Ontological Argument

@walkingaround,

Of course you are right that everywhere does equate to every possible location. Your problem is in equating proximity to equivilance. Just because God is within, surrounding and in every way proximate to an individual does not make that individual God. I sit in my office chair responding to you. God is here as well as everywhere else, however, it is impossible to conclude from this that I am God.

Let's take your own argument a little farther. If God is everywhere and I am God then I am everywhere. I suppose this means that not only am I me, but I am also you. I am now talking to myself and am reduced to little more than a lunatic--since I am getting a response from myself.

Besides, you are saying that God is with us (proximity) while also being identical to us (essence). How can a being be next to himself? Proximity requires some form of seperation.

Let me assure you, it is unlikely you are God; and it is impossible for me to be. Also, so far as I know, I am not you and you are not me, so we can continue the conversation without the men in their little white coats "coming to take me away! Ha Ha!"

@cluckk,

Hi Cluckk,

Your logic is good, as is your spirit. What if God is the sum of all things, therefore not merely any ONE of the components thereof, as we are the sum of our components, Cells, molecules, elements, etc? Do we not each assume these properties OURS, MINE, etc. Am I not the sum of my components?

Get back to me, time allowing...

Thank you, and adventure endlessly.

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;167283 wrote:

Hi Cluckk,

Am I not the sum of my components?

Mark...

To say the very least!

@mark noble,

mark noble;167283 wrote:

Your logic is good, as is your spirit. What if God is the sum of all things, therefore not merely any ONE of the components thereof, as we are the sum of our components, Cells, molecules, elements, etc? Do we not each assume these properties OURS, MINE, etc. Am I not the sum of my components?

"What if" is the operative phrase here. I also agree that God being present in every location does not equate to God *being* everything. I'd say that would constrain God to the law of physics that says "no two things can occupy the same location at the same time" (if they occupy the same space, they must equal each other). In our universe, "things" would likely be defined as any objects made up of matter, and I would certainly contest that God is NOT made up of matter. For one thing, that matter would have to be infinite...

@walkingaround,

Quote:

What if God is the sum of all things, therefore not merely any ONE of the components thereof, as we are the sum of our components, Cells, molecules, elements, etc?QUOTE]

This requires another leap. This time the leap is from God being omnipresent to being composed of the universe, so we have gone from everything is God to everything is a portion, part, or element of God. These are two different concepts.

Yes, you are the sum of your parts--though likely the whole being is more than the simple sum of its parts.

Another problem here is that you reduce God to an element or component of the universe. In other words God is now either the sum of all the componentor is himself only one of the components. These are not the only two options. God could be transcendent and seperate from the universe while at the same time being omnipresent throughout the universe. It is not neccessary to reduce God to being the sum of all things, for God is not a thing.

Though you may conclude when all is said and done that all is God or that all is part of God, this cannot be derived from omnipresence, unless God is part of the material universe. If God is matter, since matter can not share space with matter, all things would have to be God or part of God. However, this requires first of all that God be reduced to matter. So, once again, the only way to make God all of the universe is to make God matter. Of course this has its own problems since God would then be limited to physicality, time and energy. God would then be the physical universe itself and could not be the First Cause or the Prime Mover. This would actually push us backwards to need another source beyond God.

This was answered quickly while trying to run out to a meeting. I hope it makes sense. If not I'll give it another shot later.

@Klope3,

Klope3;167311 wrote:

"What if" is the operative phrase here. I also agree that God being present in every location does not equate to God *being* everything. I'd say that would constrain God to the law of physics that says "no two things can occupy the same location at the same time" (if they occupy the same space, they must equal each other). In our universe, "things" would likely be defined as any objects made up of matter, and I would certainly contest that God is NOT made up of matter. For one thing, that matter would have to be infinite...

Hi Klope,

I agree with you, on the physics part. I don't perceive Gods, I perceive Nature - Hence, Nature is my God. But, I'm not presenting a God that is governed by physical laws, I am presenting a physics that is governed by God. Omnipresent implies "In Every Location" though, don't you agree?

Thank you Klope, have a great day, sir.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 05:53 PM ----------

cluckk;167313 wrote:

Quote:
What if God is the sum of all things, therefore not merely any ONE of the components thereof, as we are the sum of our components, Cells, molecules, elements, etc?QUOTE]

This requires another leap. This time the leap is from God being omnipresent to being composed of the universe, so we have gone from everything is God to everything is a portion, part, or element of God. These are two different concepts.

Yes, you are the sum of your parts--though likely the whole being is more than the simple sum of its parts.

Another problem here is that you reduce God to an element or component of the universe. In other words God is now either the sum of all the componentor is himself only one of the components. These are not the only two options. God could be transcendent and seperate from the universe while at the same time being omnipresent throughout the universe. It is not neccessary to reduce God to being the sum of all things, for God is not a thing.

Though you may conclude when all is said and done that all is God or that all is part of God, this cannot be derived from omnipresence, unless God is part of the material universe. If God is matter, since matter can not share space with matter, all things would have to be God or part of God. However, this requires first of all that God be reduced to matter. So, once again, the only way to make God all of the universe is to make God matter. Of course this has its own problems since God would then be limited to physicality, time and energy. God would then be the physical universe itself and could not be the First Cause or the Prime Mover. This would actually push us backwards to need another source beyond God.

This was answered quickly while trying to run out to a meeting. I hope it makes sense. If not I'll give it another shot later.

Hi Cluckk,

Just using Christ as an example... Was not (Christ) God both physical and beyond. What I mean is; Was God not in heaven and on earth, at the same time?

Thank you, and be brilliant>

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 07:44 PM ----------

Klope3;167311 wrote:
""no two things can occupy the same location at the same time" (if they occupy the same space, they must equal each other)....

Hi Klope.

Glad to see someone who acknowledges this principle, by the way. On THIS - if no two things can occupy the same location - No two things can be identical, because they must be different, due to alternate location, alone. Do you agree? And, if only one thing is present at any given time (seeing as time is the measurement between two occurences) why can't that ONE THING (NOT TWO) be the one location that (God) resides at? Therefore ABLE to be in all places, because "all places equate" to ONE place. Seemingly instantaneous to the observer (us) but one frame at a time, to God???

Hope you understand this, if not I'll readdress

Thank you Klope, journey well, sir.

Mark...

@walkingaround,

Quote:

Just using Christ as an example... Was not (Christ) God both physical and beyond. What I mean is; Was God not in heaven and on earth, at the same time?

This is once again a leap. Let's say for starters that the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is true. This means God appeared in human form at one single moment and place. This does not equate to all people or all of matter being God.

@mark noble,

mark noble;167336 wrote:

Hi Klope,

I agree with you, on the physics part. I don't perceive Gods, I perceive Nature - Hence, Nature is my God. But, I'm not presenting a God that is governed by physical laws, I am presenting a physics that is governed by God. Omnipresent implies "In Every Location" though, don't you agree?

Thank you Klope, have a great day, sir.

Yes, I agree on that definition of omnipresent. But that definition doesn't imply that God *is* everything just because he's present in every location. This would only be true if God was, as you say, "governed by physical laws" (which you seem to agree he is not).

mark noble;167336 wrote:

Hi Klope.

Glad to see someone who acknowledges this principle, by the way. On THIS - if no two things can occupy the same location - No two things can be identical, because they must be different, due to alternate location, alone. Do you agree? And, if only one thing is present at any given time (seeing as time is the measurement between two occurences) why can't that ONE THING (NOT TWO) be the one location that (God) resides at? Therefore ABLE to be in all places, because "all places equate" to ONE place. Seemingly instantaneous to the observer (us) but one frame at a time, to God???

Hope you understand this, if not I'll readdress

Thank you Klope, journey well, sir.

I have a hard time agreeing that two things could not *hypothetically* be identical, just because of a difference in location. In that case you would defining location as a property of the objects (which may or may not be true from a physics standpoint).

And yes, God could be present at a thing at any given point in time...but I unfortunately fail to understand how your last two statements ("Therefore ABLE..." and "Seemingly instantaneous...") follow from that.

@Klope3,

Klope3;167418 wrote:

I have a hard time agreeing that two things could not *hypothetically* be identical, just because of a difference in location. In that case you would defining location as a property of the objects (which may or may not be true from a physics standpoint).

.

suppose two objects all solitary in space, with all their properties the same, but they are in different locations. They are so far from one another that you cannot see both at the same time. Which is which? Which one is that one?

@walkingaround,

walkingaround;165773 wrote:

Hello people,
I am not trained in logic. Could somebody help me out on something?

Its about Anselm's argument for god's existence. I had a thought about it.

He says that

"Being is greater that not being." And from there, god has to exist.

Now my thought , dont know if its meaningful, or total rubbish (in terms of academic logic) is the following:

Isnt it even greater, for a being greater than which cannot be conceived, to be able to exist and not to exist at the same time, or switch back and forth between the two, or to neither exist or not exist? As it pleases..... I mean, i would imagine a god to be able to not exist for some time and then "pop back" into existence.......

I would just like to know if my point has any value in a strict, academic sense.... And if not, why that is..
I would be grateful for opinions.......

1.God is the greatest possible being.
2.It is better to exist than to not.
3.Only existence or nonexistence is possible.
Therefore, God must exist.

This, from what I could gather, would be the argument, though the premises would need analysis.

For example, I question the objective verifiability of a statement of anything being "better" without ultimately finding some conflicting ideology with no real basis of confirmation or otherwise selection between the two conflicting viewpoints.

I, for example, would make the argument that nonexistence is in fact better as it is not bound to laws of nature nor will one have to fear consequence or action of a nonexistent object. Furthermore, a nonexistent object is free of disappointment or unwanted change, as a nonexistent object is nothing more than the sum of what it is imagined to be, no more, no less, and only through one's choice to change such an object would this object change.

@Klope3,

Klope3;167418 wrote:

(which may or may not be true from a physics standpoint).

And yes, God could be present at a thing at any given point in time...but I unfortunately fail to understand how your last two statements ("Therefore ABLE..." and "Seemingly instantaneous...") follow from that.

Hi Klope.

Look at it from this standpoint:
what if there were only ONE particle - moving at Maximum velocity, in a void (This universe) -That particle being the (prime particle).
It visits every location, seemingly instantly ( in our timeline )and creating, by its unavoidable interaction with its previous actions, all matter at once?
The periodic table suggests that - each element from top to bottom is simply a decayed version of the next element on the scale - especially as the isotopes thereof completely fill the gaps.
(Like a child's sparkler on bonfire-night) - you move it about rapidly and the wake (Thermal residue) remains visible, with each frame from the heat source, depleting uniformly.
As the prime source of heat interacts with its wake it enhances the property of said interaction ( what was cooling uniformly is now momentarily revitalised.)
If this is true - then the actions of all things progress one frame at a time, to the particle, but in an unimaginable series of events from our perspective.
We judge the speed of things from our own point of view. and that is very, very SLOW.

Physics doesn't validate or negate this, because it can't measure it, nor provide any form of developmental application.

It does, if accepted provide the answer to every question that can arise - Infinity, Eternity, Life, Death, Deja Vu, God (prime-particle), m-theory (fractilian), etc;

The question to everything may be the most difficult to answer, because the answer is so simple???

I, once again, hope you understand the direction of this post. I find it far easier to imagine, than I do to relay.

Thank you, and have a fantastic day, sir.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 12:59 PM ----------

cluckk;167394 wrote:

This is once again a leap. Let's say for starters that the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is true. This means God appeared in human form at one single moment and place. This does not equate to all people or all of matter being God.

Hi Cluckk,

Could you, if time allows, please take a look at my above post? (post/post). Ha!

Thank you Cluckk, and journey well, sir.

Mark...

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;167617 wrote:

1.God is the greatest possible being.
2.It is better to exist than to not.
3.Only existence or nonexistence is possible.
Therefore, God must exist.

This, from what I could gather, would be the argument, though the premises would need analysis.

.

The argument is that since God is tha greatest conceivable being, a God who had all the properties of God, but who existed, would be a greater being than one who had the very same properties a the first God, but only lacked the property of existence. It would then follow that the existing God was the real God. since the existing God would be the greatest conceivable one.

The central question here is what can it mean to talk about a God with all the properties except that of existence? How could God (or anything) have properties without existing?

@mark noble,

I looked at it and you have still reduced God to being within time and matter. Even as the Prime Particle you have simply moved the ontological argument back a stage because you must now come up with a cause for the Prime Particle. Could this cause be (to tweak Nietzsche) the Ubergod? and the Prime Particle you speak of nothing more than a demigod?

I suppose you could argue the Prime Particle is eternal, but this would have its own problems. So far as I know physics does not support the eternal existence of matter. It did at one time, but this has changed because no definitive answer has been given about conditions before the Singularity. (Physics is not my strong suit so correct me if I'm wrong.) Also suppose this Prime Particle were eternal, since the universe is not, there has to be some reason the Prime Particle goes from not moving/creating to actively moving/creating? Unless there is a seperate first cause, the particle would have to be its own cause which would seem to require thought on its part. Also, you haven't answered how this first particle would create other matter. You have considered how complex matter could become more simple and thuse through decay fill our peridical table, but how does this initial particle replicate itself ex nihilo? So you have gone from an omnipotent, omnipresent, personal God, to a thinking particle that though part of time and matter, is inexplicably eternal and intelligent and self-replicating with no mechanism for replication.

I think the traditional view of God requires far fewer leaps of faith and contortions of logic. Keep trying though!

@cluckk,

cluckk;167648 wrote:

I looked at it and you have still reduced God to being within time and matter. !

I guess that's bad, huh?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167644 wrote:

The argument is that since God is tha greatest conceivable being, a God who had all the properties of God, but who existed, would be a greater being than one who had the very same properties a the first God, but only lacked the property of existence. It would then follow that the existing God was the real God. since the existing God would be the greatest conceivable one.

The central question here is what can it mean to talk about a God with all the properties except that of existence? How could God (or anything) have properties without existing?

And, how could God exist without having properties.
(x has properties) <-> (x exists).

(the x: x is omni-this and that. and x exists.)exists, is true iff (the x: x is omni-this and that. and x exists.) instantiates some positive predicate (property).

The ontological argument (Anslem's) is true, requires the added claim that:
(the x: x is omni-this and that. & x exists.) is unique.

(the x such that (x exists & Fx & ..)) exists, is not a tautology.

We need to show that the description/definition of God is unique, before we can say that it exists.

The x such that (x is unique. & x exists. & x omni-this and that.) is unique also needs demonstration.

That is, we assume that God exists in order to prove that God exists.

Anslem's ontological argument 'begs the question' imo.

'exists' is not a primary predicate of the form Fx. 'exists' is a secondary predicate. Existence is the logical sum of primary predicates, ie. x exists, means, Fx or Gx or Hx etc..

(x exists) <-> (some F)(Fx).

@Owen phil,

Owen;167676 wrote:

And, how could God exist without having properties.

Anslem's ontological argument 'begs the question' imo.

Yes, since it supposes that God has properties (that God-properties are instantiated) and that implies that God exists, and therefore, it supposes exactly what it is supposed to prove.

@cluckk,

cluckk;167648 wrote:

I looked at it and you have still reduced God to being within time and matter. Even as the Prime Particle you have simply moved the ontological argument back a stage because you must now come up with a cause for the Prime Particle. Could this cause be (to tweak Nietzsche) the Ubergod? and the Prime Particle you speak of nothing more than a demigod?

I suppose you could argue the Prime Particle is eternal, but this would have its own problems. So far as I know physics does not support the eternal existence of matter. It did at one time, but this has changed because no definitive answer has been given about conditions before the Singularity. (Physics is not my strong suit so correct me if I'm wrong.) Also suppose this Prime Particle were eternal, since the universe is not, there has to be some reason the Prime Particle goes from not moving/creating to actively moving/creating? Unless there is a seperate first cause, the particle would have to be its own cause which would seem to require thought on its part. Also, you haven't answered how this first particle would create other matter. You have considered how complex matter could become more simple and thuse through decay fill our peridical table, but how does this initial particle replicate itself ex nihilo? So you have gone from an omnipotent, omnipresent, personal God, to a thinking particle that though part of time and matter, is inexplicably eternal and intelligent and self-replicating with no mechanism for replication.

I think the traditional view of God requires far fewer leaps of faith and contortions of logic. Keep trying though!

Hi Cluckk,

Why does the particle need to self-replicate? If it has no limit to its lifespan, nor depreciation of its energy quota.

This particle would create other matter because it would interfere with its own residual wake, altering the chemistry thereof.

Cause for prime particle: Why does it require a cause, if it has always been?

Yes, potentially demigod, if demigod is singular to this universe.

As for the physics - We are discussing the unmeasureable here, so physics is out the window. It can't help us one way or the other.

Universe eternal? I don't believe it is. but I do believe that, infinity, demands its exact repitition, and all possible variables thereof, recurring ...

Like an energy circuit (car battery) It is forever chasing its own tail, always fleeing, always pursuing, never knowing why. Never catching, for this would cause its existence to cease (short-circuit).

Thank you Cluckk, be brilliant sir.

Mark...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167644 wrote:

How could God (or anything) have properties without existing?

Ideas have properties too, though they don't necessarily exist. How can anything even be conceived without properties? Even obscure ideas must have some property that allows us conceive them.

I always thought the argument over God was, "is God simply an idea(like some fantasy creature) or is there some kind of object(or at least self sustained sentiency) that is God?" I don't think anyone will argue the nonexistence of God as an ideology, since we're sitting here talking about such an ideology now.

@walkingaround,

Mark,

Quote:

Why does the particle need to self-replicate? If it has no limit to its lifespan, nor depreciation of its energy quota.

This particle would create other matter because it would interfere with its own residual wake, altering the chemistry thereof.

So you are speaking of a single particle that produces all we see from bits of itself. This would not properly be a wake, which is the effect of matter moving through other matter. I assume you mean something similar to a comet's tail. So this Prime Particle flys about producing the universe of matter out of bits of itself. Is this particle without limit? In other words, could it eventually disintegrate into nothing? Or does the matter coming off of it still make up part of it?

You have me confused because you seem to have decided you want God to be all of the universe and are now looking for a way to make this happen. I don't see it because of other questions that must be answered.

Quote:

Cause for prime particle: Why does it require a cause, if it has always been?

The ontological argument is an argument from existence, a universe exists and must have a cause. That cause must be from outside of the universe in order to escape the need for having its own cause. You say the particle has always been, but I would need to know upon what you base this. We know the universe had a beginning; your theory makes god nothing but the universe deified; ergo, your god (particle or whatever) must have a beginning as well. Suppose the particle itself has no beginning but contrary to fact always existed. What then made something which always existed by itself suddenly decide to start creating. Does this particle have personality and thought or is it simply following the laws of nature? If it follows the laws of nature, then how could something that was doing nothing, suddenly start doing something when there is nothing to interact with it to initiate action? An inanimate, unintelligent thing would have to suddenly decide to knit together the universe from bits of itself. And people say the Christian concept of God is fanciful.

Quote:

Like an energy circuit (car battery) It is forever chasing its own tail, always fleeing, always pursuing, never knowing why. Never catching, for this would cause its existence to cease (short-circuit).

Actually an energy circuit does nothing. It is the electrons that act according to laws of current flow. This actually does damage to your theory because the electrons exist whether the flow is there or not, whether the circuit exists or not, yet the electrons have an origin--something, some action, some entity, some intelligence that put them into place and set them into motion.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 02:32 PM ----------

Owen,

Though I am a Theist, I must agree that Anselm's argument begs the question. Also, you are right something that exists must have properties. Wouldn't existence itself be almost a (for lack of a better word) proto-property? Meaning, the property of existence must be present before any other properties can be possessed.

@cluckk,

cluckk;168167 wrote:

Mark,

So you are speaking of a single particle that produces all we see from bits of itself. This would not properly be a wake, which is the effect of matter moving through other matter. I assume you mean something similar to a comet's tail. So this Prime Particle flys about producing the universe of matter out of bits of itself. Is this particle without limit? In other words, could it eventually disintegrate into nothing? Or does the matter coming off of it still make up part of it?

You have me confused because you seem to have decided you want God to be all of the universe and are now looking for a way to make this happen. I don't see it because of other questions that must be answered.

.

Hi Cluckk.

Let's take this one step at a time, if that's ok with you, of course? Can "something" arise from "Nothing"? And I'm Using absolutes here.

Thank you, and good tidings.

Mark...

Philosophy Forum

Ontological Argument

Quick Links

My Account

able2know