tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post5632075575072136351..comments2024-02-26T03:25:06.471+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Ontological argument - some Religious Studies A2 notesStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55872115857781806552014-07-07T23:45:02.886+00:002014-07-07T23:45:02.886+00:00i can think up a unicorn.
I can think up God
From ...i can think up a unicorn.<br />I can think up God<br />From my experience of things that are "round" I can think of circle<br />a perfect form or mathematical model<br />of the real world<br />Man's need:<br />I am in the real (physical) world and it can make me despondent (natural disasters, death, loss,<br />pain, suffering,greed ,violence,enslavement of various kinds including drugs..)<br />I need very strongly an antidote to this.<br />we refer to hope and other mechanisms to give us power over despondency.God is one that seems to work.Homeopathy works on average for 3 weeks it seems.<br />Being in love lasts around 2 years.<br />as einstein said the problem is solved at a different level to the problem.<br />so create an abstract or metaphysical entity and endow it with all power goodness etc and you have solved the problem of despondency created by the physical world.<br />this may not work for mental illness such as depression as it is seems to be a problem in the abstract world too or at least is not amenable to reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30689511982358559602014-07-07T23:44:43.598+00:002014-07-07T23:44:43.598+00:00i can think up a unicorn.
I can think up God
From ...i can think up a unicorn.<br />I can think up God<br />From my experience of things that are "round" I can think of circle<br />a perfect form or mathematical model<br />of the real world<br />Man's need:<br />I am in the real (physical) world and it can make me despondent (natural disasters, death, loss,<br />pain, suffering,greed ,violence,enslavement of various kinds including drugs..)<br />I need very strongly an antidote to this.<br />we refer to hope and other mechanisms to give us power over despondency.God is one that seems to work.Homeopathy works on average for 3 weeks it seems.<br />Being in love lasts around 2 years.<br />as einstein said the problem is solved at a different level to the problem.<br />so create an abstract or metaphysical entity and endow it with all power goodness etc and you have solved the problem of despondency created by the physical world.<br />this may not work for mental illness such as depression as it is seems to be a problem in the abstract world too or at least is not amenable to reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82098386153797974312014-07-07T23:44:24.525+00:002014-07-07T23:44:24.525+00:00i can think up a unicorn.
I can think up God
From ...i can think up a unicorn.<br />I can think up God<br />From my experience of things that are "round" I can think of circle<br />a perfect form or mathematical model<br />of the real world<br />Man's need:<br />I am in the real (physical) world and it can make me despondent (natural disasters, death, loss,<br />pain, suffering,greed ,violence,enslavement of various kinds including drugs..)<br />I need very strongly an antidote to this.<br />we refer to hope and other mechanisms to give us power over despondency.God is one that seems to work.Homeopathy works on average for 3 weeks it seems.<br />Being in love lasts around 2 years.<br />as einstein said the problem is solved at a different level to the problem.<br />so create an abstract or metaphysical entity and endow it with all power goodness etc and you have solved the problem of despondency created by the physical world.<br />this may not work for mental illness such as depression as it is seems to be a problem in the abstract world too or at least is not amenable to reason.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24316857092111980392014-04-23T19:11:22.314+00:002014-04-23T19:11:22.314+00:00I am no philosopher, but it seems to me if we assi...I am no philosopher, but it seems to me if we assign subjective attributes to our constructs we are changing the parameters of the problem as defined by Anselm. It seems that any subjective attribute (color, texture, structure, etc.) is limited and thus a greater construct would be one that either does not have that attribute or has it to the degree of being beyond our ability to imagine. Thus the wibble to which there are none greater would be the wibble which has transended its own attributes. <br />I know we can debate whether "existing" is an attribute or not, but if it is, it probably isn't subjective. Therefore the wibble to which no greater wibble is would not be the wooble, but the transendent wibble which does exist. However, the wibble for which all of its attributes transend that which is greatest would mean that the wibble is the same as God. That wibble would have to be unity, of course, so to be the same as God means that we have proven God does exist and all we have done is to have changed the name from God to wibble.mwmovr40https://www.blogger.com/profile/03959597536643799995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82494449609527054582014-04-22T11:37:12.933+00:002014-04-22T11:37:12.933+00:00What you might also consider concerning ontologica...What you might also consider concerning ontological arguments not working is this.<br /><br />The LHC has pretty much destroyed the idea of supersymmetry...now, supersymmetry is essentially based on the ability to measure something, i.e. if we can't measure a physical thing we can't explain the existence of the universe.<br /><br />Several theories other than supersymmetry exist...one interesting one that is pertainent to the ontological argument is the "Dimensional Transmutation" theory....in this model model...mass say, is not measured (it can't be) but is instead simply calculated using numbers like "pi" and nothing else.<br /><br />I kinda like this theory because if one draws a grid of vertical and horizontal lines on a sheet of paper and tosses a needle say, onto the grid the average number of lines on the grid the needle crosses approaches pi....for examlpe...ten tosses gives one 3.15...<br /><br />You can do this experiment yourself...<br /><br />This would tend to leave open the idea that an ontological argument "could" work.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26269317096626195492014-04-22T11:26:32.288+00:002014-04-22T11:26:32.288+00:00Dr Law
The wibble wobble model essentially boils ...Dr Law<br /><br />The wibble wobble model essentially boils down to this:<br /><br />Is it possible for the human mind to think what is unthinkable?<br /><br />I mean, scientifically it has been demonstrated that chimps do in fact think...<br /><br />What is interesting here though is to ask the question:<br /><br />Can a chimp think about quantum physics?<br /><br />Quantum physics appears to exist in the world and yet a chimp would not be able to think about it.<br /><br />Isn't this state of affairs with the chimp similar to the your wibble wobble model?Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72331117679457117502014-04-09T08:28:36.863+00:002014-04-09T08:28:36.863+00:00"We can know from the comfort of our armchair..."We can know from the comfort of our armchairs that all triangles have 3 sides". I.e. for every x, if x is a triangle then x has three sides, which is the same as the negative existential statement "it is not the case that for some x, x is a triangle and x does <i>not</i> have three sides". <br /><br />Likewise, the negative existential statement "it is not the case that for some x, x is an existing F and x does <i>not</i> exist" is true. But this (since it is a negative existential) only proves that non-existing Fs do not exist, not that some existing F exists. <br /><br />“Kant’s argument: first imagine a pile of coins; now imagine this pile existing.” I understand the second part, i.e. imagining that for some x, x is a pile of coins. I’m not getting the first part. What is the difference between imagining a pile of coins and entertaining the proposition “some x, x is a pile of coins”? Can we imagine anything other than a proposition, and if we can’t, doesn’t the proposition have to be existential? So there is no difference between the first and the second imagination. But this is not what Kant appears to be saying. He appears to accept that there can be non-propositional imaginings, i.e. as well as imagining <i>that</i> an A is B, we can just imagine an A, and then he claims that there is no difference between imagining an A, and imagining an <i>existing</i> A. So his argument has psychological, rather than logical grounds. <br /><br />But I question whether we can simply imagine an A. We can only imagine or entertain that some A is B, or C, or D, i.e. imagine or entertain some <i>proposition</i>. And if that’s the case, it follows by logic that there is no difference between imagining that some A is B, and imagining that some <i>existing</i> A is B. “Some buttercups are blue” means the same as “blue buttercups exist”.<br /><br />Perhaps my claim that we cannot imagine except through some proposition is a psychological claim? Not sure.<br />Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32780158138253440422014-04-09T08:04:41.214+00:002014-04-09T08:04:41.214+00:00"The general consensus amongst philosophers i..."The general consensus amongst philosophers is that ontological arguments do not work."<br /><br />True IMO but statements like "there is a consensus among X's that p is false" are notoriously hard to establish. <br /><br />Also true IMO that there is no consensus about <i>why</i> ontological arguments do not work. I once had a long and inconclusive argument with a set theorist about whether mathematical sets exist. His argument was on the same lines: without sets, we have no mathematics, we can conceive of mathematics, ergo sets exist. Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62627942864252554482014-04-06T14:45:23.230+00:002014-04-06T14:45:23.230+00:00Hi Stephen,
Two quick questions. Firstly, if Kant...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Two quick questions. Firstly, if Kant is wrong about using existence as a predicate (which, as you suggest, he may well be) does Descartes' argument succeed? I think you may be right about rejecting Kant's objection (it seems to me that existence can be used as a predicate, although one that functions differently to others).<br /><br />Secondly, doesn't Anselm attempt to start by defining God in "wibble" terms and then conclude he must be more of a "wooble"? Descartes argues that God must be a "wooble" form of a "wibble". Anselm argues that if God is defined in a certain way then we must conclude that such a being exists (ie. he adds the existence rather than starting with it).<br /><br />Hope that makes some sense!Michael Bigghttp://www.mdbigg.me.uk/blognoreply@blogger.com