100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Harbal]

Hobbesy. You're back

Have you got any idea how worried we've been about you? Don't you ever wander off like that again.

[Londoner]

Me: John can 'be a boy', but he cannot just 'be'. If 'John' was just pure existence, then he wouldn't be John (and he wouldn't be 'he').

Exactly. 'John' is a compound ('essence and actual' or 'act and potency', depending on how you want to phrase it).

I do not think it helps to keep generating words like 'potency' and 'act' and 'essence' when we don't have any clear idea what they mean.

I would say that 'John' is a word, a name, a term that refers. The question is whether it refers to something empirical and thus can be true or false. I do not think the words 'exist' or 'existence' on their own refer at all, let alone refer to anything empirical. The same remains true when we attach them to 'God', because there is no agreement about whether 'God' embodies an empirical claim, and if it does what that empirical claim might be. Until the person using the word 'God' explains what they mean they haven't said anything.

As I wrote last time, it is like me declaring 'X exists'. That is not true or false, because until I explain what 'X' means I haven't said anything.

[Immanuel Can]

Me: John can 'be a boy', but he cannot just 'be'. If 'John' was just pure existence, then he wouldn't be John (and he wouldn't be 'he').

That's not quite the grammatical intention of the phrase: "be" is a predication: it's a main verb, indicating the ontological reality of the noun identified in the phrase.

I do not think the words 'exist' or 'existence' on their own refer at all, let alone refer to anything empirical.

You're kind of right: they don't "refer" in the way that a proper noun does. Rather, they predicate something OF that noun, namely its actual (and if experienced,perhaps empirical as well) ontological reality.

The noun asserts the subject of the sentence; the predication affirms an action or condition of the noun (subject).

Does that help the discussion?

[Reflex]

I do not think it helps to keep generating words like 'potency' and 'act' and 'essence' when we don't have any clear idea what they mean.

I would say that 'John' is a word, a name, a term that refers. The question is whether it refers to something empirical and thus can be true or false. I do not think the words 'exist' or 'existence' on their own refer at all, let alone refer to anything empirical. The same remains true when we attach them to 'God', because there is no agreement about whether 'God' embodies an empirical claim, and if it does what that empirical claim might be. Until the person using the word 'God' explains what they mean they haven't said anything.

As I wrote last time, it is like me declaring 'X exists'. That is not true or false, because until I explain what 'X' means I haven't said anything.

Thank you for that. Until this moment I did not truly believe or understand that an adult could have a genuinely held belief system that is so child-like in its perceptual depth. Of course the words 'exist' or 'existence' don't refer to any thing. That's the whole point.

'Potency' and 'act' are hardly new terms. Roughly speaking, their meaning is potential and actuality respectively. If you do not understand what the 'essence' of an object refers to, then you have no business being in an philosophy of religion forum. If I thought it would help advance your education, I would suggest several books, but because your interest is suspect there is no point in doing so.

[uwot]

It would be nice if anti-theists knew what they were talking about. Saying "There is proof that God does not exist" is like saying "There is proof existence does not exist."

What they're actually saying is not quite that dumb, but it's close. They're actually saying, "There is no evidence for God."

Congratulations, Mr Can. It has taken nearly 4 years, but finally you recognise that atheists are not committed to saying, "There is proof that God does not exist".

Of course, unless they are claiming they also possess ALL the possible evidence, then they're simply mistaken or deceiving. They don't KNOW what evidence there is, or is not: what they may know is that THEY don't have any (personally).

What we know is that the evidence believers present is only sufficient to persuade those who wish to believe. It is no more compelling than the Christmas presents under the tree is evidence that Santa Claus put them there. If you choose to believe that the universe is created, then absolutely everything is evidence of a creator. Who knows? That might be the case, but to describe people who are not convinced as dumb, I once thought would be unchristian. But then you came along and demonstrated just how contemptuous of their fellow human beings, people who profess to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ can be.

[Londoner]

Me: I do not think it helps to keep generating words like 'potency' and 'act' and 'essence' when we don't have any clear idea what they mean.

Thank you for that. Until this moment I did not truly believe or understand that an adult could have a genuinely held belief system that is so child-like in its perceptual depth. Of course the words 'exist' or 'existence' don't refer to any thing. That's the whole point.

OK. Now we have done 'exist' and 'existence' we can work through all those other words you use, like ''potency' and 'act' and 'essence' and see if these refer to anything.

'Potency' and 'act' are hardly new terms. Roughly speaking, their meaning is potential and actuality respectively.

And do you think 'potential' is an object, a metaphysical force, an idea, or what?

Likewise 'actuality' which you interestingly assert is roughly what you think 'act' means. Is the meaning of 'actuality' anything like 'exist' which you agree doesn't refer to anything?

If you do not understand what the 'essence' of an object refers to, then you have no business being in an philosophy of religion forum. If I thought it would help advance your education, I would suggest several books, but because your interest is suspect there is no point in doing so.

Whenever people play that particular card it is a sure sign they do not know themselves what they are talking about.

[Londoner]

That's not quite the grammatical intention of the phrase: "be" is a predication: it's a main verb, indicating the ontological reality of the noun identified in the phrase....You're kind of right: they don't "refer" in the way that a proper noun does. Rather, they predicate something OF that noun, namely its actual (and if experienced,perhaps empirical as well) ontological reality.

But every noun is always a particular noun. For example 'John' or 'fish' or 'God'. So if the noun 'fish' has ontological reality then that reality is in the existence of a fish, not existence in the abstract.

If I call something 'a fish' then necessarily I am saying 'it exists'. Something that did not have the property of existence could not be 'a fish' or anything else.

To put it another way, if I write 'God is love' then that could only be true if 'God' exists. You could not have a subject-less predicate, so to name a predicate is in itself to assert the existence (in some sense) of a subject.

Certainly I might use the words 'it exists' or 'it is' about the fish to emphasise that I am telling the truth; ''That (really) is a fish' or to clarify that I am not talking about a fish in fiction, or a fish that no longer exists. But in those cases I am clarifying my intention, or the predicate, not making an additional assertion.

[Immanuel Can]

But in those cases I am clarifying my intention, or the predicate, not making an additional assertion.

I wasn't disagreeing with this. Rather, I was trying to help you both clarify the grammatical situation of the terms you both were using. Predications require nouns, just as you say. Existence is a predication.

However, it is also true that predications have specific meaning that is added to the antecedent by its presence. The noun without the predication is not capable of premising anything, so it is not capable of forming a stage in a syllogism or making a logical claim until the predication is added. I think it's the nature of that addition that you two seem to be discussing.

As for me, I'm not taking a position at the moment relative to the outcome of your discussion. I'm just interested in what you discover.

[Reflex]

Me: I do not think it helps to keep generating words like 'potency' and 'act' and 'essence' when we don't have any clear idea what they mean.

Thank you for that. Until this moment I did not truly believe or understand that an adult could have a genuinely held belief system that is so child-like in its perceptual depth. Of course the words 'exist' or 'existence' don't refer to any thing. That's the whole point.

OK. Now we have done 'exist' and 'existence' we can work through all those other words you use, like ''potency' and 'act' and 'essence' and see if these refer to anything.

'Potency' and 'act' are hardly new terms. Roughly speaking, their meaning is potential and actuality respectively.

And do you think 'potential' is an object, a metaphysical force, an idea, or what?

Likewise 'actuality' which you interestingly assert is roughly what you think 'act' means. Is the meaning of 'actuality' anything like 'exist' which you agree doesn't refer to anything?

If you do not understand what the 'essence' of an object refers to, then you have no business being in an philosophy of religion forum. If I thought it would help advance your education, I would suggest several books, but because your interest is suspect there is no point in doing so.

Whenever people play that particular card it is a sure sign they do not know themselves what they are talking about.

Like I said in the beginning...

[Londoner]

As for me, I'm not taking a position at the moment relative to the outcome of your discussion. I'm just interested in what you discover.

And as I'm sure you realise, my purpose here is to argue why the Ontological Argument doesn't work, on the grounds that proofs of God usually turn out to be a variation on that theme.

[uwot]

...the implication seems to be that I should believe something I might wish were true.

And why wouldn't you. You are not required to tell anyone. You can keep that belief to yourself. To believe that a man in history went to his death stating he was Christ is not particularly difficult. Atheist theologians generally agree that it is very likely that this man existed. That being said, why not believe this bloke?

I have no doubt that people go to their death stating that they are Christ; it's going to happen to a few people on this forum. I also have no reason to doubt that the Romans crucified at least one such character. There's also some wisdom in in the bible (and Koran, Torah and any other holy book you care to mention), so I have no real problem believing that there was a character fitting some of the stories about JC. The problem I have, in common with everyone who hasn't surrendered their critical faculties, is that I don't see why we should accept the claims made on the behalf of this individual, that I should live my life according to the wishes of the people making the claims.

[Immanuel Can]

And as I'm sure you realise, my purpose here is to argue why the Ontological Argument doesn't work, on the grounds that proofs of God usually turn out to be a variation on that theme.

You're incorrect about that, but that won't stop me being interested in seeing you try in some new way...assuming something you have about that is new.

[Londoner]

Me: And as I'm sure you realise, my purpose here is to argue why the Ontological Argument doesn't work, on the grounds that proofs of God usually turn out to be a variation on that theme.

You're incorrect about that, but that won't stop me being interested in seeing you try in some new way...assuming something you have about that is new.

Incorrect in that you think the Ontological Argument (Anselm etc.) works? Or incorrect in that other proofs of God do not often amount to the same thing, i.e. proving the existence of God from a predicate of God?

I don't know that I can offer anything new. I had the impression that philosophy has already has given adequate reasons why the Ontological Argument does not work; I am happy with them, and have not attempted to think up any new ones of my own.

[Immanuel Can]

Incorrect in that you think the Ontological Argument (Anselm etc.) works? Or incorrect in that other proofs of God do not often amount to the same thing, i.e. proving the existence of God from a predicate of God?

Oh, about both, actually...but much more easily verifiably about the second than the first.

I don't know that I can offer anything new. I had the impression that philosophy has already has given adequate reasons why the Ontological Argument does not work; I am happy with them, and have not attempted to think up any new ones of my own.

Well, here's what I have found in regard to the Ontological Argument, just so far as the skeptics are concerned. In general, what they tend to do is to misrepresent the argument immediately -- usually by arguing as if what the OA is implying is that things which are imagined must therefore become necessarily real, which it is decidedly NOT arguing -- and then by shooting down that misrepresentation, and concluding with some triumphalist note like, "Aha! Now we see how foolish the Theists are!...unicorns...pixies...ta-da!"

If you're under the impression that "philosophy" (unspecified collective? Some unknown group of "philosophers"?) has "already given adequate reasons why the Ontological Argument does not work," then in my experience, you must be referring to some strategy like that, or else to an unexamined belief that someone somewhere has done such work, even though perhaps you don't know what and where such would actually be. Certainly, I've been unable to locate arguments against the OA that are not flawed in one of these two sorts of ways.

Of course, that sort of strategy doesn't amount to much except a warm blanket for the Atheists to wrap themselves in. They find that sort of demonstration reassuring; but this is because they were only interested in thinking to the point at which they could unilaterally declare a "win" in the first place, and not in engaging a substantial version of the OA at all. But actually, they've conceptually misrepresented both the nature of the concept of "Supreme Being" and the implications of the argument itself. Naturally, those Theists who are more aware of the argument tend to be unimpressed.

I'd just like to see if you've got anything interesting by way of an objection, something more than what I suggest above. Should I understand your implication to be that this is not the case? That would be disappointing, if not entirely impossible to anticipate.

[Londoner]

Well, here's what I have found in regard to the Ontological Argument, just so far as the skeptics are concerned. In general, what they tend to do is to misrepresent the argument immediately -- usually by arguing as if what the OA is implying is that things which are imagined must therefore become necessarily real, which it is decidedly NOT arguing -- and then by shooting down that misrepresentation, and concluding with some triumphalist note like, "Aha! Now we see how foolish the Theists are!...unicorns...pixies...ta-da!"

...But actually, they've conceptually misrepresented both the nature of the concept of "Supreme Being" and the implications of the argument itself. Naturally, those Theists who are more aware of the argument tend to be unimpressed.

I'd just like to see if you've got anything interesting by way of an objection, something more than what I suggest above. Should I understand your implication to be that this is not the case? That would be disappointing, if not entirely impossible to anticipate.

You say that either the proposers of the Ontological Argument or its opponents have 'misrepresented...the nature of the concept of "Supreme Being"

How do you know this? That implies that we know the nature of that Supreme Being and thus know that they (including Anselm?) got it wrong. How do we know? And if we do know the nature of the Supreme Being, we must already know what the Ontological Argument was supposed to prove, i.e. that the Supreme Being exists.

As for me, since I do not know the correct nature of the Supreme Being, I cannot know which form of the Ontological Argument you believe does work, so I do not know what to aim for.