Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:21 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:18 pm The greatest exists for any instance at any given time. The greatest imaginable, the absolute, does not exist. I had to be more precise.

Then your mindset is incompatible with naive set theory. In order to avoid Russel's paradox - the "Greatest" (universal set) was discarded.

Because we are bounded rationalists whatever is claimed to be "The Greatest" - I can simply imagine two of them...

If God is the greatest, then two Gods are greater. And If you can imagine one God, you sure can imagine two!

The whole point of Anselm's argument is to establish an ontological upper bound. The line where reality ends and imagination begins.

My point is that the upper bound does not exist.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:27 pm So God is not greatest imaginable again, the absolute.

If you are a type theorist then:
1. The Universe == The Greatest Imaginable Thing.
2. The Universe is a singleton, so you cannot argue that 2 * Universe > 1 * Universe. There is only one universe! The very notion of 2* universe is nonsense.
3. If God == The Greatest Imaginable Thing AND Universe == Greatest Imaginable Thing
Then God == The Universe

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:30 pm My point is that the upper bound does not exist.

That's just a choice. You can say that it does, or you can say that it doesn't.

Infinities are unwieldy. I prefer bounded rationality (but will happily cheat for pragmatic reasons)

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:31 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:27 pm So God is not greatest imaginable again, the absolute.

If you are a type theorist then:
1. The Universe == The Greatest Imaginable Thing.
2. The Universe is a singleton, so you cannot argue that 2 * Universe > 1 * Universe. There is only one universe! The very notion of 2* universe is nonsense.
3. If God == The Greatest Imaginable Thing AND Universe == Greatest Imaginable Thing
Then God == The Universe

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

I agree with what you said but God in this way is not a person but the whole.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:33 pm I agree with what you said but God in this way is not a person but the whole.

It doesn't matter if God is a person or a photon.

Even if God is a photon it is necessarily inside The Universe. By definition.

For if God was transcendental then The Greatest Thing Imaginable is not The Universe.

The Greatest Thing Imaginable is The Universe + 1 photon. That contradicts the axiom.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:30 pm My point is that the upper bound does not exist.

That's just a choice. You can say that it does, or you can say that it doesn't.

Infinities are unwieldy. I prefer bounded rationality (but will happily cheat for pragmatic reasons)

I already argued against bounded rationality. If the universe is bounded then it is bounded by something else, etc.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:37 pm I already argued against bounded rationality. If the universe is bounded then it is bounded by something else, etc.

Good luck making the mathematics work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:33 pm I agree with what you said but God in this way is not a person but the whole.

It doesn't matter if God is a person or a photon.

Even if God is a photon it is necessarily inside The Universe. By definition.

For if God was transcendental then The Greatest Thing Imaginable is not The Universe.

The Greatest Thing Imaginable is The Universe + 1 photon. That contradicts the axiom.

It matters. Why bother and call the universe God?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:39 pm It matters. Why bother and call the universe God?

Because synonyms.

Or because cultural disconnect evolving epistemology in isolation. That's how languages emerge.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:39 pm It matters. Why bother and call the universe God?

Because synonyms.

I see.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:40 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:39 pm It matters. Why bother and call the universe God?

Because synonyms.

I see.

Humans have been fighting over language/synonyms for 2000 years.

We are that stupid...

My synonym is bigger than yours!

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:59 pm This is the direct observation that in math the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.

St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

Since the ontological God is impossible to be empirical-rationally real, there is no question of 'God exists as real' nor 'God does not exist' because that is a non-starter, i.e. moot.

Why the idea of God emerges onto human consciousness is due to the compulsion of some terrible psychological forces driven by a real existential crisis.
The idea of God exists is only useful for psychological reasons and nothing else.

The greatest exists for any instance at any given time. The greatest imaginable, the absolute, does not exist. I had to be more precise.

Nope.
Logically, it is always possible for something greater than whatever is the greatest to exists, note infinite regression.
To stop infinite regression one will have to introduce the idea of the ontological God, i.e.
God is an entity than which NO greater can exists.

But as I had proven, the imperative ontological God is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:20 am Nope.
Logically, it is always possible for something greater than whatever is the greatest to exists, note infinite regression.
To stop infinite regression one will have to introduce the idea of the ontological G̶o̶d̶Universe, i.e.
G̶o̶d̶Universe is an entity than which NO greater can exists.

But as I had proven, the imperative ontological G̶o̶d̶Universe is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

I fixed it for you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am
St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

Since the ontological God is impossible to be empirical-rationally real, there is no question of 'God exists as real' nor 'God does not exist' because that is a non-starter, i.e. moot.

Why the idea of God emerges onto human consciousness is due to the compulsion of some terrible psychological forces driven by a real existential crisis.
The idea of God exists is only useful for psychological reasons and nothing else.

The greatest exists for any instance at any given time. The greatest imaginable, the absolute, does not exist. I had to be more precise.

Nope.
Logically, it is always possible for something greater than whatever is the greatest to exists, note infinite regression.
To stop infinite regression one will have to introduce the idea of the ontological God, i.e.
God is an entity than which NO greater can exists.

But as I had proven, the imperative ontological God is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

My point was about a reality which is bounded. I however think that the reality is unbound. So, here I accept my error in the previous post.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:18 pm
The greatest exists for any instance at any given time. The greatest imaginable, the absolute, does not exist. I had to be more precise.

Nope.
Logically, it is always possible for something greater than whatever is the greatest to exists, note infinite regression.
To stop infinite regression one will have to introduce the idea of the ontological God, i.e.
God is an entity than which NO greater can exists.

But as I had proven, the imperative ontological God is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

My point was about a reality which is bounded. I however think that the reality is unbound. So, here I accept my error in the previous post.

Reality is a "thing" -whatever that is, as such it cannot be unbounded.
Unboundedness if assigned to anything, e.g. reality in this case is an impossibility.
Thus Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Literally, it mean one need to just shut-up and resist the tendency to say something [thus within bound] on this point.

I have argued this tendency is actually psychological within your own mind rather than there is an unbounded reality or the Absolute.

Note there are those within spirituality who cultivate artful skills to manage and modulate such a psychological tendency and thus free themselves of this burdensome tendency/yearning to reify the impossible.