As Bunge himself says: — Arcane Sandwich

Hence the atheist will have to propose serious arguments against it [Anselm's argument] instead of the sophistry of the logical imperialist. (...) In short, Anselm was far less wrong than his modern critics would have it. — Bunge (2012: 175)

That sort of "logical imperialist sophistry" is pretty common here on TPF, as the thread on Anselm's proof shows.

:100: It's really difficult to articulate such things into words, but Norman Fischer is clearly talented in that sense. Nonetheless, one can detect that he's struggling to find the words to express the underlying idea here. But he's way better at that than me, that's for sure.

Yeah, Bunge always cracks me up with those labels. He wanted to coin the term "logical imperialism" as a technical term. Obviously no one except for him actually uses it. Be that as it may, "logical imperialism" refers to the belief that the existential quantifier means both "some" as well as "exists" in a metaphyisical sense. He didn't have to call it "logical imperialism", he could have easily chosen a less polemical word. But that's Bunge's attitude in a nutshell. I think it's a riot, but most people hate his guts because of it.

- It strikes me as accurate. A handful of 20th century logicians think up a very new (and as it turns out, very bad) way of approaching existence, and they declare that anyone who thinks otherwise is an untouchable. So it is a strange form of imperialism.

I'd call it something like "logical reductionism", or something along those lines, something that sounds more "politically correct" but without losing too much bite. But I'm more moderate than Bunge in that sense. I'm sure that he would have called it "logical supremacism" if it had occurred to him.

Have fun! — Arcane Sandwich

It is fun, I'll admit; trying out arguments like moving chess pieces across the board. Especially when you're skilled, or have the necessary focus, which, I admit, I am not.

But aren't we just counting angels on the head of a pin?

Religion, like everything else humans do, can be reduced to function. If we eliminate the detractors (opiate of the masses, justification for maintaining the power structures, excuse for bigotry and war; all of which, I reject) there are basically two functions, both of which use Narrative to trigger real bodily feelings that trigger belief, followed by action. It is only in the feelings triggering action that any Real Truth manifests. The rest is counting angels.

The first (an inferior function in the hierarch of so called truth) is ethical. And the Jesus Narrative (or Christianity) is supposed to function to promote love for the species as the drive for all of our actions (Although we have often failed). The message of love, highlighted by the sacrifice, triggers us to love our species and act in ways which promote its survival and growth.

The second ("superior") is metaphysical. And that's where your question is placed. So, not exactly this but, for example: the mythical human Jesus being the same as the mythical God (we cannot know either to be true) triggers feelings which settle at a belief that our own ultimate truth is not in the appearances which we cling to, but in the hidden. If he is human, and yet God, then we too are human, yet (of/in communion with/atoned by) God. Our Truth is not ultimately in our narrated experiences, those things to which we are so attached; but rather, in our mystery, the unspoken, unspeakable hidden/mystery which we are but have forgotten. There are better ways to put it; I'm just saying...Jesus must be God in the Jesus myth, otherwise it fails to serve its function.

And it's not in the facticity that the myth function. Rather, it is in the effect upon your mind, awakening you to--for example--love, and transcendance/the mystery of being outside of the cacophony of becoming.

It is fun, I'll admit; trying out arguments like moving chess pieces across the board. Especially when you're skilled, or have the necessary focus, which, I admit, I am not. — ENOAH

Feel free to not focus in this thread, you're allowed to go off the rails here. I think I can put the thread back on track if it gets derailed.

The message of love, highlighted by the sacrifice, triggers us to love our species and act in ways which promote its survival and growth. — ENOAH

Shouldn't we love other species just as much as we love our own species? For example, I don't think that factory farming is ethical.

Shouldn't we love other species — Arcane Sandwich

Absolutely.

I'd call it something like "logical reductionism", or something along those lines, something that sounds more "politically correct" but without losing too much bite. — Arcane Sandwich

That's fair. The point for me is that it is one theory among many, which must be expected to compete with other theories without any special privileges.

In any case, I agree that Anselm's argument becomes more difficult to dismiss when one cannot simply appeal to one's own quantificational preferences in a question-begging manner.

The way I see it, the "problem" (if it can be called that) with Anselm's argument is that it's too generic: it doesn't manage to conclude that God is Jesus Christ, and this is exactly what I would expect from a Christian philosopher. In other words, proving that God exists is only half of the problem. The other half is proving that God is Christ.

For example, a Muslim philosopher wouldn't try to refute Anselm's argument. Why would he? He believes in God just as much as Anselm does. It that sense, he would accept the argument in question. And so would a Jewish philosopher, and so would a monotheist Pagan philosopher.

If we don't specify who God is (Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, the Rainbow Serpent, etc.) then every theist can accept Anselm's argument, no matter what the details of their religión are.

- Sure, but a different conclusion requires a different argument. There is no single argument that proves both FTI2 and FTI3, considered as propositions. Anselm's is arguing for FTI2.

And another way to critique your FTI1 is to say that essentially no one believes it. At least I don't know of any group that believes God is necessarily identical to Jesus (even ignoring the problematic Trinitarian theology here). Christians themselves do not generally claim that the Incarnation was theologically necessary. Or else think about the fact that everyone without exception would agree that FTI1 was false before Jesus was born, and that if God existed before Jesus of Nazareth was born then strict identity cannot obtain.

The difficulty here is that the existence of God is a very modern preoccupation, whereas the divinity of Jesus has been a perennial question. In a perennial sense the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus are two quite separate questions. No one really thinks that one cannot believe in God's existence without believing in Jesus' divinity, or that one cannot abandon Jesus' divinity without abandoning God's existence.

There is no single argument that proves both FTI2 and FTI3, considered as propositions. Anselm's is arguing for FTI2. — Leontiskos

Speaking in general, the conclusion of one argument can be a premise of a different argument, and vice-versa. Furthermore, there's no need to prove both FTI2 and FTI3 in a single argument. I'm aware that Anselm argues for FTI2. In that sense, his argument works as a defense for anyone who wishes to resist FTI2 in the argument that I offered in the OP of this Thread, which argues for FTI3. It's not an either/or type of deal.

And another way to critique your FTI1 is to say that essentially no one believes it. — Leontiskos

Doesn't matter. The way I see it, logic has nothing to do with belief, just as math doesn't have anything to do with belief. The notion of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. Mathematical truths are still truths even if no one believes in them. The same goes for logical truths.

At least I don't know of any group that believes God is necessarily identical to Jesus (even ignoring the problematic Trinitarian theology here). Christians themselves do not generally claim that the Incarnation was theologically necessary. Or else think about the fact that everyone without exception would agree that FTI1 was false before Jesus was born, and that if God existed before Jesus of Nazareth was born then strict identity cannot obtain. — Leontiskos

Well, my intention with the OP in this thread isn't to settle every single issue there is to settle in Christian philosophy, or in non-Christian philosophy. I'm just planting some seeds here. Don't expect to harvest the fruits as soon as the seeds have been planted. It would be unrealistic to do so. One of the plants will die, or perhaps both of them will die. In that case, what I planted may serve as nutrients for the germination and maturing of better seeds (i.e., better arguments, both Christian and non-Christian).

The difficulty here is that the existence of God is a very modern preoccupation, whereas the divinity of Jesus has been a perennial question. In a perennial sense the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus are two quite separate questions. — Leontiskos

Indeed, but my opinion is that throughout the centuries, Christian philosophers have been solely preoccupied with proving that God exists, without being equally preoccupied with proving that God is Jesus Christ. And they should, because otherwise, what makes them Christian philosophers, instead of theistic philosophers in general?

throughout the centuries, Christian philosophers have been solely preoccupied with proving that God exists, without being equally preoccupied with proving that God is Jesus Christ. — Arcane Sandwich

It can't be proved; they need to get a life!

It can't be proved; they need to get a life! — PoeticUniverse

I have offered one such proof in the OP of this Thread, and I have done so without even being a Christian philosopher. Sure, it's a rather humble proof, but it's still a proof.

It's not an either/or type of deal. — Arcane Sandwich

Right.

Doesn't matter. The way I see it, logic has nothing to do with belief, just as math doesn't have anything to do with belief. The notion of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. Mathematical truths are still truths even if no one believes in them. The same goes for logical truths. — Arcane Sandwich

What use is there in asking people to consider a proposition that no one believes, not even oneself? It seems like putting something on the food menu that isn't edible.

Indeed, but my opinion is that throughout the centuries, Christian philosophers have been solely preoccupied with proving that God exists, without being equally preoccupied with proving that God is Jesus Christ. And they should, because otherwise, what makes them Christian philosophers, instead of theistic philosophers in general? — Arcane Sandwich

I think you'll find that Christians make relevant arguments. In Aquinas' day they argued against Islam, because Islam was popular. In the Enlightenment period they argued against Rationalism. Nowadays there are a lot of people claiming that Jesus was not divine, and so Christians tend to argue in that direction. Here is an example from two days ago.

What use is there in asking people to consider a proposition that no one believes, not even oneself? It seems like putting something on the food menu that isn't edible. — Leontiskos

No one believed in non-Euclidean geometries during the 19th Century, not even their own pioneers. On the contrary, those mathematicians wanted to prove that the negation of Euclid's fifth postulate would eventually lead to a contradiction. It didn't. To everyone's surprise, there was more to geometry than what Euclid had said. A similar situation happened later with logic, specifically with the development of non-Aristotelian systems (such as paraconsistent logic).

Shorter: math and logic don't care about our beliefs. So we should feel free to explore their uncharted territories, and to do so with whatever beliefs we would like to have in mind while doing so.

I think you'll find that Christians make relevant arguments. In Aquinas' day they argued against Islam, because Islam was popular. In the Enlightenment period they argued against Rationalism. Nowadays there are a lot of people claiming that Jesus was not divine, and so Christians tend to argue in that direction — Leontiskos

I'm aware of that. Yet arguing against non-Christian beliefs is not the same thing as arguing for Christian beliefs.

Here is an example from two days ago. — Leontiskos

Interesting reference, I'll try to read it tomorrow.

No one believed in non-Euclidean geometries during the 19th Century, not even their own pioneers. — Arcane Sandwich

And that's why it didn't make any sense to talk about them.

Shorter: math and logic don't care about our beliefs. So we should feel free to explore their uncharted territories, and to do so with whatever beliefs we would like to have in mind while doing so. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you saying that you believe FTI1? Because again, if not and no one else believes it, then it looks to approximate a strawman rather than something fit for discussion.

For example, should we conduct a dialogue on the question of whether the moon is made of lasagna? No, of course not. Why? Because no one believes such a thing. And using "the moon is made of lasagna" as a premise in an argument would be equally pointless, given that it has no bearing on anyone's beliefs.

Interesting reference, I'll try to read it tomorrow. — Arcane Sandwich

No worries. I haven't read it and I don't really plan to. I was just offering an example of how common this sort of argument is.

And that's why it didn't make any sense to talk about them. — Leontiskos

Yet Einstein's conceptualization of spacetime is based on the development of non-Euclidean geometries, particularly Riemann's ideas.

Are you saying that you believe FTI1? Because again, if not and no one else believes it, then it looks to approximate a strawman rather than something fit for discussion. — Leontiskos

No, I don't believe FTI1. And even if I did, what I believe (and what anyone else believes) is irrelevant to the truth value of that premise.

For example, should we conduct a dialogue on the question of whether the moon is made of lasagna? No, of course not. Why? Because no one believes such a thing. And using "the moon is made of lasagna" as a premise in an argument would be equally pointless, given that it has no bearing on anyone's beliefs. — Leontiskos

It doesn't matter if we believe that the moon is made of lasagna or not. What matters is if the statement "the moon is made of lasagna" has a corresponding fact in the external world. It doesn't, so it's false. It has nothing to do with out beliefs.

Feel free to disagree though.

Yet Einstein's conceptualization of spacetime is based on the development of non-Euclidean geometries, particularly Riemann's ideas. — Arcane Sandwich

But Einstein believed in non-Euclidean geometries, so the premise fails. No one is objecting to Einstein talking about something he believes in, but after all, Einstein did not talk about the moon being made of lasagna.

No, I don't believe FTI1. And even if I did, what I believe (and what anyone else believes) is irrelevant to the truth value of that premise. — Arcane Sandwich

Truths that no one believes are irrelevant to a philosophy forum, for they cannot be spoken of.

It doesn't matter if we believe that the moon is made of lasagna or not. — Arcane Sandwich

Then why haven't you started a thread on the topic? (Hint: it's because the topic is irrelevant. Why? Because it does not bear on anyone's beliefs.)

Note that this is why there are good arguments and bad arguments: because premises which do not touch on someone's beliefs cannot persuade, and it is the job of an argument to persuade.

But Einstein believed in non-Euclidean geometries, so the premise fails. No one is objecting to Einstein talking about something he believes in, but after all, Einstein did not talk about the moon being made of lasagna. — Leontiskos

The concept of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. Einstein's beliefs about those geometries aren't what makes them suitable for his conceptualization of spacetime.

Truths that no one believes are irrelevant to a philosophy forum, for they cannot be spoken of. — Leontiskos

If such were the case, then Socrates would not be welcome here, for example.

Then why haven't you started a thread on the topic? (Hint: it's because the topic is irrelevant. Why? Because it does not bear on anyone's beliefs.) — Leontiskos

Not quite. I haven't started a thread on the topic because I know that the moon is not made of lasagna. So does everyone else. By contrast, I don't know if Jesus is God. Christians claim to know that he is. However, when I ask them for logical arguments, they point me in the direction of Anselm and Aquinas, for example. But those philosophers never offered a proof for the conclusion that Jesus is God, they have only offered proofs for the conclusion that God exists. At this point, I'm told that there are no such arguments, because the thesis that Jesus is God is a revealed truth. My counter-point to that is that the thesis that God exists is also a revealed truth. And yet it isn't incompatible with a logical deduction. Otherwise, what are Anselm and Aquinas doing then, when they offer their arguments for the existence of God? My point is that the same would seem to be the case for the idea that Jesus is God.

At this point, I'm told that there are no such arguments, because the thesis that Jesus is God is a revealed truth. My counter-point to that is that the thesis that God exists is also a revealed truth. — Arcane Sandwich

For Catholics neither are purely revealed truths, even though both can be (and have been) revealed (although one could argue with me on whether Jesus' divinity is purely revealed if they wanted to).

In any case, it would be a small minority which does not think natural reason can do a lot of work on such questions. For example, those who met Jesus during his Earthly life and came to believe that he is divine were not working apart from their natural reason.

The concept of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. — Arcane Sandwich

Participation in a philosophy forum is not a formal science. Premises which no one believes, such as FTI1, are useless. Their highest level of function is as a strawman.

Not quite. I haven't started a thread on the topic because I know that the moon is not made of lasagna. So does everyone else. — Arcane Sandwich

But you're skipping around the question. What if you didn't know it is not, but you didn't believe it is. And you knew that no one else believed it is. Would you start a thread on the topic?

(Lack of belief is sufficient; recourse to knowledge is a different issue. The concept of knowledge is arguably as foreign to the formal sciences as the concept of belief.)

I have offered one such proof in the OP of this Thread, and I have done so without even being a Christian philosopher. Sure, it's a rather humble proof, but it's still a proof. — Arcane Sandwich

Try using the Block Universe to prove it.

Try using the Block Universe to prove it. — PoeticUniverse

Why would I do that?

In any case, it would be a small minority which does not think natural reason can do a lot of work on such questions. For example, those who met Jesus during his Earthly life and came to believe that he is divine were not working apart from their natural reason. — Leontiskos

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you please elaborate on this point, specifically?

The concept of belief is foreign to the formal sciences. — Arcane Sandwich


Participation in a philosophy forum is not a formal science. Premises which no one believes, such as FTI1, are useless. Their highest level of function is as a strawman. — Leontiskos

I'll just insist on what I said earlier: the truth value of a proposition (be it a premise or a conclusion) is not determined by our beliefs. As for participation in a philosophy forum not being a formal science, I haven't claimed the contrary.

Not quite. I haven't started a thread on the topic because I know that the moon is not made of lasagna. So does everyone else. — Arcane Sandwich


But you're skipping around the question. What if you didn't know it is not, but you didn't believe it is. And you knew that no one else believed it is. Would you start a thread on the topic? — Leontiskos

I don't understand what you mean here either. Can you elaborate on this other point as well?

(Lack of belief is sufficient; recourse to knowledge is a different issue. The concept of knowledge is arguably as foreign to the formal sciences as the concept of belief.) — Leontiskos

I beg to differ. Knowledge, unlike belief, is not foreign to the formal sciences. By doing math (and logic), we gain knowledge. That is the main purpose of the sciences, both formal and factual: to gain knowledge. It might just so happen that we gain new beliefs, or discard old beliefs, but that's beside the point.

Why would I do that? — Arcane Sandwich

Show that God is the Block Universe and we are inside God.

Show that God is the Block Universe and we are inside God. — PoeticUniverse

Why would I want to show that?

(FTI1) If God exists, then God is identical to Jesus.
(FTI2) God exists.
(FTI3) So, God is identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

If.....God is identical to Jesus....God is identical to Jesus.

That's not an argument. Nothing to digest there.

"If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs." - Larry Fine.

That's a better argument, but similarly, leaves you hungry for something to actually digest.

Philosophers have a problem clarifying whether a cat on a matt is really two things, or a thing at all.

This post will go nowhere illuminating. I'm not picking on you, just sayin...

It is very difficult to discuss God in any empirical, critical, scientific manner, especially in a forum where many people have no inclination to entertain the notion of "God" seriously.

If.....God is identical to Jesus....God is identical to Jesus.

That's not an argument. Nothing to digest there. — Fire Ologist

You don't seem to understand what an argument is. An argument is a list of premises that deductively entail a conclusion. That is exactly what a modus ponens is.

"If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs." - Larry Fine.

That's a better argument — Fire Ologist

What makes it better?

Philosophers have a problem clarifying whether a cat on a matt is really two things, or a thing at all. — Fire Ologist

I don't have that problem. It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that I do.

This post will go nowhere illuminating. — Fire Ologist

That's not the objective of my OP, if that's what you're referring to.

It is very difficult to discuss God in any empirical, critical, scientific manner, especially in a forum where many people have no inclination to entertain the notion of "God" seriously. — Fire Ologist

Then why would I say something like the following?

I'm open to the idea that God might exist, and that Jesus might be God. — Arcane Sandwich

Why would I want to show that? — Arcane Sandwich

Since the buck has to stop somewhere, there is an Eternal Basis of All, as like the Tao.

The Eternal is timeless and so it can't have any specific design going into it because it has no 'before' or 'outside'; therefore it has to be Everything possible, either all at once, as in Eternalism, or linearly, as in Presentism. (We don't know the mode of time.)

Our universe is one of its paths that was workable, since it kept on going forward.

A block universe is formed in an instant, everything actually happening once, but in a flash. Then it plays out in slo-mo, linearly, or we traverse through the already complete block of events, not being able to tell the difference.

So what does that have to do with the thesis that either Jesus is God or Jesus is not God?