Ontological arguments, supreme gods and the law of non-contradiction
There are several ontological arguments that seek to infer the existence of a (creator/supreme) God through pure reason and intuition.
The God Delusion talks about the ontological argument of St. Anselm and its absurdity in as far as it takes no evidence into consideration, nothing “feeds in from the outside world” (I paraphrase Dawkins). I take issue with many ontological arguments on a different ground; the law of non-contradiction.
If X can only be yes or no, and Y can only be yes or no, but X and Y can not both be yes, then we have monotheism’s (and in general theism’s) problem with the law of non-contradiction summed up nicely. Monotheistic Godhood, or at least any pantheon where there is an a priori creator God, is like a chair with only room for one person to sit; all contenders for the chair can not be on the chair (e.g. they are capable of sitting on the floor), but only one contender can sit on the chair at any one time.
To say that Zeus and Odin are both sitting on the chair in such a circumstance breaks the law of non-contradiction.
Either Zeus or Odin have to be not on the chair, so to state that they are both on the chair at the same time, at least one of them has to be asserted to be both on and off the chair at the same time. To borrow from Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction is summed up by saying “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.“
But back to St. Anselm. His argument put simply went along the lines of;
1) God is by definition greater than anything that can be imagined.
2) Existence in reality (ontological) is greater than existence in imagination.
3) God must exist in reality because then God wouldn’t be greater than imagination, therefore God exists.
This is absurd for the reason Dawkins states in the God Delusion. Of course, there are updated versions of the ontological argument (which also suffer the same absurdity that nothing “feeds in from the outside world”) but also, they suffer the problem of non-contradition.
If you accept the ontological argument as valid on face value, you have to apply the syllogism equally (or otherwise confess to being unreasonable and irrational). The ontological argument argues for a God greater than imagination (i.e. a divine creator), but this could be Zeus, Ptah, Odin, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and others.
While St. Anselm didn’t intend it as a proof for the contenders, his terms do not in anyway exclude these others and by definition supports them in addition to the Abrahamic God, hence defining all the others into ontological existence as well (if you accept the faulty reasoning to begin with). Of course, Zeus, Ptah, Odin, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Abrahamic God are all supreme gods that are mutually exclusive with each other.
Only one of them can have supreme Godhood at any one time yet when the syllogism of the ontological argument is applied logically, it asserts the existence of all of these Gods. I’ve listed five Gods, and at least four of them by way of the ontological argument have to be both on the floor and on the chair (of Godhood) at the same time.
You can increase these numbers (not that it matters) by applying Anselm’s ontological argument to any other supremes you can find. Heck, you can just make one (or a thousand) up and assert that they are “by definition greater than anything that can be imagined“!
Fatuous.
This isn’t a disproof of God I should say. What it is is a critical rejoinder to ontological arguments; if the posited syllogism also supports an additional supreme that is mutually exclusive with the supreme originally being posited, then the “proof” breaks the law of non-contradiction. The “proof” is an invalid argument.
This is true of the simplified version of St Anselm’s argument, and the more sophisticated* versions (all of which equally “prove” Gods mutually exclusive with the one intended to be “proven”).
~ Bruce
* Yes, I am alleging sophistry. Tax-payer funded sophistry in some cases.
PS. You may also notice that in defining God’s characteristics, Anselm by inference asserts God’s existence as one of his premises (“God is…”) and then concludes that God exists (God is); that’s a vicious circle folks.
Tangential, but true believers generally don’t understand logic.
Alas.
I am reasonably well-versed in the theology of Vedanta and Hinduism. Bhakti yoga is considered to be the top-most practice if one desires to know God (as opposed to merely arguing for the existence or otherwise of a supreme God).
Bhakti means devotion. While there are many injunctions and regulations contained in the practice, they only serve to enhance the development of devotion through service to God. Bhaktas argue that God cannot be approached by analysis and logic, or by empirical processes. In other words, the existence of God is experienced beyond the perview of the mind and senses, and even intelligence. The simple analogy is that you cannot know the taste of the honey in a jar by licking the outside. You need to open the jar and get stuck into it.
On a more technical level, Vedanta argues that God’s existence is purely spiritual and utterly non-material. It is beyond the material world and all it contains. The material world is regarded as a temporary manifestation from the spiritual world. The spiritual world is considered causeless and eternal, without cause, beginning or end. It just is. The only way of knowing or attaining the spiritual world is through various kinds of practices, and even then, only by the grace of God, which is said to be particularly abundant if the practitioner develops devotion.
It’s a rough thumbnail, but having a scientific mind, I have always found this world view appealing. In quantum mechanics, astrophysics, molecular biochemistry etc scientists develop all kinds of descriptions and explanations for the origin of matter, time, energy, the universe, life and even consciousness. And no matter how compelling the argument, these ideas ultimately remain unknowable as reality. They are models. We cannot experience the Big Bang or a black hole. We will never really know. We accept the models because they are feasible. From my own study of Vedanta I would conclude that its models of the origin of matter, time, the universe, life, consciousness are extremely elaborate, detailed, and given that we can never truly know, they have their own compelling internal plausibility. It is certainly a more optimistic and interesting outlook than the nihilistic material science one. So it comes down to a matter of choice, disposition, experience, conditioning, and inclination, and if it is true, even karma (or reaction to previous actions).
My own conclusion is that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be resolved intellectually but only experientially and individually, and for the seeker it is a long slow dedicated process – indeed a lifetime – and you may still not know when you die. So it’s fairly pointless people going hammer and tongs at each other trying to win the argument. It will never be resolved by words. I would argue that it becomes a matter of faith – either in the existence or non-existence of God – faith in one’s belief system.
Disclaimer: I have previously written on the unfortunate tendency of human beings to become convinced they know the truth when in fact they do not, and try to inflict it on others (I would equally apply this to rabid free market economists). Even if we accept that there are genuine spiritual paths to enlightenment, religious organisations are often populated by religious bureaucrats rather than the spiritually enlightened and these bureaucrats may actually not have any spiritual realisation at all (George Pell, anyone?). This usually leads to behaviour such as persecuting non-believers and declaring war on heathens and infidel. I do not endorse such practices.
Doesn’t this touch on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics and the ambiguous nature of energy as particulate and wavelike? Of course Eastern philosophies often accommodate the concept of something existing and not existing at the same time. Maybe it’s more a Western thing, to be monominded
I think it’s only applicable in terms of the mutually exclusive, whereas the states of Schrodinger’s cat before observation aren’t in a mutually exclusive state. In this case, the two states don’t actually contradict. Now if Schrodinger’s cat was in two states after someone looked in the box, then we’d have a problem.
Not that I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics; not parsimonious enough compared to transactionalism.
Actually, I’ve always kinda admired the stunning level of chutzpah of the ontological argument. I’m not sure if anyone has ever actually believed in it – plenty of Christians have tried to refute it (St Thomas, Kant).
a)The Jungian Theory of Syncronicity, is a clear demonstration that
everything in this Universe is predeterminated.The Heisenberg’s
Indetermination Principle comes from the human ignorance
(we cannot see the reality in its totality)…so only an ignorant,can believe in Free Will.
b)Matter is a complex form of energy; Energy
is a complex form of Information; Information…is God’s Thought.
The Universe is God…so we are parts of God.
c) Every kind of “human desire”,is followed by a Chain of “Electron wave
functions collapses” (in agreement with Schrödinger’s Theory) which will not
follow ours expectations! …So the paradox is: if we want to get hold of
something,we shouldn’t have to search for it. (Men stay still,and the mountains move…).
A curiosity: The connection between the electron
wave-function and the human intent has to do with the fact that
experiments have proved that the intentions of the operator of a radio
transmission facility, directly and instrumentably alter the
“footprint”, the radiation pattern of the antenna. It has also been
shown that the intent of the human being causes a divergence in
the quantum field (which is the information field).
Any divergence in the information field results in
alterations of “probability”, which directly influences
the outcome of any system which contains any element
of chance, directly influencing the resulting observable
events. (See the work of Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/).
Notes:
“In agreement with Henri Bergson’s thought (see the last pages of “Entre
le temps et l’éternité” of Ilya Prigogine ,Librairie Arthème Fayard,Paris),
we can accept the idea of a “Space-time absolute value”, where
all the “Space-time relativ values” are incorporated (in agreement with Einstein’s
theory of relativity); the conclusion is that there is only one Real
Matrix of the Universe…so every other possible /potential parallel
“event/dimension/future” it’s only a human illusion.
All the other parallel Universes (or Multi-Universes,as Phd. Everett said)
can only exist in our minds…perhaps whilst dreaming.
Unfortunately several physicists are conditioned by Heisenberg’s Principle of
Indetermination…which, as you will know, is enough explain the
existence of Free Will.
Well, the Principle of Indetermination is hardly bound by the limits of
observations made by the human brain.
(We cannot see the reality in its totality…Bohm taught).
If we accept the idea that our Universe really is God,well,in a infinite
Caos of Energy too, there must to be a logical (but not for human
brain),exact,specific,and perfectly organized …Plan.
How many significant (important) coincidences can happen to a person in his
life,living in a unorganizated and stupid Universe?…I think no-one.
Every synchronism in our life, is like an open-eyes-dream (Jung
taught)…and we can thank the fine intelligence of our Universe…if
they happen.”
Fausto Intilla
(Inventor-scientific divulger)
http://www.oloscience.com
The Jungian Theory of Syncronicity, is a clear demonstration that
everything in this Universe is predeterminated.
What evidence supports this?
Information…is God’s Thought.
How do you know that?
If we accept the idea that our Universe really is God
On what grounds ought we to ought we to accept that idea? For all your handwaving, you haven’t provided any evidence of God’s existence. You’ve merely asserted it.
(And forgive me if I detect a whiff of Argument by Prestigious Jargon here)