The Black Vault

Does logic exist?

There are other issues with the ontological argument in addition to what has been mentioned so far. The first is that the concept of a maximally great being is impossible. For instance, a maximally great being is often cited as having infinite power, and is also infinitely just. But an infinitely just being by definition could not commit an act of injustice, which means his power is limited, and he cannot be all-powerful.

Another issue is that "greater" is never defined. What does it mean to say a God that exists is greater than a God that does not? What is the measure of greatness?

Also, as Kant said, existence is not a property, instead, it is the necessary requirement for a being to have properties, so existence cannot be coherently compared to non-existence as a measure of greatness. I also have issue with those who say God is "everything" saying God "exists".

Disson8or asks whether logic exists, which is a good question, but does "existence" exist? If God is existence, does it make logical sense to say he "exists"? Maybe, but to me that seems like a strange statement to make. It seems like this "God", rather than being a "being", is more of a description for the being of other things, making "God" just a definition, not an actual entity that exists in reality.

If that makes sense...

Maximal greatness is not impossible...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-the ... e-question

The atheist has to maintain that the idea of maximal greatness is broadly logically incoherent, like the idea of a married bachelor. But the idea of maximal greatness seems perfectly coherent and therefore possible—which entails that maximal greatness is exemplified!

Perfection is great and all, but eternity is a looong time to be limiting oneself to self-imposed greatness.

Indeed, some people have no problem with there being an infinity of possible universes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe

Programming the Universe is a 2006 popular science book by Seth Lloyd, professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The book proposes that the universe is a quantum computer, and advances in the understanding of physics may come from viewing entropy as a phenomenon of information...

There are also logical arguments for the possibility that we are living in a computer simulation...

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

Either the universe/multiverse created itself, or something created the universe. To us that Creator would be the equivalent of a God-like Being.

Khanster, you're not really addressing my attempted refutations, you're just asserting that I'm wrong and sending me off to a link.

How is being forced to act justly in accordance with being perfectly just not a limitation making omnipotence impossible?

Disson8or, I had a think about your question as to whether logic exists, and I think technically not. Isn't asking "does logic exist?" a bit like asking "does eating a cake exist?". What I mean by that, is logic seems to be something humans do as a consequence of the existence of our brains, and a Universe that acts in a consistent cause and effect manner.

So I would say logic does not exist as such, but it is something our brains do due to the nature of the Universe. Computer programming for instance does not exist either, but humans are able to do something they refer to as "computer programming" due to the existence of computers, keyboards, our hands, and our brains. If you take humans out of the equation, there is no concept of computer programming, or indeed of logic, but the Universe will still act in accordance to the same physical laws.

Logic may also just be a description of something else, as the God of the pantheists seems to be - in the latter case a description of everything that exists brought under a single umbrella term.

Although I could be shown wrong here, and I'd be interested in yours and others thoughts, at1 in particular.

humphreys wrote:Khanster, you're not really addressing my attempted refutations, you're just asserting that I'm wrong and sending me off to a link.

I am going to assume that what you mean by maximal greatness being impossible is that the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are logically impossible, but, they are not logically incoherent concepts.

Our actions are logically prior to God's foreknowledge, even though God's foreknowledge is chronologically prior to our actions. God's omniscience does not determine our actions, thus free will exists, and omniscience is logically possible.



Omnipotence is not defined as the ability to do that which is logically absurd and is not a logically incoherent concept, it is logically possible.

That is not the example I used at all. I said it twice now, if a maximally great being is perfectly just, then he cannot commit an act of injustice. An act of injustice is logically possible, but it is a limitation of a perfect being.

Therefore a perfectly just being cannot be omnipotent, it must be limited to only just acts. Ergo, the concept of a maximally great being is an impossible one.

You told me I have a problem with comprehending the complicated ontological argument, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend this really simple objection to maximal greatness?

Khan seems to be arguing in favor of a God limited by human reasoning. Can God do the impossible? No, says Khan, but that doesn't invalidate omnipotence. It just limits God to "the possible".

How does Khan know what is possible and what isn't, though?

Similarly, he argues free will can exist within God's omniscience. God, Khan argues, knows all the possibilities without knowing which exact possibilities will be chosen.

Khan is basically anthropomorphizing God, projecting his own limitations of thought and own chain of reasoning onto a being that is in its broadest definition limitless.

By defining God in terms of what Khan can understand, he gets to have it both ways. He limits God but rationalizes his impositions as necessary for logical coherence (as Khan understands it).

Please feel free to correct any misunderstandings I may have made, Khan.

Not even that works in my example though. There is nothing logically or otherwise impossible in commiting acts of injustice. But a perfectly just God is clearly limited to only just acts.

This God cannot do something a mere mortal does every day. If this God is unable to do something I am able to do, how can he be omnipotent? Seems like an epic fail to me.