The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Justintruth » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:45 pm

There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing.

Then one must understand how ontological experiencing and natural experiencing occur, again in one’s own experiencing. Specifically, one must understand how temporal symmetries result in conservation (Noether) and how certain conserved quantities, temporal symmetries that we can loosely call structure, occur in nature (what is). Then one must understand how temporal symmetries are assigned ontological experiencing through the introduction of nothingness into the “plenum of being” (Sartre, Parmenides) and how this nothing that establishes boundaries and excludes experiencing result in objects in cognition, in imagination, in perception, in geometry and in the physical sciences as well as other areas of experiencing. Further one must understand the nature and ontology of action and force. Again, the profound nature of symmetries asserts itself and the evolution of ensembles of objects is constrained to the “physically possible”. Possible and probable become more precisely interpreted as notions of action are assigned, ultimately, in a kind of quantum Bayesianism that is, through those interpretations of nature infected with ontology, “causality”. The “potency” of “act” is constructed and its ability to create facts established as logical set theoretic statements. One must understand how, once action is constructed, this ontological experiencing itself is noticed to be dependent on natural events. And we have our acting. To put it clearly, a gunshot to the head affects both natural and ontological experiencing, and sex, a physical act, can result in an experiencing whether through coitus, a petri dish, or presumably in the future, an AI lab assembly. Experiencing itself is then assigned as a property of a subclass of the structural assemblies within the ensemble we call the universe. The overall roll of information in nature becomes determined and the notion of a “survival advantage” and the structural evolution of life is understood. In this one must conjecture, for we do not have the science, on how knowing is caused. Neural networks of some kind perform processing of signals and can, in and of themselves, confer survival advantage to structures and be described as “intelligent zombie”. The emergence of consciousness, may be doubtable in some absolute sense that calls into question all of science as being falsifiable (Popper) but the fact of experiencing cannot be doubted for the doubt itself would resolve the issue (Descartes), and there is the correspondence principle used so effectively by Einstein – new theories must correspond with the results of old experiments. If we further conjecture that the random evolution of consciousness conferred some kind of survival advantage then we see that three things are required to be produced: 1) A desire to survive, 2) an ability to influence survival advantage, 3) a desire to reproduce. We can see how mystical ontological experiencing is an aspect of the production of the desire to survive implemented as a love of Being experienced full on as experience of the Tao, St Paul-like, or St Teresa- like, or in some dark night of the soul perhaps, but also in a simple love of being in the sun, or on a beach, or by a stream. From pleasure to ecstasy the patterns engender experience that “motivates”. Desiring is understood. This same also is associated with sexual attraction and romantic love as well as the darlingness of our children all of which together result in an urge to act to preserve the existence of the physical structures that engender their experiencing. What parent will choose to save the foot of their child at the cost of their head or fail to save the head of their child at the cost of their foot? This desire is coupled with the objective experiencing and the experience of causal structure to confer “survival advantage” whether interpreted causally, or if one wants to accept Hume, remaining as temporal symmetry of the pattern with action merely supervenient.

So, we come down to the “proofs”. Now it is clear that a proof based on the meaning of the term is impossible to deny. It fails only by accessibility of the premises as no one who has failed to experience God will be able to know what experiencing one is describing and so also has no access to the infallibility of a description of the necessity inherent. Perhaps there is some wiggle room here if ontology itself falls. One cannot establish such fundamental experiencing further.

However, the association of “greatness” or “goodness” with Being as known ultimately only through the transcendent experiencing of Satori or whatever name your culture calls it, does not share this necessity. Is it accidental? Is it part of our mammalian heritage possibly? That is the question. And further is it someone? But accidental properties cannot be assigned to pure Being. The necessity of being, if it is transcended forms a contingent fact which is in need itself of founding, and so we have infinite regress or else, God, and then another created god in the form of a separate creature. If God has any unnecessary properties, then god, at least those properties are not the Creator but rather a creature.

However, the experiencing of this creature could be solely coincident with ontological experiencing in a given organism or class.

In a way you can ask whether, assuming some insect or other “Borg” or machine becomes ontologically aware are they necessarily aware of the Good of God or is the necessity of that Good relative only to our mammalian biology and “dis-connectable” in a neurology not doped with hormones perhaps.

So, the “perfection” on which this proof rests must pass the test of necessity. That is its biggest problem. It looks like this perfection is in fact the origin of all human desire or love possibly with certain exceptions having to do with food and noxious poisons for example.

To put it simply: If the greatest good is not to be then the proof fails miserably. The proof assumes that the greatest good is to exist. This is consistent with our mammalian heritage, our love of our children, our spouses, God, a fine day etc. But is it necessary? We will have to ask the intelligent insects (...alternatively we can ask certain politicians...;) )

“There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” (Camus).

The answering of this is like a worm in the heart of the proof.

surreptitious57
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
A perfect ontological God can certainly be perceived to exist but could such a God exist in reality
Because such a being could not be separate from reality rather part of it just like everything else

Anything perfect can be conceived by the mind but it cannot be translated to reality because it imposes restrictions
Something as simple as a perfect circle cannot exist in reality and a perfect God is far more complex by comparison
I would want to be more specific with the term perceived or even conceived
Whatever is perceived as perception cannot be as generally accepted within this definition
  • Perception ( from the Latin perceptio ) is the organization identification and interpretation of sensory
    information
    in order to represent and understand the presented information
Thus I would state a perfect ontological god can only be thought of a philosophical idea [ in the Plato sense ]

Idea is this perspective refer to a thought that is empty of any empirical and experiential elements
Perception is simply the ability to think of a hypothetical scenario capable of also existing in physical reality
It does not automatically have to be grounded in sensory information but can come purely from imagination
So whether a perception is actually possible is not at all relevant because it can be based on said imagination and nothing else
Even things which are impossible in reality can still be perceived to exist because perception is not limited to just the possible
Also perception is a sub set of thought because all perception is thought but not all thought is perception so they are not entirely separate

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:46 pm

I've seen the word perfect being used a lot lately.

What model of perfection are you talking about in this thread?
From what perspective do you people see perfection?
What constitutes a perfect god versus an imperfect one?
Is perfection simply an ever relative place-holder, unquantifiable?
Is perfection simply an ever varying concept particular only to any particular humans imagination? Thus simply being myriad human ideologies.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:39 am

Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:45 pm
There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing.
....
Generally ontology is the study of 'being'.

In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God.

Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:45 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:46 pm
I've seen the word perfect being used a lot lately.

What model of perfection are you talking about in this thread?
From what perspective do you people see perfection?
What constitutes a perfect god versus an imperfect one?
Is perfection simply an ever relative place-holder, unquantifiable?
Is perfection simply an ever varying concept particular only to any particular humans imagination? Thus simply being myriad human ideologies.
There are two main categories of perfection, i.e.
  • 1. Relative or conditional perfection
    2. Absolute totally-unconditional perfection
1. Relative or conditional perfection
Such perfection is relative or conditioned upon some framework, e.g. a perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test is conditioned upon a predetermined answers, say by a teacher who set the objective test.
A perfect score in sports say 10/10 in say gymnastic, or diving is a conditional perfection.
In general whenever the term 'perfect' is used in relation to humans and things in general, they are relative perfections.

2. Absolute totally-unconditional perfection
Absolute totally-unconditional perfection is a default attribute of an ontological God which is totally unconditional.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Justintruth » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:59 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:39 am
Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:45 pm
There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing.
....
Generally ontology is the study of 'being'.

In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God.

Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general.
As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibility of that "being" word meaning not "some particular being" but "being itself" - a kind of use of the term as a gerund in a sense. (Not "a" being but "being" itself as Heidegger would say)

That ontological experience of "being as being" leads to the religious experience of god including the greatness of god and even the superlative nature of that greatness in religious ecstatic union.

My post basically challenges this notion. It admits the ecstatic nature of the experiencing we have of god, from where this proof originates and to which it wishes its readers to become aware, but it challenges that experience, in a sense, as "too small a sample size" because it has all been ontological experiencing all done by humans. There are credible arguments that suggest that such goodness might be associated in our experiencing by the the molecular biology that creates it as an ACCIDENT (in the medieval sense of accident not as something that happens without purpose, something opposed to an essential property - an accidental property) not as something essential or necessary for the nature of the thing to remain what it is.

That accident may have provided sufficient survival advantage such that it is embedded in all individuals that survive of our species. If the greatness of the greatest being is accidental then it cannot be ontological. That is my hurdle. A proof is needed that greatness is essential to being not accidental.

It seems to be true that in humans, that should they line all their types of experiencing up in a row sorted by "greatness" then the "greatest" would "necessarily be". It would "necessarily be" as it would be the ecstatic ontological experience of being as described in Satori etc, the one related to our reproductive system and capable of a kind of orgasmic experience of being as a relationship. That that must exist is rooted in its association, for that particular being in ontology as the experiencing of being as being. But this may be accidental to our species, or possibly to mammals in the evolution of our experiencing of love. If it is then the "greatest being" may be a kind of categorical error with "greatness" not possibly a predicate of "being as being".

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am

Justintruth wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:39 am
Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:45 pm
There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing.
....
Generally ontology is the study of 'being'.

In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God.

Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general.
As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibility of that "being" word meaning not "some particular being" but "being itself" - a kind of use of the term as a gerund in a sense. (Not "a" being but "being" itself as Heidegger would say)

That ontological experience of "being as being" leads to the religious experience of god including the greatness of god and even the superlative nature of that greatness in religious ecstatic union.

My post basically challenges this notion. It admits the ecstatic nature of the experiencing we have of god, from where this proof originates and to which it wishes its readers to become aware, but it challenges that experience, in a sense, as "too small a sample size" because it has all been ontological experiencing all done by humans. There are credible arguments that suggest that such goodness might be associated in our experiencing by the the molecular biology that creates it as an ACCIDENT (in the medieval sense of accident not as something that happens without purpose, something opposed to an essential property - an accidental property) not as something essential or necessary for the nature of the thing to remain what it is.

That accident may have provided sufficient survival advantage such that it is embedded in all individuals that survive of our species. If the greatness of the greatest being is accidental then it cannot be ontological. That is my hurdle. A proof is needed that greatness is essential to being not accidental.

It seems to be true that in humans, that should they line all their types of experiencing up in a row sorted by "greatness" then the "greatest" would "necessarily be". It would "necessarily be" as it would be the ecstatic ontological experience of being as described in Satori etc, the one related to our reproductive system and capable of a kind of orgasmic experience of being as a relationship. That that must exist is rooted in its association, for that particular being in ontology as the experiencing of being as being. But this may be accidental to our species, or possibly to mammals in the evolution of our experiencing of love. If it is then the "greatest being" may be a kind of categorical error with "greatness" not possibly a predicate of "being as being".
Your point is off the OP's in relation to the definition of the ontological God, i.e. as in stated in the OP;
  • St. Anselm;
    The ontological God is a,
    "being than which no greater can be conceived".
    -wiki

    Descartes;
    He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
    -wiki
Note God is defined as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".

The above meant, whatever "greatest" one claim one's God, there is still something greater and the ontological God is the God than which no greater can be conceived.

If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am

  • St. Anselm;
    The ontological God is a,
    "being than which no greater can be conceived".
    -wiki

    Descartes;
    He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
    -wiki
Note God is defined as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".

The above meant, whatever "greatest" one claim one's God, there is still something greater and the ontological God is the God than which no greater can be conceived.

If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
All of the above knowledge is mentation as perceived by the perceiving mind. Only 'things' are perceived, not the mind.

The perceiving mind cannot be perceived because that would turn the mind into a 'thing' perceived.
Illusory 'things' cannot perceive or negate themselves. And that's exactly how God designed reality to be.

Trying to reach beyond the mind to something greater using the mind is counter productive, like trying to wash away blood using blood.

There is no thing greater or lesser than totality now in which all things are seamlessly interwoven into the whole that is totality itself.



.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Justintruth » Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am
Justintruth wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:39 am

Generally ontology is the study of 'being'.

In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God.

Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general.
As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibility of that "being" word meaning not "some particular being" but "being itself" - a kind of use of the term as a gerund in a sense. (Not "a" being but "being" itself as Heidegger would say)

That ontological experience of "being as being" leads to the religious experience of god including the greatness of god and even the superlative nature of that greatness in religious ecstatic union.

My post basically challenges this notion. It admits the ecstatic nature of the experiencing we have of god, from where this proof originates and to which it wishes its readers to become aware, but it challenges that experience, in a sense, as "too small a sample size" because it has all been ontological experiencing all done by humans. There are credible arguments that suggest that such goodness might be associated in our experiencing by the the molecular biology that creates it as an ACCIDENT (in the medieval sense of accident not as something that happens without purpose, something opposed to an essential property - an accidental property) not as something essential or necessary for the nature of the thing to remain what it is.

That accident may have provided sufficient survival advantage such that it is embedded in all individuals that survive of our species. If the greatness of the greatest being is accidental then it cannot be ontological. That is my hurdle. A proof is needed that greatness is essential to being not accidental.

It seems to be true that in humans, that should they line all their types of experiencing up in a row sorted by "greatness" then the "greatest" would "necessarily be". It would "necessarily be" as it would be the ecstatic ontological experience of being as described in Satori etc, the one related to our reproductive system and capable of a kind of orgasmic experience of being as a relationship. That that must exist is rooted in its association, for that particular being in ontology as the experiencing of being as being. But this may be accidental to our species, or possibly to mammals in the evolution of our experiencing of love. If it is then the "greatest being" may be a kind of categorical error with "greatness" not possibly a predicate of "being as being".
Your point is off the OP's in relation to the definition of the ontological God, i.e. as in stated in the OP;
  • St. Anselm;
    The ontological God is a,
    "being than which no greater can be conceived".
    -wiki

    Descartes;
    He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
    -wiki
Note God is defined as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".

The above meant, whatever "greatest" one claim one's God, there is still something greater and the ontological God is the God than which no greater can be conceived.

If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
I think you are missing the point of my objection. The proof turns on being able to determine that it is greater to exist than to not exist. True? For if it is not greater to exist than not to exist, then that being greater than which none can be conceived may not exist. In fact, if it is greater to not exist than to exist then that being greater than which none can be conceived would not exist necessarily.

So which is true: It is greater to exist or it is greater to not exist?

I suggest that clearly for us it is greater to exist. I speculate though, that this might be because of the effects of our physical biology and how it works in evolution. Suicide is much less pursued. Therefore there is a strong bias in us for existence. That bias confers a survival advantage.

Now, it is also not so simple, because "necessity" may be involved in the judgement. We can do mathematics after all. So I am arguing that we don't know yet about this necessity. So the proof fails.

I am aware of the definitions. You keep seeming to think I am not and re-quoting them. Can you read what I just wrote and show me how I am abusing the definition?

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Justintruth » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am
Justintruth wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:39 am

Generally ontology is the study of 'being'.

In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God.

Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general.
As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibility of that "being" word meaning not "some particular being" but "being itself" - a kind of use of the term as a gerund in a sense. (Not "a" being but "being" itself as Heidegger would say)

That ontological experience of "being as being" leads to the religious experience of god including the greatness of god and even the superlative nature of that greatness in religious ecstatic union.

My post basically challenges this notion. It admits the ecstatic nature of the experiencing we have of god, from where this proof originates and to which it wishes its readers to become aware, but it challenges that experience, in a sense, as "too small a sample size" because it has all been ontological experiencing all done by humans. There are credible arguments that suggest that such goodness might be associated in our experiencing by the the molecular biology that creates it as an ACCIDENT (in the medieval sense of accident not as something that happens without purpose, something opposed to an essential property - an accidental property) not as something essential or necessary for the nature of the thing to remain what it is.

That accident may have provided sufficient survival advantage such that it is embedded in all individuals that survive of our species. If the greatness of the greatest being is accidental then it cannot be ontological. That is my hurdle. A proof is needed that greatness is essential to being not accidental.

It seems to be true that in humans, that should they line all their types of experiencing up in a row sorted by "greatness" then the "greatest" would "necessarily be". It would "necessarily be" as it would be the ecstatic ontological experience of being as described in Satori etc, the one related to our reproductive system and capable of a kind of orgasmic experience of being as a relationship. That that must exist is rooted in its association, for that particular being in ontology as the experiencing of being as being. But this may be accidental to our species, or possibly to mammals in the evolution of our experiencing of love. If it is then the "greatest being" may be a kind of categorical error with "greatness" not possibly a predicate of "being as being".
Your point is off the OP's in relation to the definition of the ontological God, i.e. as in stated in the OP;
  • St. Anselm;
    The ontological God is a,
    "being than which no greater can be conceived".
    -wiki

    Descartes;
    He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
    -wiki
Note God is defined as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".

The above meant, whatever "greatest" one claim one's God, there is still something greater and the ontological God is the God than which no greater can be conceived.

If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
BTW I do not argue that God is a "being itself or being-in-itself" nor do I subscribe to the meaning of "ontology" underlying Kant's demonstration. "Ontology", in my opinion has nothing to do with "what is" as Quine latter said. It has to do with "the fact that what is is". "What is" is the purview of natural science not ontology. "What is" are the facts of the standard model. Ontology is a study of "that it is". If I were to use the sense of ontology that Kant was using then I agree with him in some sense. But there are those principles, like Occam's that have to do with simplicity of assumption and while nothing can be know about the thing in itself, I think that is Kant's point - not that it is an illusion - for that would be to have an accessible being that can hide some other "true" or "non-illusory" reality - still we can use the simplest ideas and that is that it is as it seems. But, I do not subscribe to that except scientifically. I do not have what Sartre characterized as "the illusion of worlds behind the scenes". Physics and metaphysics are distinct for me. I don't think that science has an ontology - just a set of assumptions in the form of natural objects that appear with some probability.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:47 am

Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am
Justintruth wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:59 pm


As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibility of that "being" word meaning not "some particular being" but "being itself" - a kind of use of the term as a gerund in a sense. (Not "a" being but "being" itself as Heidegger would say)

That ontological experience of "being as being" leads to the religious experience of god including the greatness of god and even the superlative nature of that greatness in religious ecstatic union.

My post basically challenges this notion. It admits the ecstatic nature of the experiencing we have of god, from where this proof originates and to which it wishes its readers to become aware, but it challenges that experience, in a sense, as "too small a sample size" because it has all been ontological experiencing all done by humans. There are credible arguments that suggest that such goodness might be associated in our experiencing by the the molecular biology that creates it as an ACCIDENT (in the medieval sense of accident not as something that happens without purpose, something opposed to an essential property - an accidental property) not as something essential or necessary for the nature of the thing to remain what it is.

That accident may have provided sufficient survival advantage such that it is embedded in all individuals that survive of our species. If the greatness of the greatest being is accidental then it cannot be ontological. That is my hurdle. A proof is needed that greatness is essential to being not accidental.

It seems to be true that in humans, that should they line all their types of experiencing up in a row sorted by "greatness" then the "greatest" would "necessarily be". It would "necessarily be" as it would be the ecstatic ontological experience of being as described in Satori etc, the one related to our reproductive system and capable of a kind of orgasmic experience of being as a relationship. That that must exist is rooted in its association, for that particular being in ontology as the experiencing of being as being. But this may be accidental to our species, or possibly to mammals in the evolution of our experiencing of love. If it is then the "greatest being" may be a kind of categorical error with "greatness" not possibly a predicate of "being as being".
Your point is off the OP's in relation to the definition of the ontological God, i.e. as in stated in the OP;
  • St. Anselm;
    The ontological God is a,
    "being than which no greater can be conceived".
    -wiki

    Descartes;
    He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
    -wiki
Note God is defined as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".

The above meant, whatever "greatest" one claim one's God, there is still something greater and the ontological God is the God than which no greater can be conceived.

If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
I think you are missing the point of my objection. The proof turns on being able to determine that it is greater to exist than to not exist. True? For if it is not greater to exist than not to exist, then that being greater than which none can be conceived may not exist. In fact, if it is greater to not exist than to exist then that being greater than which none can be conceived would not exist necessarily.

So which is true: It is greater to exist or it is greater to not exist?
I don't see how your 'greater to not exist' is applicable to St. Anselm's argument.

When God is defined [by St. Anselm] as
"a being than which no greater can be conceived".
it implies God exists [Being] as the greatest and the added clause is, there is no other that can be greater than the greatest existing God.

The point is whatever the opposition claim their God to be, St. Anselm's existing God [Being] is always greater than that of whatever the opposition's claims of God.
In addition this ontological God is attributable with all the positive omni-whatever- qualities.

In this case, all "intelligent" theists will eventually end up with the claim of the ontological God so that no other theists will have a one-up position on the other.

If "greater to not exist" is claim, then there is a difficulty of proving a negative do not exist.
I suggest that clearly for us it is greater to exist. I speculate though, that this might be because of the effects of our physical biology and how it works in evolution. Suicide is much less pursued. Therefore there is a strong bias in us for existence. That bias confers a survival advantage.

Now, it is also not so simple, because "necessity" may be involved in the judgement. We can do mathematics after all. So I am arguing that we don't know yet about this necessity. So the proof fails.

I am aware of the definitions. You keep seeming to think I am not and re-quoting them. Can you read what I just wrote and show me how I am abusing the definition?
You are not interpreting the meaning of the definition as I do, thus I have to re-quote them.

Yes, St. Anselm's definition is driven by evolution, i.e. the instinctual 'one-up' impulse.
This 'one-up' impulse in hardwired in humans to facilitate survival of the species.
This instinct is very common and very explicit in kindergarten and grade-school playgrounds, where most children are driven with the 'one-up' impulse.
The 'one-up' impulse is not so obvious in adults but the instinctive is still very active in many, such as in sports, business, competitions, exploration, research, ego-maniacs and in this case, theology.

In the case of theology, the one-up instinct has driven theists to the ontological God so that no other theists can have a one-up God over theirs.
However this one-up madness has driven them to an illusory God that is impossible to be real.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:12 am

Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am
...
If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
BTW I do not argue that God is a "being itself or being-in-itself" nor do I subscribe to the meaning of "ontology" underlying Kant's demonstration.

"Ontology", in my opinion has nothing to do with "what is" as Quine latter said. It has to do with "the fact that what is is".
"What is" is the purview of natural science not ontology.
"What is" are the facts of the standard model.

Ontology is a study of "that it is".

If I were to use the sense of ontology that Kant was using then I agree with him in some sense. But there are those principles, like Occam's that have to do with simplicity of assumption and while nothing can be know about the thing in itself, I think that is Kant's point - not that it is an illusion - for that would be to have an accessible being that can hide some other "true" or "non-illusory" reality - still we can use the simplest ideas and that is that it is as it seems. But, I do not subscribe to that except scientifically. I do not have what Sartre characterized as "the illusion of worlds behind the scenes". Physics and metaphysics are distinct for me. I don't think that science has an ontology - just a set of assumptions in the form of natural objects that appear with some probability.
You stated
It [ontology] has to do with "the fact that what is is".
which is;
what is "is"

Kant argued "is" is merely a copula, i.e. "is" joins an 'subject' with a 'predicate', thus,
'[subject] is [predicate].
There is no "is"-in-itself, and if you insist [reify] it is real, then that is an illusion.
.. an accessible being that can hide some other "true" or "non-illusory" reality - still we can use the simplest ideas and that is that it is as it seems.
That you "think" that is an accessible being and is real, that is an illusion itself.

That 'accessible being' is merely a thought since there is no evidence to verify such a being is real.
Why you are reifying it to be real is driven by evolution via survival and thus it is psychological.
If you [& others of the like] identify the root causes of this psychological drive, you would not be thinking of such an 'accessible being' as existing as real, but accept it is only a thought.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Justintruth » Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:47 am
Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am

Your point is off the OP's in relation to the definition of the ontological God, i.e. as in stated in the OP;
  • St. Anselm;
    The ontological God is a,
    "being than which no greater can be conceived".
    -wiki

    Descartes;
    He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
    -wiki
Note God is defined as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".

The above meant, whatever "greatest" one claim one's God, there is still something greater and the ontological God is the God than which no greater can be conceived.

If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
I think you are missing the point of my objection. The proof turns on being able to determine that it is greater to exist than to not exist. True? For if it is not greater to exist than not to exist, then that being greater than which none can be conceived may not exist. In fact, if it is greater to not exist than to exist then that being greater than which none can be conceived would not exist necessarily.

So which is true: It is greater to exist or it is greater to not exist?
I don't see how your 'greater to not exist' is applicable to St. Anselm's argument.
Because if it is greater not to exist then his proof functions as a proof that god does not exist because else, were he (god) to exist, he would not be as great as a the same god not existing, and since god is that greater than which nothing can be conceived, the existing "god" would not be "god", by definition in virtue of his existing, because you could conceive of a greater namely the god that does not exist .
When God is defined [by St. Anselm] as
"a being than which no greater can be conceived".

it implies God exists [Being] as the greatest and the added clause is, there is no other that can be greater than the greatest existing God.
The definition of an entity does not normally imply its existence. In the case of god that might be an exception. But that exception needs to be established by the proof. So defining god as a being greater than which no greater can be conceived does not "imply God exists" unless existing is a priori greater than not existing for god.
The point is whatever the opposition claim their God to be, St. Anselm's existing God [Being] is always greater than that of whatever the opposition's claims of God.
In addition this ontological God is attributable with all the positive omni-whatever- qualities.

In this case, all "intelligent" theists will eventually end up with the claim of the ontological God so that no other theists will have a one-up position on the other.

If "greater to not exist" is claim, then there is a difficulty of proving a negative do not exist.
The logic functions the same whether there is a claim that it is greater to exist or there is a claim that it is greater not to exist. There are issues with the relationship between logic and existential quantifiers. They operate in strange ways in the proof. Some would argue that these types of proofs are an abuse of logic. But even if they are not, there seems to be an assumption in this proof that existing is greater than non existing. Else that greater than cannot be conceived would be not existing by definition.
I suggest that clearly for us it is greater to exist. I speculate though, that this might be because of the effects of our physical biology and how it works in evolution. Suicide is much less pursued. Therefore there is a strong bias in us for existence. That bias confers a survival advantage.

Now, it is also not so simple, because "necessity" may be involved in the judgement. We can do mathematics after all. So I am arguing that we don't know yet about this necessity. So the proof fails.

I am aware of the definitions. You keep seeming to think I am not and re-quoting them. Can you read what I just wrote and show me how I am abusing the definition?
You are not interpreting the meaning of the definition as I do, thus I have to re-quote them.

Yes, St. Anselm's definition is driven by evolution, i.e. the instinctual 'one-up' impulse.
This 'one-up' impulse in hardwired in humans to facilitate survival of the species.
This instinct is very common and very explicit in kindergarten and grade-school playgrounds, where most children are driven with the 'one-up' impulse.
The 'one-up' impulse is not so obvious in adults but the instinctive is still very active in many, such as in sports, business, competitions, exploration, research, ego-maniacs and in this case, theology.

In the case of theology, the one-up instinct has driven theists to the ontological God so that no other theists can have a one-up God over theirs.
However this one-up madness has driven them to an illusory God that is impossible to be real.
Evolution cannot be reduced to the 'one-up' instinct. Your description of that instinct is fair, however, and maybe it is even fair to say that it plays in motivating theologians. But that does not excuse us from trying to understand whether, what those theologians produce, regardless of whether they have produced it based on a motivation to "one up" each other, has a basis for a claim that it is valid.

Mathematicians also try to one up each other sometimes one presumes. But their output will be true or false independent off the motivations that they have.

Which brings us to your claim "illusory God that is impossible to be real". Clearly, you think the output is not valid. Why do you think that? Perhaps just better to say why you think it is impossible for that greater than which nothing can be conceived to exist?

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by Justintruth » Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:48 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:12 am
Justintruth wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:23 am
...
If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.
BTW I do not argue that God is a "being itself or being-in-itself" nor do I subscribe to the meaning of "ontology" underlying Kant's demonstration.

"Ontology", in my opinion has nothing to do with "what is" as Quine latter said. It has to do with "the fact that what is is".
"What is" is the purview of natural science not ontology.
"What is" are the facts of the standard model.

Ontology is a study of "that it is".

If I were to use the sense of ontology that Kant was using then I agree with him in some sense. But there are those principles, like Occam's that have to do with simplicity of assumption and while nothing can be know about the thing in itself, I think that is Kant's point - not that it is an illusion - for that would be to have an accessible being that can hide some other "true" or "non-illusory" reality - still we can use the simplest ideas and that is that it is as it seems. But, I do not subscribe to that except scientifically. I do not have what Sartre characterized as "the illusion of worlds behind the scenes". Physics and metaphysics are distinct for me. I don't think that science has an ontology - just a set of assumptions in the form of natural objects that appear with some probability.
You stated
It [ontology] has to do with "the fact that what is is".
which is;
what is "is"

Kant argued "is" is merely a copula, i.e. "is" joins an 'subject' with a 'predicate', thus,
'[subject] is [predicate].
There is no "is"-in-itself, and if you insist [reify] it is real, then that is an illusion.
.. an accessible being that can hide some other "true" or "non-illusory" reality - still we can use the simplest ideas and that is that it is as it seems.
That you "think" that is an accessible being and is real, that is an illusion itself.

That 'accessible being' is merely a thought since there is no evidence to verify such a being is real.
Why you are reifying it to be real is driven by evolution via survival and thus it is psychological.
If you [& others of the like] identify the root causes of this psychological drive, you would not be thinking of such an 'accessible being' as existing as real, but accept it is only a thought.
Ok, so clearly, you have an opposition between what is "real" and and what is "merely thought". This is a very common misunderstanding. Let me try to resolve it by showing you why you have it.

Let me direct your attention first to nature. By nature I mean what is. Consider the fact that it admits, approximately, a description that specifies that there is a three dimensional space within which are regions occupied by things. That it admits this description is due to the fact of how we find it. As an example consider the socks that I put into my drawer and retrieved to wear this morning. Many facts exist like that. There are certain temporal symmetries in reality that allow us to interpret it this way. Further we have an ontological faculty that allows us to designate the objective regions as being occupied by something and the rest as being nothing. Even further we find that there are certain bodies within the space that think. Their thinking is "intentional" in the philosophical sense in the same way that a picture of a house is intentional. It is about something. But it is not one of the things that that thinking is about. Reflection of that kind, some would say, unless it is focused on the brain, is in fact an illusion (see Dennet). That way of thinking is false

That way of thinking underlies our ability to manipulate the world. When combined with our desire to exist these two products of ontology confer a survival advantage. I say so as a presumption as it is possible that it is just piggybacking on the material.

Sartre has a great description of how these objects are the result of the introduction of nothingness into the plenum of being. Part of that introduction is the nihillation of the experiencing. A thing is "in iteself", it is "real", it is not "just an experiencing" but rather is '"really there" (you can here the spacial connection in that "there") and that which is experiencing is precisely nothing as it is not one of those things there. He further goes on to describe the pre-reflective cogito which he claims is not just possible but necessary as a condition for experiencing (you can hear Kant in that idea of justifying based on what is necessary). Further, the natural causality inherent in our incarnate state, that experiencing is caused by physical objects that constitute our brains, has caused some to reject the reality of that which is "non-physical". Witness Jackson's recant of his argument about color blind Mary.

We see this in our ordinary language also. If I say "that is just him seeing things" I mean that what he is seeing is not real - rather it is just an illusion of the thing that the brain creates. And we all "know" that an "illusion" is "not real".

This way of thinking is technically incorrect. The "seeing" is as real as anything else and is, in fact, contingent. It is just not "something". But there is no rule that "being something" is required to "be".

In fact, there are modes of understanding in which the see-er seeing the seen break down and seeing seeing seeing occur. This mode is accessible to humans as a result of the natural causality of our brains and understanding its implication is necessary if you want to parse what the "smart" theologians are taking about. And it will be necessary as science investigates cognitive endocrinology and its correlated phenomenology.

When you consider God you are not considering a creature for which one could possibly offer evidence either for or against its existing. The very nature of evidence itself would presuppose the field upon which notions of what it means are constructed and within those meanings one would use the only language we have and use the term God as a noun. Now that is a very big problem doing that. I have had some success in manipulating adverbs. In a sense, God is a kind of "adverb" of "evidencing". "God evidencing" is a kind of experiencing that forms the phenomenal basis of the notions underlying the ontological proof and definition of God as that greater than which nothing can be conceived. But it does that because of the connection with ecstasy. Without that connection, it falls apart. That connection may be accidental and provided by the biology to create a survival advantage by causing the organism to want to live.

Anyone who believes, that the set of possible universes contains a subset characterized as those possible universes in which there is a god, and having a complement namely those possible universes in which there is not a god, and then demand evidence on which to base a claim that the universe that we live in is in one of those sets - one way or another - simply has no hope of ever understanding the problem. They are participating in a category error.

The key to the problem is necessity. Kant understood its role in the a priori. If god exists, then the claim is apriori to all evidence. Not sure he understood that. Remember, he was living in a time prior to the invention of modern physics. The classical viewpoint, totally consistent with the notion that there is a three dimensional space in which there are beings, and that what being in fact means, is roughly presence in that universe, had not yet been scientifically dis-proven. So his notion of ontology was flawed.

Unless you can get some experience beyond the subject object distinction, I don't think you can gain access to the meaning of Anselm's, or Aquinas, or Aristotle, or even Husserl, Heidegger or Sartre or any other of the not normal tail of the bell curve people. Not claiming to be one myself. I am above average slightly but definitely near the average, at top of the bell.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The Ontological God is the Ultimate God.

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:55 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:45 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:46 pm
I've seen the word perfect being used a lot lately.

What model of perfection are you talking about in this thread?
From what perspective do you people see perfection?
What constitutes a perfect god versus an imperfect one?
Is perfection simply an ever relative place-holder, unquantifiable?
Is perfection simply an ever varying concept particular only to any particular humans imagination? Thus simply being myriad human ideologies.
There are two main categories of perfection, i.e.
  • 1. Relative or conditional perfection
    2. Absolute totally-unconditional perfection
1. Relative or conditional perfection
Such perfection is relative or conditioned upon some framework, e.g. a perfect score of 100/100 in an objective test is conditioned upon a predetermined answers, say by a teacher who set the objective test.
A perfect score in sports say 10/10 in say gymnastic, or diving is a conditional perfection.
In general whenever the term 'perfect' is used in relation to humans and things in general, they are relative perfections.

2. Absolute totally-unconditional perfection
Absolute totally-unconditional perfection is a default attribute of an ontological God which is totally unconditional.
Surely that's what you believe, obviously you've just said so! But your statement is as that of a commandment, yet actually a falsehood. As I see that it's only that which humans can currently know, that you speak of. Purely an unfounded belief, not knowledge.

The truth is man cannot know of perfection as he as yet does not know of everything. The universe is huge, well beyond most humans ability to fully understand it, and humans have only gone as far as their moon, as such, a claim such as yours falls flat on it's face. It can't possibly be known to be the actual case of the matter. Not at this current time!

But lucky for you, you can believe it, all that you want...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 37 guests