Brief Thoughts on the Ontological Argument

Click here to get more!

The ontological argument...

Anselm defined God as "a being that which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality because if it exists only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. 

---- From Wikipedia

The first issue I have with this argument is the use of the word "being". Is a being a conscious creature? Is a being a sentient thing? Is a being a type of person? Is a being an alien? Anyway...

The use of the term "greater" is an issue as well. The term greater makes no sense by itself. Greater than what? Greater just means bigger or better or more, which all require context. There has to be a standard to refer to. Maybe Anselm created this context in his works and defined a standard "being" in which to compare his notion of a greater being and then went so far as to infinitely extend the idea until he just ended with the word God. As in the same God that is the vague term used to describe any unknown or unknowable thing personified as an agent. 

Essentially the argument is...

If I can think about something it can exist outside the mind if I  just ad the word "better" to it. With the word better I can argue that it is better to exist outside the mind and therefore if a thing I think about is the best of its category (for example a "being") then it must exist because it would be better to have that thing in existence outside the mind than limited to just inside the mind. 

This argument is shit. It allows for existence to arise from thoughts alone and for anything thought of to exist in reality. 

Example: If I can think of the best guitar and it exists in my brain then the best guitar must exist in reality because the best guitar is only made the best by existing outside the brain. Because it is better to exist then to simply be imagined. But the concept of better and the concept of existence have little to do with each other. 

Something can exist without being better than anything else. Being better only occurs when comparing two things and not all things require comparison to understand. It can simply have a purpose or a relationship with other things or it might be something that simply exists with no discernable interaction with anything you understand. Maybe you see a cloud a few miles away. It makes no difference to you in any practical way but you see it and it exists. It is not better or worse than anything. It's just a noteworthy cloud. 

Any argument that puts human consciousness as the basis for reality seems needlessly vain. The idea that nothing would exist without humans is ridiculously presumptuous because it presumes that before humans existed there was nothing. This is stupid. Before you existed plenty of things existed. Unless you don't believe that things exist outside of your mind. If you think that the only existence that exists is the existence of thoughts and that you have a singular existential experience and that is what matters seems too insular. The history of life is the history of interaction. From when single cells began to combine with each other all biology has been an interconnected network of communication, metabolism, and other ecological concepts. To distill all of existence to what exists in human minds seems limited. 

Humans attempt to describe reality based on their sensory and communicative capabilities. Because humans observe reality and have the ability to see themselves as a part of that reality they can describe themselves in the same way they describe other things. Just because you exist and your brain exists doesn't mean that something you thought of exists outside your synapses. I would imagine that it would be easier to think of things that don't exist rather than think of things that do exist. Even if you had a complete list of things that actually exist in the universe you could still think of combinations or exaggerations of those things that would exponentially increase the things you can think about. Most of those things would not exist. 

For example: If I know of all the animals that exist I can imagine each of those animals with a chair growing out of their back and I just doubled the amount of bullshit in my head but that doesn't mean that each animal exists with a chair growing out of its back in reality. It makes no sense. Being able to think about something or imagine something has almost no relation to what actually exists in the world. 

It seems like ontological arguments are actually just arguments designed to satisfy an already-held view. It puts too much value on cognitive capacities and conjures up reality out of thin air which is not scientific or rational. If one wants to justify their irrational beliefs one can use the ontological argument.

I'm reminded of the argument, "I think, therefore I am." The problem with this is that in isolation you can't really determine that you exist scientifically. There is nothing to test against. You need others to verify a hypothesis and engaging in experiments. I think that if others think you exist and you can interact with external objects then you probably exist. Or at least exist in some context.

The concept of God exists but that doesn't mean that there is a perfect "being" running around doing things.  

Reformation not Jihad: Notes on Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Conversation Published on Oct 23, 2014

Link to the conversation that sparked these notes:

Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Clear the Air on Religious Violence and Islam

We don't worry as much about Christian violence because it isn't a major factor in the international violence in the world and to Americans right now. Sam says in the beginning that he could see a circumstance where he would shift his attention away from Islam is a different ideology such as Christianity was causing more harm in the world. 

Sam Harris does not talk about the reformation processes in the western world and how it undermined violent religious factors in the past. Moral progress has come from some of the western ideals such as free speech, gender equality, democracy and the separation of church and state. These moral reformations needs to happen in the Muslim world in order for this particular type of violence to cease. Sam seems pessimistic about this prospect. 

Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur are both pro government but I think Sam looks at belief as a bedrock of psychology and Cenk looks at political and economic motivation as the bedrock of psychology. 

Cenk thinks about government a lot and ascribes that thinking to others which blinds him to the real motivational power of pedestrian beliefs such as jihad. Cenk acknowledges that religious ideas play a role in violent acts but that Sam should "tone it down"? I don't fully understand the debate or where Cenk disagrees with Sam about religion. 

If you can admit that religion is part of the problem just like politics then why can't religion be a major factor in some cases? Especially cases where the perpetrator tells us explicitly that their motives are religious.

If it is a simple matter of the weight of the influence religion accounts for behavior then you have to admit that at some point religion could be 100% responsible just like any other case where variable motivations exist. If it possible for the motivation to consist of 25% religion, 25% nationalism, 25% economics and 25% politics then any combination of the variables could be possible in an individual. And getting to the exact amount may be impossible. But if reason is the best method then we must take into account the testimony of the person committing those acts. 

What are the proportions of psychopathology in the general population compared to Muslim suicide bombers? If the proportion of suicide bombers is higher then you can't explain it away that way.

Neither Sam nor Cenk are politicians, dictators, policy makers or in any other position of power other than as speakers and writers. A war of ideas is important but real wars make them difficult to enact. When people are really being murdered for their ideas it is hard to get the word out. 

Conversations, investigations and thinking about right and wrong are the best ways to learn and grow both as individuals and as societies. Reformation comes from the peaceful exploration of ideas and if an ideology meets free speech with violence then reformation can not occur within that ideology.

Cenk admits that Christianity plays a role in the psychology of human behavior yet struggles to downplay the role Islam plays in what Muslims do. Is it so controversial to talk about bad ideas and their role in human behavior? 

Sam has written, studied, debated and talked so much about the things that he takes seriously and explains the nuances of the topics with such eloquence and logical consistency that anyone that disagrees with him faces a formidable challenge. Sam's rigor and discipline for discovering the truth about the world is daunting and I think Cenk was not up to the task or at least I was not compelled by his position which is unclear to me still. 

I will give Cenk credit for sticking with the conversation and being very cordial and professional. I don't think Cenk defends the charge that he is propagating bad journalism and allowing people to lie about Sam's positions very well, if at all. 

All in all a really good conversation. Not the most efficient or effective one but very thought provoking. 

A New Way to Govern: The Presidential Triangle

What would happen if we just elected both of them?
If 40% of Americans support each candidate then electing both would satisfy 80% of Americans, right? Probably not because people are insane but if the American people believe these two are qualified then wouldn't the best outcome be to elect both and force them to work together for the people?

If they can't work together then they aren't working for the American people, they are working for themselves. The people shouldn't care about the specific person anyway, but in the job they will do. It's not as if the president is a dictator and can simply do whatever they want so a dual presidency would add a level of balance both of power and of opinion. Shouldn't these people be paragons of cooperation and negotiation anyway? If they are then their work would be the outcome of balanced problem solving and they could hold each other accountable to what the other side of the aisle wants.


We should get rid of the GOP and DNC and have the American people vote on their top three choices for president. The top two become co-presidents and the third candidate would become the vice-president. It would be a triangle of decision making.

If nothing else this kind of experiment in governance would be entertaining, which seems like what the American people really want. The mainstream media is already a freak show so why not put the two freaks together and film the process?

 I am not sure if this has been tried in other countries or if it would tear the universe apart but I think change is important.

Or just not hire either and move their responsibilities to the people or to the other branches of the government. Shouldn't the general public be part of the checks and balances in a more defined and effective way? Governmental experimentation, with the goal of creating more accountability and effectiveness, should be valued to those who want change. 

Causalism not Determinism and Some Ruminations on Free Will

One problem I have in accepting determinism is the word determinism. Determinism implies a determiner which assumes some sort of agency. This makes sense due to the roots of determinism being either religious or scientific. From the religious perspective all actions are pre-determined by a deity agent and from the scientific perspective knowledge is gained from observation from human agents. Determinism from the scientific point of view is based on cause and effect and the lacking of true human agency in the equation. Humans are simply subject to prior causes and the effects cascade toward more cause and effect chains. This would be better described as "Causalism", not determinism.

Because determinism rests of the concept of knowable causal forces it is simpler and more objection to call it causalism. If causality can be mapped with perfection then the future would, presumably, be predicted but not determined. Determination seems like inevitability based on an agent's word instead of an objective assessment of what physical forces should do. The future doesn't exist and I believed that no matter how precise we can observe reality there would likely be missing data, error, or other mysterious forces such as underlying quantum chaos that would make perfect knowledge and predictability impossible. We might get to 99.9% but it still wouldn't be determined, just very accurately predicted.

Are all physical forces consistent, constant and reliable? I am not sure. While logic has taught us to rely on physics due to it's reliable predictive power it doesn't mean that there is some room for variation and change. The universe is mysterious and science is a fairly new discipline. We should not be so vein to think that we understand what is immutable. For example, if the speed of light is not fixed then many calculations would be wrong. We should be skeptical about our assumptions. This is an interesting TedTalk about the potential misconceptions in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

This doesn't mean we should discount science. The scientific method is certainly the best way to test truth claims about reality but I think there is room for philosophy as well.

Ruminations on Free Will:
Why can't a mind be a direct cause of an effect? If so why can't the agent, who owns the mind, be in control (choice) of that cause? Free will may lie somewhere in the chaos of the mind or somewhere in the conscious effort to change the future. The mind is just as physical as genetics and environment so why can't it have a discreet effect on reality and the future?

If all causes are products of prior effects and causes then can there be a first cause? This seems to lead toward a deity outside of time and space. The "turtles all the way down" argument doesn't lead anywhere.

If causes and effects can occur spontaneously or arise from complexity then the mind seems like a prime candidate for a machine capable of creating new chains of causation.

I do admit that I want Free Will to exist. I think it allows for more personal responsibility and change and I feel that I am free to make certain decisions. I do not believe in complete freedom and I admit that most actions are a product of prior or current physical forces acting inside and outside of myself that I can not control. But in those few moments where choice comes into play, and I can slow down and see the potential outcomes of an action I believe that "I" am free to choose. This may be rare and training myself to recognize them may be a lifelong discipline but it seems to increase my well being.

Here is a great conversation between Sam Harris and Dan Dennett about this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g
Check out Sam Harris's podcast for great content here:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast

This is a great talk between Sam Harris and David Deutsch about the power of explanation and the limits of knowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg

The Big Bang Argument…

So when Christians say that science is making great strides to help them reinforce their faith by illuminating the “Designer” in the natural world it is yet another attempt to high jack scientific thoughts. One of these scientific discoveries it the theory of the Big Bang:  At the beginning of time and space there was a singularity or a dot of condensed mass and all at once it exploded in all directions and it seems that this must be due to a God making it happen. One Christian apologetic put it this way; if there is a cause then there must be a ‘causer’. I’ve heard it also said that there can’t be something from nothing so god is the something before the Big Bang. And all things burst from his mouth and it was good I guess.

The main reason scientists believe the big bang is a viable theory is that it was discovered that the universe is expanding. Things are constantly floating away from the center is a uniform yet accelerating way.  This leads to the logical conclusion that at one point in time all the universe was in that center as a super dense mass.  So the idea that something came from nothing is to negate the idea the dense mass was something. Also, it is like a Christian to take one piece of incomplete text and turn it into doctrine. They say, “no, you guys came up with it, and now we know god is real because he is outside space and time (supernatural) and space and time only existed after the big bang.”

This is how simple people think.  They take one idea and run with it instead of doing what any skeptical, intelligent person would do which is to probe the idea, discuss possible exceptions of explanations and continue to study the theory. There are so many theories that go past the big bang and many that try to discover more underlying realities involved in the universe that may prove the big bang theory to be laughable but it is the search and continued skepticism that keeps science going and our understanding evolving. Even if all the theories are proved incorrect it is still better than hanging the whole argument on “God did it.”

The Your Just Rejecting god Argument…

Many Christians argue that atheists reject god’s commandments because they want to be free to be sinful, sexually deviant, or otherwise morally delinquent and to this I think there is a very simple answer.

I say to this, “I don’t reject god because god is not real; I reject you because you are not my superior and you have no right to dictate my life.”  I don’t reject unicorns; I reject those who try to sell me one.

Christians often say things like god forgives you, or god Loves you, or god wants you to do this or that. These people are so diluted they think they are god and thus are really saying I forgive you because I can do that, or I want you to do this or that because I am righteous.  Self-righteousness is toxic and speaking for god is a sign of delusional hubris.