http://www.tkc.edu/debate/ Here’s a great debate with Chris Hitchens. I HATE the ontological argument — it’s so silly and absurd.
Basically Anselm argues that God is, by definition, a being than which no greater can be conceived. But if God is such a being, he must exist. Why? Because if it didn’t, then he would be a being than which a greater could be conceived.
OK some quick points about this stupid word-game.1) Even this argument has changed since Anslem, now only talking about a “logically consistent” being (eliminating the whole “can he make something so big he cannot lift it” question). SO we now only talk about a being that is logically consistent with the universe. 2) BUT the universe is imperfect! Short life spans, disease, natural disasters — this is imperfect. It is logically inconsistent that a perfect being would create this imperfect universe. Therefore (drumroll please) the being is imperfect (either by will or competence).3) Therefore, the NONEXISTENT being is more perfect than the existent being, since the nonexistent being has no responsibility for an imperfect universe. THIS IS THE KEY TO THE ARGUMENT — and an ontological proof that a perfect being does NOT exist. Capice?Now I have a headache.
AT,
The entire fields of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics (those which I am most familiar with) depend entirely on the use of infinity.
The Fourier series solutions to those partial differential equations all contain a summation starting with n=1, all the way to n=infinity.
You will get a neat little equation that lets you determine, say, the rate of heat propagation in a turbine housing.
alatham,
I was talking “real”, as in the sense that if I solved a differential equation and the answer included j, it would give me a nonsense answer in terms of physical properties. You can’t have a temperature gradient of y(x)=ej*2.39875*x. Mathematically, yes it?s fine, but engineering wise, it isn’t, you need to manipulate the equation to get rid of j.
I agree with the inadequacy of the ontological argument.
Arguments for God’s existence that seem noteworthy are: Argument from the Mind and Consciousness; the moral argument; the cosmological argument(s) i.e origins and anthropic principle; the intelligent design argument; the Kalaam argument in conjunction with the nonexistence of actual infinities argument. Some are stronger than others, but as an aggregate can be persuasive.
I’m with writerdd’s comment.
When I first heard the ontological argument, that was my first reaction.
Why would anyone think that something has to exist, just because they can *think* it? I can think of purple unicorns with yellow polka-dots, but I’m fairly certain that they don’t exist.
Like writerdd said, “It’s just stupid.”
atomictesting,
I agree that infinity is an abstract concept, but it is not “the largest number that can be conceive.” Infinity isn’t a number and can thus not be compared to one.
It really is like saying an orange is the biggest apple that can be conceived.
Oh dammit.
I hope you folks can still read that.
Alatham and At
In all of my physics and mathematics education I have never heard a physicist or mathematician refer to infinity as a number. The symbol for infinity has always been used as shorthand for prescribing a limit as a number increases without bounds. As Alatham has stated it is not a number.
What does discussion about the very “real” imaginary numbers and infinity have to do with this silly little gawd argument anyhow? It’s just plane rubbish and childish. Not even Phreekdum is here to defend it.
alatham,
My previous post was to What. The one following it was addressed to you – I apologize for the confusion (I forgot to address it and you posted something before I was complete with the first).
This was for the sake of conjecture, nothing more. I merely attempted to make a point.
I was making the same argument that you are – infinity is an idea, not a number. There are a handful of equations where it is treated as if it were a number (hence the symbol ∞). My point was that its behavior isn’t the same as a “number” though when used in an equation it certainly seems like is.
A fourier transform is an abstraction of reality as well. I was merely pointing out that
When reading what I’m saying, careful consideration should be given to the precise words I’ve used and weight given to the reason I used them.
I said:
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines accurate as “conforming exactly to truth or to a standard.”
Does the following make more sense?
This means that if you were to use ∞ as a hard concept that discussing the bounds and duration of the universe might be the only places you could actually be correct (the only ones I can currently conceive of). Discussion of everything else withing the universe seems so be a mere subset of the universe itself, and therefore less than ∞. I’m contending that every other use of it is as an abstract concept only.
As for the “fourier transform” it, too, is an abstraction of a concept. trying to apply ∞ as if it were a hard concept (an actual value) seems to completely fall apart. If we agree that it is commonly accepted that a frequency describes the movement of a particle as a wave actual frequencies are limited. Other properties of the universe interfere with this – for instance where matter density of an area of space becomes zero (the singularity at the center of a black hole) or conditions of absolute zero where matter stops moving completely. These conditions make a real “frequency” nil because particles cannot move in a wave if they cease motion entirely – limiting the use of ∞ within the fourier transform to an abstraction.
I’m not sure what you believe I am contending that ∞ is. I’ll make the assumption that we’re having a communication disconnect on the subject and nothing more.
Anyway abstract mathematics and abstract deities have one obvious difference: abstract mathematics has a use for an intelligent mind.
The logical converse of “if god is x then god exists” is “if god does not exist then god is not x”. But just because god is not x does not mean something else is. Perhaps nothing exists which is x.
To What: Infinities can be considered numbers, cardinal numbers. One particular infinity is the size (i.e., number of members) of the set of natural numbers. Another infinity is the size of the set of real numbers.
chicago
I am not trained in the intracies of number theory but …
The cardinal numbers are a set of numbers formed by the union of the set of natural numbers and the set of aleph numbers.
The aleph numbers (the infinite cardinals) are not equivalent to the infinity of algebra and analysis. Alephs measure set size while infinity is defined as a limit on the real number line.
Timmy forgot the ‘beating a dead horse’ argument.
Cry4
That horse decomposed along time ago. Believers now invoke its ghost.
Man, where was I when this was posted?
The argument, in its most elegant form, is a little more vexing than a word game. It even proved sticky for minds as enormous an Aquinas and Kant.
I believe Kant’s counterargument, that existence is not a predicate, simply killed it right out, but most folks are unaware of that as Kant is no longer standard reading. At least not for non-philosophers.
I don’t see what this has to do with. You are trying to insert the problem of evil into the ontological argument.
The argument is not circular by the way. rdmiller3′s point about the ambiguity of superlatives is right on, but existence is never assumed as other posters implied.
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (or as we called in in class, OAEG) hinges on the distinction between the greatness of a conceived entity versus that of an actual or existent entity. In as much as the author posits that a perfect being, whatever that may be, would be more perfect if it existed, rather than simply imagined, is a coherent argument.
The problem lies in the notion of existence as an attribute, or as Kant called it, a predicate. Moreover whether an attribute like existence can be guaranteed via logic alone. Now, closer to the previously mentioned but erroneous criticism that existence is assumed, Kant’s argument is that “Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing.” (Critique of pure reason)
By this he means that Being is not that same type of concept as other predicates, like “purplest”. For example, even though the statement “The current King of France is Bald” is false, it does not mean that its logical negation “The current king of France is not bald” implies the existence of any such entity as “the King of France”
For a great explanation of these concepts regarding sense, reference etc I would refer the interested party to Saul Kripke’s “Naming and Necessity” and the Causal Theory of Reference
Not only does my prior argument hold, that “god is not x” does not imply that “some being exists which IS x” …
But there’s something even more absurd here. If something does not exist, why should we compare it to something that does exist ?
I think we atheists need to change our tack. We need to employ ridicule. I’ve met many atheists who think religion is harmless, and some who actually think that it it beneficial and should be respected. I say we should all an absurdity an absurdity. The next time a theist tries to engage you in debate, stop yourself from participating and sling some ridicule. My current favorite is “Aren’t you too old to have an imaginary friend ?” I don’t know who came up with that, but it’s perfect. If you have other equivalents, I would like to know what they are.