
have a different schema before time/space become effectual doesn't violate any "rule." I believe it is
over-simplistic to claim that God is somehow an "exception" to the rule when in fact there is NO
exception to the rule other than "requiring a cause."

Infinite regress is one subject... "requiring a cause" is a different distinction. God is not an effect
but is rather an uncaused Being Who is infinite/eternal and begins all causes/movement/change.
Such is logical to remove infinite regress... just as it is logical to HAVE "being" itself...for something
to begin all other "being." Something must possess the power of being...or there would be nothing.

That's not a special pleading fallacy... that's basic logic.

Question everything.