# Anselm and Ontological proof.



## Dr. Ransom (Nov 18, 2003)

Since it seems we are again alowed to discuss philosophy, I would like to discuss Anselm's Ontological argument. We we naturally move into other ares of philosophy and possibly the theology that it produces, but I'd like to start here. Eventually I'd like to explore is whether or not anything of an ontological nature has an impact on Tolkien's middle earth. I think it's somewhat taken for granted in the SIL. 

As a forward, since we have had trouble in the past with people flaming philosophical or theological threads because they don't want them on the forum, I am asking only people who are going to take this serious to post. Any person who stoops to any kind of flaming will be asked to leave and I will ask a Mod to delete all their posts made in this thread. 

Eriol is the only forum member that I am aware of who knows this stuff right off the top (I sure don't), so please do a little study and research before posting. 

I will give Eriol some time to post, and the rest of you some time to look up "ontological" in the dictionary before we get started.  (I'm right there with ya...)

Enjoy-


----------



## Thorin (Nov 18, 2003)

Ah yes...good old Anselm

When we think of God we come up with the definition.."God is the greatest being conceivable". To think of anything greater than God is, by definition inconceivable. However the thought of something is not greater than the reality. Hence because the reality of God would be of greater conceivability than the thought of God, God must exist both in thought AND reality. If God exists only in the mind, then there is a being of greater conceivability, that is that in reality. By definition, God cannot NOT exist.

Its been awhile since I thought of that. How's that in a nutshell?


----------



## Lúthien Séregon (Nov 19, 2003)

> When we think of God we come up with the definition.."God is the greatest being conceivable". To think of anything greater than God is, by definition inconceivable. However the thought of something is not greater than the reality. Hence because the reality of God would be of greater conceivability than the thought of God, God must exist both in thought AND reality. If God exists only in the mind, then there is a being of greater conceivability, that is that in reality. By definition, God cannot NOT exist.



I haven't heard of Anselm before, but my immediate response to that would be:

"God cannot be the greatest being conceivable if the concept of God is only a figment of the human imagination". All because humans can think of concepts of greater worth than objects in reality, that does not make their "reality form" as much a part of reality with the same extent in greatness. Saying that if humans can think of something of the greatest conceivability, then it must have a form in reality to actually be of this definition, is like saying that all ideas have their perfect form in reality for them to be of a particular conceivability. Kind of like Plato's form theory, in a way.

If God exists *only* in the mind, then there is something of greater conceivability: reality itself, just as reality is more conceivable than any idea, because we are faced with it.



Unless I've misunderstood the argument? Anyway, just thought I'd write my thoughts...

( To go off on a silly tangent: suppose I thought a being of the greatest conceivability is a crocodile with an ostrich's head. Therefore, the reality of this must be more conceivable than the thought. . )


----------



## Eriol (Nov 19, 2003)

St. Anselm's Ontological Proof was attacked still in his lifetime by a monk (don't remember his name) with an argument quite similar to Lúthien's. He said that by using the form of the Ontological Proof (O.P. for short) we could prove the existence of a Blessed Island filled with more joy and riches and delights than any earthly vision; since we can conceive of such a perfect island, and if the island is perfect it must exist.

So, the O.P. could be used to prove the existence of Aman!



The monk's "reductio ad absurdum" is not quite precise, though, in my opinion. St. Anselm's argument applies only to _infinite_ concepts. Indeed, these two words, "infinite" and "concept", are a bit inimical. But if we accept the notion of "an idea of Infinity"; and that we can entertain such an idea without self-contradiction in our minds; then the O.P. stands. The non-contradictory idea of Infinity in our minds, when it regards Infinite Perfection, MUST include "existence", since a being that exists is more perfect than a being that doesn't exist.

But even so I don't accept the O.P., for another reason than stated.

Let us state the ontological proof as a syllogism (Thorin did it quite well, but I'll look at each premise):

1) God is perfect (the "greatest thing conceivable" in Thorin's words; it is important to realize that the O.P. is not directed to "size", spatial dimensions, when it talks about the "greatest thing"; it is a matter of goodness. Perfection is Infinite Goodness.)

2) Perfection entails existence (you can't be perfect if you don't exist, since existence could then be added to you and make you "more" perfect. Therefore you were not perfect to begin with.)

Therefore God exists.

The problem with the O.P. lies in the little word "is" in "God *is* perfect". That word is very tricky . 

As I see it, St. Anselm was using it to designate a predicate. As in the sentence "The sky is blue". You have a concept "sky", and you give a property of the concept, in this case color.

There are many other ways to use the word "is", and one is especially important to this: to use it in an arbitrary definition; in an tautology. If I said "the sky is the space above our heads when we are outdoors", I'd be making a definition, not listing a predicate. Genus and species: sky is in the genus "space", and it is "the kind of space which is above our heads when we are outdoors". 

This kind of space which I call "sky" has blueness during the day; that is a predicate of the thing, not included in the definition. So "the sky is blue" is not a tautology; it tells us a new thing about the subject "sky", a thing which is not deduced from the definition of "sky".

"God is perfect" is a tautology. Perfection is implicit in the notion of God. (The _word_ God was used to denote imperfect spirits by many people, but we're talking about the notion of the Christian God here.)

So, the mistake St. Anselm made, in my opinion, is to take the sentence "God is perfect" -- a tautology -- and use it as denoting a predicate. "God is perfect" is in fact inaccurate. We talk about a "perfect play" in a game; but that is not the kind of "perfect" which God is. That is "relative perfection", perfection within boundaries. God is not "perfect"; God is "_Perfection_". 

I'm sure St. Anselm would agree with me on that . And the new sentence, "God is Perfection", is less easily mistaken for a predicative sentence. It "looks like" a definition. 

An example. If I imagine a non-existing flower and call it "elanor" (hehe), I can pick its predicates at will. It can be red or blue or yellow or whatever. It can have 3 petals or 5 or many. In other words, I can define it arbitrarily; and any of these sentences:

elanor is a blue flower
elanor is a red flower
elanor is a flower with 5 petals
elanor is a flower with 3 petals

would be tautological. They are part of my arbitrary definition of "elanor". They will not denote predicates. On the other hand, if I say "an orchid is a flower with three petals", this is NOT a tautology. It denotes a predicate. The number of petals is not a part of the definition of "orchid" (even though all orchids have three petals; unless you pick some petals from it ).

"God is perfection" is part of the definition of God. It does not denote a predicate. 

When you mix the two kinds of "is", you get Anselm's confusion. Though the sentences "elanor is a flower with 3 petals" and "vanilla (an orchid) is a flower with 3 petals" seem similar, they are very different. You can't affirm that elanor exists when you say the first sentence; you CAN affirm that vanilla exist (present tense, "*is* a flower...") when you say the second sentence.

This shortcoming is independent of the nature of the subject of the sentence, and it is thus immune to the consideration that "the argument only applies to infinite concepts". The problem is really that when Anselm (implicitly) claims predicative nature to the statement "God is perfect" he is stating that God exists; which is the conclusion he wants to prove. For there can't be a predicative statement of a non-existing thing. If you try to make a predicative statement about a non-existing thing you get a tautology (which is quite different).

So, the hidden and flawed premise in the O.P. is this:

1) God [/b]is[/b]
2) God is perfect
3) Perfection entails existence

Therefore God exists.

The first, hidden premise, is the same as the conclusion. And the first premise is needed if we want to consider the second premise as a predicative statement, and not a tautology.

So I don't buy Anselm's argument. It needs prior belief in the existence of God to prove God. And this is not acceptable. I'm with Lúthien here .

And by the way, great color Lúthien... I think it is easier to read than the green (though I usually prefer green to blue).

Even though I think the argument is flawed, some great philosophers liked it; Descartes, Leibniz and Hegel are among them. On the other hand other philosophers dismissed it; Kant and Bertrand Russell are those I know about, by probably there are many others; including St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Catholic theologian, who did not include it among his proofs of God.


----------



## Niniel (Nov 19, 2003)

Hm, I needed to find my philosophy notes first, but now I remember. Eriol already explained the fundamental flaw in Anselm's reasoning: he assumes perfection entails independent physical existence. And since he assumes that God is perfect, God must therefore exist. It is an a priori argument, because it judges from ideas, not from observations in the world.
Anselm's argument was countered by Thomas Aquinas, who reasoned thus:
1. Our senses observe that there are things that move ('moving' includes every physical action).
2. Something can not move by itself, so they must be moved by something else.
3. Each thing is moved by another thing, but this string om moving things can't go on forever.
4. Therefore there must a 'first mover', who does not move himself, but is the cause of the movements of all other things. Thomas calls this mover God.


----------



## Eriol (Nov 19, 2003)

I don't think Aquinas' proofs may be described as "countering" Anselm's Ontological Proof, Níniel. They are simply other ways to prove God's existence, and must be examined separately according to their merits (there are five Proofs by Aquinas). They are not refutations of the O.P. I never heard of any refutation of the Ontological Proof by Aquinas, though he probably wrote something about it, that guy wrote a LOT .


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Nov 20, 2003)

* Enters, lit conversational pipeful of Longbottom Leaf already in hand, wishing to join all interested erudite conversationalists here present particularly on the topic of ontology as applied to Middle Earth, and indeed, Eä. *

Though I start out the discussion surrounded by the trappings of Earth in ... what Age are we in, Seventh, is it? ... Have no fear, I'll soon return the discussion to the comfort of the Third Age of Middle Earth. 

Two years ago, I discovered a book called "The Nature of Belief" by M.C. D'Arcy, published in 1945 by Sheed & Ward. What struck a chord in me is *Eriol's* mention of a monk's (Gaunilon's?) refutation concerning a hypothetical Blessed Island. 

Though D'Arcy's example deals with the belief that England is an island, I would venture that his illustration of what he calls "the illative sense or interpretation," or indirect reference leading to unity and certainty, is close enough to be applicable to and counter Gaunilon's reasoning.

Regarding England's existence as an island,



> Consider the number of indirect references to it in our conversations about travelling, correspondence, defence, education, commerce, politics, in every concern of life; remember, too, that there is every possible variety and shade of meaning in such references -- and it will be very difficult to escape the conclusion that we have a texture of infinite fineness, a unity, that is, of infinite complexity which explains our certitude. ... I cannot, for instance, speak of a journey from England to America without the aid of the ideas of sea and railways and crowds and shipping and harbour and winds in the background. -- M.C. D'Arcy



Consider now Frodo and Bilbo, about to set sail West from the Grey Havens. It's one thing to have been an Elf who'd seen Aman and therefore took its existence for utter certainty. But what of Hobbits? How different is embarking into the unknown from embarking into the unknowable?

Gandalf the Grey


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 20, 2003)

I am coming to this thread after reading the posts so far and having understood that I can hardly take part in the discussion with some valuable arguments for not knowing the matter too well.

I have some....."peculiar" opinion on philosophy in general. I do admit that the great minds we call philosophers have put forward some challenging opinions about life, the universe and all.... But this is what are these - _opinions_! And they are coming from individuals! And no matter how clever an individual may be, his understandings, opinions, conclusions, theories etc. are only _individual_ - therefore _subjective_. To accept the theory of one or another phislosopher is not because this theory reveals some sort of an absolute truth, even because of the simple fact that the "author" of the theory himself is incapable of perceiving things beyond his own personal = subjective perceptions and subjective understanding of the surrounding us reality.

That said, I'd better say why I came in here in the first place.

There's a line that I read :


> Infinite Perfection, MUST include "existence", since a being that exists is more perfect than a being that doesn't exist.


Am I to understand that according to this theory something that is the fruit of human imagination is NOT perfect, while the existing in reality is perfect just because it exists ????  

Now.... If this is what this theory implies then I most strongly disagree !!!!

IMHO _perfection_ comes into being in the material=existing world only because at one point somewhere someone in his/her mind envisioned a thing (which exists in reality) in another, different form of existance and then this "someone" did his/her best to achieve this vision of his/hers, which resulted in producing a new - better thing which (in many cases) started to exist in reality. This is how perfection came to exist!  

Think of the Silmarilli !
Think of Menegroth!
Think of Gondolin!

My point is that a thing that exists in reality cannot be more perfect than the one that exists in the mind=does not exist.

Is our real world better and more perfect than the imaginary Numenor (for ex.)????

Perfection is a category of evaluation IMO.
One cannot "evaluate" an existing thing for existing or not existing. This thing is either there or not there! But its qualities can be judged. The thing is that this "judgement" is strongly subjective! 
I here remember again the Silmarilli. These things existed in reality but they were "evaluated" in a different = subjective way by the involved in the story - Feanor, the Valar, Morgot (although he is a Vala too  ), Feanor's sons, Thingol....etc. And while these people (and not people) had different=subjective attitudes towards the three precious stones, the stones themselves were simply _existing_.  All the "fuss" around them came to be only because they were judged in a different=subjective manner. Each of the "evaluators" had his own = subjective vision and understanding of the stones and different = subjective aims concerning them. 
Now... did these different=personal=subjective perceptions of the Silmarilli make them more or less "perfect"? No! But in the minds of the involved they did!

So, IMO, _perfect_ can be only the thing which, taken from its existance in reality, is entered into a mind, which mind wishes to see this thing altered and fit to this particular mind's understanding of _perfection_..... And when the mind alters the existing thing and fits it to its own perceptions of perfection, this particular mind, steps back, marvels at the "new" thing and sighs: Ah! What a perfection!"

Uf! I hope you understand what I mean.


----------



## Niniel (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eriol _
> *I don't think Aquinas' proofs may be described as "countering" Anselm's Ontological Proof, Níniel. They are simply other ways to prove God's existence, and must be examined separately according to their merits (there are five Proofs by Aquinas). They are not refutations of the O.P. I never heard of any refutation of the Ontological Proof by Aquinas, though he probably wrote something about it, that guy wrote a LOT . *


* 
I wasn't suggesting that Aquinas especially countered Anselm's proof, but that he (but not only he) gave a different explanation that has receieved much attention by scholars eversince.*


----------



## Malbeth (Nov 20, 2003)

Argh... I wrote something that was lost in cyber-space... anyway, here it goes again:

Aquinas did mention the OP in his Summa, in the first article of the second question: "Is the existence of God self-evident?"
Here are his wording of the proof and his refutation:



> Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident. (...)
> 
> Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.



Lhun... the OP does not mean that anything that exists in reality is necessarily more perfect than anything that does not... it means that if a thing exist in thought as well as in reality it is more perfect than if it exists only in thought... Aman, if it existed as exactly as Tolkien made it to be, would be even more perfect... therefore we know Aman is not "something than which nothing greater can be thought".


----------



## Eriol (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Niniel _
> *I wasn't suggesting that Aquinas especially countered Anselm's proof, but that he (but not only he) gave a different explanation that has receieved much attention by scholars eversince. *



With that I agree. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Lhun, the point of that sentence is simply this: if you have a concept in your mind, no matter how good it is, it would be better if it actually existed. All of your examples point to that. Fëanor had an idea; he wanted to lock the light of the Trees in jewels. Great idea, eh? Then he did it. Which is greater, the idea or the jewels themselves?

The same applies to Gondolin and Menegroth. 

If you think Tolkien's world is a great literary creation, wouldn't it be even greater (i.e. closer to perfection; I'm using "great" in the sense shown by Thorin) if it existed?

The evaluation of a Silmaril by an Elf is not the same thing as the Silmaril itself. It is quite different. For Beren a Silmaril was worth nothing in itself; he wanted it as a means. He was quite willing to give it away once he got it, to get Lúthien. For Melian it was worth little enough. For Thingol it was worth more. For the sons of Fëanor it was worth even more, they were willing to murder innocents for it (we see no sign that Thingol would murder innocents for the Silmaril). All of these evaluations do not touch upon the Silmaril in itself. The big point of the O.P. is: it is better for the Silmaril to exist than to not exist. This is something which all evaluators involved would agree. And so it remains that existence "adds" to imaginary perfection, always.

Welcome Gandalf the Gray . Thanks for the name of the monk, it is indeed Gaunilon (or a similar name ) who used the Blessed Island argument against Anselm. I think your point about the hobbits sailing to Aman is intriguing, especially when you compare "sailing into the unknown" with "sailing into the unknowable". Is Aman unknowable to the hobbits? I don't think so. They will know it when they get there. It is finite. It is a landmass. Perhaps I'm not understanding you clearly there. But if we take Mr. D'Arcy's example, Frodo and Bilbo would see Elves, flowers, birds, houses, food... all auxiliary notions to the idea of "Aman" in their heads, as "railways, crowds, ships" would be auxiliary notions to a traveller from England to America. It is not the unknowable... or so I see it.

And Malbeth provided Aquinas' refutation of the O.P. Much more synthetic than mine .


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eriol _
> Lhun, the point of that sentence is simply this: if you have a concept in your mind, no matter how good it is, it would be better if it actually existed.


Was the race of Orcs then "perfect"?
Were the Balrogs and the Dragons then "perfect"
Were the Uruk-hai then "perfect"?

What I mean is that the idea in one's mind creates _perfection_ according to this particular mind's notion of what "perfect" might be, which you must agree is extremely subjective. 
And if that idea is later made to exist in reality - to the "creator" this new something will seem _perfect_. But will it be so for others?



> "something than which nothing greater can be thought".


Such understanding ... interpretation of what God comes however based on the notion of place and dimensions which is genetically incorporated into the human mind. We, being humans, have an understanding of the surrounding us reality in which there always is sth. which is _greater_ than another thing. And the above quoted interpretation is based on the same grounds.
This, applied to this interpretation of God, I would then argue that God cannot be the *greatest* because I would assume that there must be sth. else even *greater*...  Why exclude God from the line of comparisons that we are ready to apply to *everything* else in our reality - _small .... larger...largest_? How to accpet the idea that this line stops at God's feet? 

But what if we are not correct? What if our minds are wrong in "ordering" things in such a line : _small .... larger... largest_?
Do we really have a reliable criteria to base our comparisons onto?
One silly example: Is a horse bigger than a man? It is! Yet the horse sees the man bigger, they say.... We cannot be sure (none of the scientists that claim that is a horse! )....But what if this is so? Then our concepts of small< > big results to be different from that of the horse! Whose reality is true, then?


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 21, 2003)

.....because to Melkor, Sauron and Saruman their creatins were _perfect_!
Does this make them _perfect_ for the others simply for being into existance?


----------



## Eriol (Nov 21, 2003)

Lhun: "greatest" in those sentences does not refer to spatial size. It refers to perfection. A "great" thing is a thing close to perfection; the "greatest" thing is God Himself. God does not have spatial dimensions anyway; He's not a body. So I don't agree with you when you say that the sentence about "something than which nothing greater can be thought" is pertaining to dimensions. That is related to ethical or aesthetical excellence; these are the only ways in which we can develop that reasoning. And my own views about that matter is that these two aspects are the same thing seen by different angles. So, that sentence may be translated as 

"something than which nothing more beautiful can be thought"

or 

"something than which nothing better can be thought"

The unity between these two modes of looking at it is very important, I believe... but even if one looks at them disjointedly, any interpretation is enough to clear up that aspect of Anselm's proof.

I agree that the idea of the perfect varies according to each mind. But the idea of "perfection" does not; it is the idea of what can be surpassed by nothing. If someone thinks chocolate is "perfection", then chocolate can be surpassed by nothing, and he is in fact a chocolate worshipper. He would kill for chocolate, he would lie for chocolate, etc. Obviously, no one thinks chocolate is "perfection". But there are some other candidates for perfection -- we call them "idols".

The idea of "perfection" is the same in every mind. They may disagree on the content of the concept, but the form is the same. 

Let's take the Silmarils. I don't think even the Silmarils were "perfection" in the eyes of Fëanor. He did not worship them. An old criticism of idolatry -- that the idols "are built by the hand of man" -- applies here, and Fëanor would surely be aware of that. If pressed, Fëanor would have to admit that many things were "more perfect" than the Silmarils: among them, himself (how could the creature be more perfect than the creator?), other persons, the Valar... 

In Tolkien's world this chain stops at Eru. And the knowledge of an individual mind has no bearing on that. A hobbit may never have heard of Eru; he thinks "perfection" is smoking pipeweed, raising a family, chatting with friends in pubs. But as the story in the Lord of the Rings shows, even this contented hobbit _acknowledges_ "greater" (in the sense of closer to perfection, i.e., better) things when he leaves the Shire. He also acknowledges better things when he is IN the Shire, if he devotes thinking to this matter. His previous thoughts on perfection were, quite simply, a mistake; and he'd be the first to acknowledge that. 

All things, in Tolkien's world, derive their perfection from the ultimate source of Perfection -- Eru. Their perfection is secondary. And this is discernible by all minds, in that world; even Orcs would agree with that (if they spent time thinking about it ). Orcs would agree that:

- some things are better than others;
- no visible thing is the absolute best.

These two observations are enough to support that argument. If we grade things as more or less perfect, we are comparing them with something; if this standard of comparison is not a created thing, it must be a non-created thing; and only Eru fits the bill.

What about our own world?

The idea that a given thing is "good", i.e., it approaches a standard of... well, there is really no proper word to insert here. Perfection is the best we can do. Anyway. The idea that a given thing approaches a standard of perfection is the basis for Anselm's proof. This is not related to the individual mind's mistakes about what is perfect or not. Some minds think that Power is the "summum bonum", the absolute best; others think it is pleasure, or money, or friendships, etc. etc. All minds have an idea of the absolute best; THIS is the fact supporting Anselm's attempt at proving God, and not the individual conceptions (or misconceptions) of each person regarding that absolute best.

When you say "I could think of something better than that", you are supporting Anselm's second premise. 

Bottom line: if one finds a thing, any thing, which is "perfect" in his own eyes -- something than which nothing better (or more beautiful) can be thought -- then he disproves Anselm's reasoning. Not that this is the only way . 

I never found that thing. Have you?

Edit: I just saw your last post, Lhun. No, they were not "perfect". They were efficient, useful, but not "perfect", because they could think of things more beautiful and better. The only sense in which they could be considered "perfect" is what I called "relative perfection", which is almost paradoxical. It means a perfection within boundaries. So that, perhaps, dragons were the ultimate fighting machine, that could never be improved (but then no one could kill them . I bet Morgoth would like to have designed dragons without that soft underbelly  ). But none of those guys -- Melkor, Sauron, Saruman -- thought they were Perfection itself; none of them worshipped dragons.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eriol _
> Lhun: "greatest" in those sentences does not refer to spatial size. It refers to perfection. A "great" thing is a thing close to perfection; the "greatest" thing is God Himself. God does not have spatial dimensions anyway; He's not a body. So I don't agree with you when you say that the sentence about "something than which nothing greater can be thought" is pertaining to dimensions. That is related to ethical or aesthetical excellence; these are the only ways in which we can develop that reasoning.


Wait, Mariner! 
I am aware of your views (_have we not talked about it!_  ) and I am not measuring God in dimensions, for yes - he is not a body. Yes, we speak here of aesthetical categories.
But we do *compare*! Not only material dimensions are involved into a comparison! And your further reasonongs prove that.



> I agree that the idea of the perfect varies according to each mind. But the idea of "perfection" does not; it is the idea of what can be surpassed by nothing. ...
> The idea of "perfection" is the same in every mind. They may disagree on the content of the concept, but the form is the same.


The notion of _perfection_ in itself IMO is based on the "engraved" in our minds idea and undderstanding that all things can be comapred, so that the "ultimate" in the line of "_good>>better>>best_" can be eventually called "perfect". Right?
But the very system of making comparisons ... Can it be absolutely right? Isn't it dpenedable on the particular mind's perceptions? (the horse...?  )



> In Tolkien's world this chain stops at Eru. And the knowledge of an individual mind has no bearing on that. A hobbit may never have heard of Eru; he thinks "perfection" is smoking pipeweed, raising a family, chatting with friends in pubs. But as the story in the Lord of the Rings shows, even this contented hobbit _acknowledges_ "greater" (in the sense of closer to perfection, i.e., better) things when he leaves the Shire. He also acknowledges better things when he is IN the Shire, if he devotes thinking to this matter. His previous thoughts on perfection were, quite simply, a mistake; and he'd be the first to acknowledge that. ...
> All things, in Tolkien's world, derive their perfection from the ultimate source of Perfection -- Eru.


Exactly! Subjectiveness of evaluations! 
If I know that Eru is the perfection only because I have grown up, and my mind thus "educated", in a society where he is considred to be perfect, what could guarantee that I am right in thinking so, if all of a sudden I found myself in a society where Morgoth is considered to be _THE perfection_? Who then will be right? Me or them?
Me, just as they shall have the same _notion_ of perfection. But still we shall consider two opposite things to be "perfect"!



> .... even Orcs would agree with that (if they spent time thinking about it ). Orcs would agree that:
> 
> - some things are better than others;
> - no visible thing is the absolute best.


But....  .... weren't you saying that the thing that exists is more perfect than sth. which does not exist (a vision, an idea...)?
Have I misunderstood? 'Cause I still think that the vision and the idea (which are non-materially existing) are closer to "perfection" (of what I think is perfect, of course!).



> These two observations are enough to support that argument. If we grade things as more or less perfect, we are comparing them with something; if this standard of comparison is not a created thing, it must be a non-created thing; and only Eru fits the bill.


With Eru the case is easier. He is a character of a story.
But what about God?
How to know that he is a non-created thing? 
What is he?
If he exists and yet is non-material (no phisical body, not any kind of enery...) then he must be an ideal!
Whose?



> Bottom line: if one finds a thing, any thing, which is "perfect" in his own eyes -- something than which nothing better (or more beautiful) can be thought -- then he disproves Anselm's reasoning. Not that this is the only way.
> 
> I never found that thing. Have you?


LOL ... You know there is no such thing as "only white" or "only black" for me, hence no "good" or "perfect"! Even if at a certain moment in certain circumstances I have thought of sth. as "perfect" , with time and in other circumstances it turns out that I have been wrong and that there are other things more "perfect" than my previous "prfect"! 
So...Where is the solid criteria I could call "absolute" and build my system of comparison on it?



> Edit: I just saw your last post, Lhun. No, they were not "perfect". They were efficient, useful, but not "perfect", because they could think of things more beautiful and better. The only sense in which they could be considered "perfect" is what I called "relative perfection", which is almost paradoxical. It means a perfection within boundaries. So that, perhaps, dragons were the ultimate fighting machine, that could never be improved (but then no one could kill them. I bet Morgoth would like to have designed dragons without that soft underbelly ). But none of those guys -- Melkor, Sauron, Saruman -- thought they were Perfection itself; none of them worshipped dragons.


But Eri, am I to understand that I shall have to *worship* sth. to call it "perfect"? See my thoughts above.  

********
..... a hopeless atheist trying to find out about God....


----------



## Eriol (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> *The notion of perfection in itself IMO is based on the "engraved" in our minds idea and undderstanding that all things can be comapred, so that the "ultimate" in the line of "good>>better>>best" can be eventually called "perfect". Right?
> But the very system of making comparisons ... Can it be absolutely right? Isn't it dpenedable on the particular mind's perceptions? (the horse...?)*



That is a very interesting question in itself... why would the notion of perfection be engraved in our minds?

Do we have any notion that pertains to a non-existing thing? We feel hunger, and there is food; we feel thirst, and there is drink; we feel loneliness, and there are companions. Any desire of ours has a corresponding real thing.

What is the corresponding real thing of perfection then? What is it that engraved perfection in our minds?

(this argument is from C.S. Lewis)



> Exactly! Subjectiveness of evaluations!
> If I know that Eru is the perfection only because I have grown up, and my mind thus "educated", in a society where he is considred to be perfect, what could guarantee that I am right in thinking so, if all of a sudden I found myself in a society where Morgoth is considered to be _THE perfection_? Who then will be right? Me or them?
> Me, just as they shall have the same _notion_ of perfection. But still we shall consider two opposite things to be "perfect"!



If you worship Morgoth as the perfection, you are simply worshipping Eru under another name... in Middle-Earth at least. There, the perfection IS Eru. If you worship perfection, you worship Eru; even if you call it Morgoth. "What's in a name"...



But I don't think the Orcs worshipped Morgoth as the perfection. They worshipped him (if ever) out of fear, out of astonishment... they would SURELY prefer a Morgoth that did not harrass them, no matter how greatly the admired the real Morgoth. Therefore, the Orcs simply didn't give thought to the question "what is perfection?" If they had given thought to that question they would be forced to admit that Morgoth was not it.

In Middle-Earth, only Eru is that.



> But....  .... weren't you saying that the thing that exists is more perfect than sth. which does not exist (a vision, an idea...)?
> Have I misunderstood? 'Cause I still think that the vision and the idea (which are non-materially existing) are closer to "perfection" (of what I think is perfect, of course!).



Whatever is your idea of perfection, if it exists -- if you can touch it, see it, feel it (in a materialistic way of thinking) or "experience it" (in a less defined way of thinking) -- it is "more" perfect than a non-existing perfection.

Right?



> With Eru the case is easier. He is a character of a story.
> But what about God?
> How to know that he is a non-created thing?
> What is he?
> ...



That distinction I don't agree with. "If non-material, then ideal". Your follow-up question -- "Whose ideal?" shows the shortcoming of that distinction. 

It is something to say that the only non-material things that WE experience are ideals. It is another thing to say that ALL non-material things are ideals; using "ideals" in the sense of "something that was imagined by an individual mind", as I take your words. Am I right in that interpretation?

Anyway. God may be non-material and even so be "real" in the sense of "outside our minds". That God is non-created is a matter of definition... "God" is the word we use to denote the non-created principle of Being -- Being itself. If you ask me, "must there be such a principle?", then we will get into Aquinas' proofs .



> So...Where is the solid criteria I could call "absolute" and build my system of comparison on it?



That's up to you . I have no idea of which is the "proper" criteria. I have mine. I never found any criteria which are better than mine, in my own musings about this. Absolute Goodness, Absolute Beauty, as seen by my mind, this is my criterion. 

When you look at something, you think about it's beauty and about its goodness. It's inevitable. This is your criterion. If you tell me that chocolate is absolute perfection for you, I can only shake my head, but I won't be ever able to disprove it to you. And if you look at any created thing, from chocolate to a Silmaril, and tell me that THIS is perfection at last, then you have disproved Anselm's reasoning.

I never met a human being who could do that.

Disappointing, in a sense. I'd love to derive a rational theorem that proves that such and such is an absolute criterion of Goodness. I can't; or at least I couldn't do it, so far. But this is no reason to disregard Goodness in itself. I don't have any criteria for so many things... and yet I work with those concepts.

All concepts are grounded (though not solely) in arbitrary sense-perceptions anyway . Criteria are overrated . They are quite useful in logic, but in aesthetics I think you'll agree that they are quite hard to pick.



> But Eri, am I to understand that I shall have to *worship* sth. to call it "perfect"? See my thoughts above.



No, only that if you find something that is "perfection itself", you will worship it. Your worship of a thing won't make it perfect, but its perfection will make it worshipful.



> ..... a hopeless atheist trying to find out about God....



I'm trying to find out about Him, too. Only I'd call myself "a hopeful Christian" . But we're both in the dark here... when we use our own unaided minds, especially.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eriol _
> That is a very interesting question in itself... why would the notion of perfection be engraved in our minds?


_notion_: an idea, a belief or un understanding of sth. - according to my precious Oxford Dictionary. 
Eri.... where do you have ideas, beliefs or understandings formed? Not in the mind? Then where? And mind, my dear philosopher, is a part of us that is most easily manipulated !
So... a LOT are the factors that have lead to "engaving" _ideas, beliefs or understandings_ formed in each individual's mind! This thing called "human's mind" can never be free from subjetivism.



> Do we have any notion that pertains to a non-existing thing? We feel hunger, and there is food; we feel thirst, and there is drink; we feel loneliness, and there are companions. Any desire of ours has a corresponding real thing.


I don't think so! In fact i deffinitely don't think so! Because otherwise there will be no progress! A rocket never existed, yet it was invented. Why? Because a human had a desire to fly. Did the desire when i t came had a corresponding equivallent in reality? A bird you'll say most probably. Or an insect.... But there was no a _rocket_!

Or... let's say of another example. If a person is very ill the existing is the illness, the pills, the doctors.... But only his desire to feel well is the one that can cure effectively. And this desire of him has no equivallent in reality. It is only a non-material thing - an idea!



> What is the corresponding real thing of perfection then? What is it that engraved perfection in our minds?
> 
> Whatever is your idea of perfection, if it exists -- if you can touch it, see it, feel it (in a materialistic way of thinking) or "experience it" (in a less defined way of thinking) -- it is "more" perfect than a non-existing perfection.
> 
> Anyway. God may be non-material and even so be "real" in the sense of "outside our minds". That God is non-created is a matter of definition... "God" is the word we use to denote the non-created principle of Being -- Being itself. If you ask me, "must there be such a principle?", then we will get into Aquinas' proofs


When I read this I realized that all the time you're speaking of perfection, and therefore God, as existing outside our minds. 
Can you then, please define _existance_ and _non-existance_? 



> If you worship Morgoth as the perfection, you are simply worshipping Eru under another name... in Middle-Earth at least. There, the perfection IS Eru. If you worship perfection, you worship Eru; even if you call it Morgoth. "What's in a name"...



Wrong! What is the reason to understand Eru as perfection and Melkor - not? I don't have to be an Orc, a Hobbit, whatever... to have un understanding of "perfect". As my previous thoughts show and I see you admit them too, "perfection" is only the subjective view of a particular=subjective mind of things in a certain individual's reality. 
Therefore if I have lived all my life in a society where Morgoth is considered as "perfection" in the good sense that you ascribe to Eru, then Eru, as being the opposite, will be considered as sth. or someone lacking any perfction whatsoever!



> But I don't think the Orcs worshipped Morgoth as the perfection. They worshipped him (if ever) out of fear, out of astonishment... they would SURELY prefer a Morgoth that did not harrass them, no matter how greatly the admired the real Morgoth. Therefore, the Orcs simply didn't give thought to the question "what is perfection?" If they had given thought to that question they would be forced to admit that Morgoth was not it.


Hey.... You're running away from the essence!  Don't give me such examples as they prove nothing but a separate and very subjective case.



> That distinction I don't agree with. "If non-material, then ideal". Your follow-up question -- "Whose ideal?" shows the shortcoming of that distinction.
> 
> It is something to say that the only non-material things that WE experience are ideals. It is another thing to say that ALL non-material things are ideals; using "ideals" in the sense of "something that was imagined by an individual mind", as I take your words. Am I right in that interpretation?


I used "ideal" more as an adjective and not as a noun.... Maybe I expressed myself not clearly... But the point is that if God is not material in any known to our minds way, then he must be immaterial. And as you say, he is a _perfection_ itself, then it comes to prove MY theory that ideas are more eperfect than the existing things.



> That's up to you . I have no idea of which is the "proper" criteria. I have mine. I never found any criteria which are better than mine, in my own musings about this. Absolute Goodness, Absolute Beauty, as seen by my mind, this is my criterion.


Yet you're saying that God is the ultimate perfection, just like Eru in Tolkien's worlds.
They must be the "solid criterion" that you build your system of values upon!



> All concepts are grounded (though not solely) in arbitrary sense-perceptions anyway . Criteria are overrated . They are quite useful in logic, but in aesthetics I think you'll agree that they are quite hard to pick.


Even concepts are a subject to individual understanding and interpretation! Therefore the concepts we know of cannot be used as universal or/and absolute.



> _Walter_: So, what then, do the discords brought in by Melko represent? An evil "theme" within the music?
> 
> And if it is so, and has it's uttermost source in Eru did he maybe purposely introduce evil? To show off his power insofar as he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined?


Ah! The beloved topic of whether Melkor is the root of all evil! 

To me it seems simple though. "Beauty" cannot be understood without "ugliness". "Good" cannot be understood without "evil"....
But ..... the point is that these aesthetic concepts are very much subjective. As you may have understood my idea, one and the same thing (material or non-material) can be viewed at from opposite points and therefore be understood in two opposite ways. What is "good" to one" may be "evil" to another! 

But the question you put forward is extremely interesting!
Because you involved the issue of _sub-creation_.
Let's torture our brain cells a bit more.
Why would Tolkien call Eru's actions "_creation_" and those of Melkor, Aule even of the Elves - _"sub-creation_"?
Besides it is obvious that Tolkien is convinced that Eru's creation is "perfect" while all the rest's creations are not!

I have often thought: "Why cast a stigma upon a copy of a famous painting claiming that only the original is "perfect" but the copy is not?!" And we have heard of hundreds of cases when the copy is hard to tell from the original!
What makes us claim such a thing?
IMO, it is the same "illness" of the human mind which I call "patternizing" 
Wat do you think?


----------



## Eriol (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> *notion: an idea, a belief or un understanding of sth. - according to my precious Oxford Dictionary.
> Eri.... where do you have ideas, beliefs or understandings formed? Not in the mind? Then where? And mind, my dear philosopher, is a part of us that is most easily manipulated !
> So... a LOT are the factors that have lead to "engaving" ideas, beliefs or understandings formed in each individual's mind! This thing called "human's mind" can never be free from subjetivism.*



That notion is in the mind, yes. (I would define mind a bit differently, I think, but for our purposes here it is satisfactory to treat of all non-material operations within a human as "mind". I usually distinguish mind from will). And the mind is easily manipulated, most especially by ourselves . It is a wonderful thing. But I'm not talking about what is in a particular mind, Lhun. I'm talking about a property that is universal and present in every human mind. You said, above, that the notion (your word ) of place and spatial dimensions is genetically incorporated into the human mind. So is the notion of perfection. And that fact:

"the notion of perfection is incorporated into the human mind"

is NOT subjective. What is subjective is how this notion is played out in each mind. But it is the same framework.



> I don't think so! In fact i deffinitely don't think so! Because otherwise there will be no progress! A rocket never existed, yet it was invented. Why? Because a human had a desire to fly. Did the desire when i t came had a corresponding equivallent in reality? A bird you'll say most probably. Or an insect.... But there was no a _rocket_!



I said that for every desire there is a corresponding reality. You answer that this can't be so, because then a desire could never for a non-existing object couldn't be felt. I'll have more to say about this in a moment, when I answer to your question of what is existence. But right now I must say that a desire felt in the mind can be directed at a not-yet-existing object. The not-yet-existing object is not unreal. Some things may be real and not exist.

Let's say you want to write a book. The book does not exist (obviously, hehe). But it is not "unreal" in the sense of "outside reality". Your mind is real. The idea of the book is real. So, the book is real too, in a sense; even before you write it. It is a real idea in a real mind. 

This example again points out how existence adds to perfection. The book will, again obviously, be better when it exists than if it remains an idea.

Most actions can be examined from this viewpoint. I want to kiss a woman; I never kissed her. But the idea of the kiss is quite clear in my mind... and nevertheless it is obvious to me that the existing kiss is better than the ideal (used as an adjective) kiss. 



> Or... let's say of another example. If a person is very ill the existing is the illness, the pills, the doctors.... But only his desire to feel well is the one that can cure effectively. And this desire of him has no equivallent in reality. It is only a non-material thing - an idea!



"Health" is a non-material concept. But this does not mean it does not exist, Lhun... the problem is that we have to sort out the difference between "real" and "existing"; and after we sort that out, we have to sort out the difference between "material" and "non-material" _existing_ things.



> When I read this I realized that all the time you're speaking of perfection, and therefore God, as existing outside our minds.
> Can you then, please define _existance_ and _non-existance_?



Sure . Existence is essence actualized. When you take an essence (an idea, in the terminology we are employing in this thread) and turn it into an actual thing, partaking of Being, then it exists. 

The imagined book is an idea, an essence; but it does not exist. It is a potential book. When it ever becomes an actual book, it will exist. You will have added existence to essence, turning potentiality into act. 

Potential objects are real, too; they are non-existing (they have to be actualized in the future if ever), but they are real. A potential tree is not the same thing as an actual tree. We call it a seed . It is an actual seed, and a potential tree. When you look at it, you must see not only the actual seed, but also the potential tree -- for it is there, only not actualized. It doesn't exist (as a tree) yes.

This analogy of the tree and the seed is more concrete (and less applicable) than that of the book that will be written. 

Now you ask me whether God has existence. The idea of God has an essence (as any and everything has). But does that idea exist? Is it actualized? That question is a bit outside the topic of the thread... you know my answer is yes . And a good way to explore that road would be to look at Aquinas' proofs. If you want me to do it, I'll open a thread. 



> Wrong! What is the reason to understand Eru as perfection and Melkor - not? I don't have to be an Orc, a Hobbit, whatever... to have un understanding of "perfect". As my previous thoughts show and I see you admit them too, "perfection" is only the subjective view of a particular=subjective mind of things in a certain individual's reality.
> Therefore if I have lived all my life in a society where Morgoth is considered as "perfection" in the good sense that you ascribe to Eru, then Eru, as being the opposite, will be considered as sth. or someone lacking any perfction whatsoever!



You're mixing the concepts with the words there, Lhun. In Middle-Earth, Perfection IS that being which started it all, the guy who decided to speak Eä!, etc. etc. It does not matter if I call him Morgoth; or Bilbo. If I am thinking of perfection, I am thinking of him, and the word I use to think of him is not important.

As you rightly said, you don't have to be an Orc to have an understanding of "perfect". And I never said that "perfection is the subjective view of a particular mind of things in a certain individual's reality"... quite the contrary. That subject is a tough nut to talk about, eh? I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I said that the idea of "the perfect" is subjective, but not the idea of "Perfection". That is an objective notion, just as the notion of "place and dimensions" -- and so we get back to the beginning of this post. 

The Orc thinks that manflesh is "the perfect", the thing he likes the most in the whole world. But that is not "Perfection" for him. If pressed, he'd say that "Perfection" is... that "something than which nothing greater can be thought". Which is the same answer of the Elf, of the Hobbit, of the Man, and of the Vala. Only, the Vala knows more about what IS -- about existence -- than the Orc. And thus he recognizes the _existing_ perfection -- Eru -- while the Orc never heard of him and only see Eru's reflection in the much smaller goodness of manflesh. 

Also, Eru is not "the opposite" of Morgoth. That would be Manwë. And Morgoth does not lack ALL perfection; he is not completely imperfect. He has, at least, existence -- which is a mode of perfection. He also has lots of great qualities. I'm being serious here . He has free will, a fantastically great quality. He was beautiful and skilled and powerful. Morgoth is very, very, very bad compared to what he might have been... but he remains with some goodness in it (and that "goodness" is not a chance for repentance as in the case of Gollum.) No, it is "ontological goodness". Morgoth MUST have some goodness or he wouldn't exist; since all beings exist only through Eru's sufferance. Eru gave Morgoth his own being, and Eru can take it back. Since he has not taken it back, Morgoth has some good.

He will never repent; he is the Spirit of Evil. And yet, since Eru allows him to exist, he has some good. This is because (in Middle-Earth!) all beings "borrow" their existence from Eru. That is why "the shadow can't create, it can only mock". And Eru can take back that gift at any moment. If He has not used that privilege, then the conclusion is that Morgoth has some good... strange as that is. 



> Hey.... You're running away from the essence!  Don't give me such examples as they prove nothing but a separate and very subjective case.





I think that example is very general. It goes to the heart of the matter. What is perfection, I ask an orc -- if he thinks about it, he comes with "something than which nothing greater can be thought" -- which in M-E means "Eru". No one could dispute that; not even an orc; not even Morgoth himself. He could, of course, lie . But it is as silly as lying to convince someone that 2+2=8. That fact about Eru, in Middle-Earth, is unquestionable.


----------



## Eriol (Nov 21, 2003)

> I used "ideal" more as an adjective and not as a noun.... Maybe I expressed myself not clearly... But the point is that if God is not material in any known to our minds way, then he must be immaterial. And as you say, he is a _perfection_ itself, then it comes to prove MY theory that ideas are more eperfect than the existing things.



Yes, God is immaterial, but he is not "an idea". Let me quote myself (my last post):



> _Posted by Eriol_
> 
> It is something to say that the only non-material things that WE experience are ideals. It is another thing to say that ALL non-material things are ideals; using "ideals" in the sense of "something that was imagined by an individual mind", as I take your words. Am I right in that interpretation?
> 
> Anyway. God may be non-material and even so be "real" in the sense of "outside our minds".



That's not such an esoteric concept, Lhun... every other human being in the world also fits this description . If you agree that ideas are immaterial; and that other humans have ideas; then other humans have an "immaterial domain" within themselves, just as you have an "immaterial domain" within you. Well, are your ideas real? Sure they are. And so are the ideas of others.

Ideas in the sense we're discussing here are potential existences. But their potentiality does not take away from them their reality. My hypothetical book is as real as yours ; and both would be improved by becoming existent (by actualizing themselves). 

So, God, even though non-material, is real. And he is not real in the same mode as that book we're talking about, because God has no potentiality. God is pure act. God is more, much more real than any of the things you consider to be real. Any and all things that you consider to be part of "reality" are in fact contingent things. The Sun, the Earth, the people around you, the Universe... everything is an effect in a chain of causes, everything was not existing once, everything was potentiality once, and is potentiality NOW. The Sun is an actual star, and is a potential dead star. 

All things are fleeting and non-existing in themselves... except God. He's the only Being whose essence is his own existence. Other beings have to "borrow" existence from other beings, in a very big chain that is traced back to... God. 



> Yet you're saying that God is the ultimate perfection, just like Eru in Tolkien's worlds.
> They must be the "solid criterion" that you build your system of values upon!



Check next quote of yours 



> Even concepts are a subject to individual understanding and interpretation! Therefore the concepts we know of cannot be used as universal or/and absolute.



Exactly. Even if I say that "God is my absolute, solid criterion of perfection", this is quite useless, because I can't relate to God Himself. I can only relate to my idea of God. And this idea (unlike God Himself) is subject to understanding and interpretation. 

There is no way out for us, finite contingent beings . We can't access Truth by ourselves; we must hope that Truth will access us. 

That is the difference between a hopeless atheist and a hopeful Christian, in fact... I believe Truth has already accessed us, and is "available for support" at all moments. No wonder I'm hopeful, eh?



P.S. About sub-creation. I don't think that is (strictly) related to perfection, as you put it, Lhun. There is a Letter in which Tolkien addresses a guy who questioned Treebeard's statement about Morgoth creating the Orcs. And Tolkien drew the distinction between "creating" and "making" the orcs. This did not address the perfection (or lack of perfection) of the orcs; the distinction between true creation and secondary creation in that Letter was simply that Eru created from nothing ("ex nihilo") while "sub-creators" could only rearrange existing matter. Since all spirits were created by Eru at the moment of conception (I think. It is in HoME X.), sub-creators couldn't create spiritual beings, they could only mock. 

So I think that "creation x sub-creation" is about the primary matter used. "Creation" uses no matter at all; "Sub-creation uses pre-existing matter".

Whoa!! That was a long post. Sorry about that .


----------



## Dr. Ransom (Nov 21, 2003)

I'm sorry Walter! Since I made the first post in this thread I've had to put in 2 different motherboards and reload XP twice on my computer. All that on top of school and work, I just said to heck w/ my thread. You're right, as far as the Sil, Ontology and Anselm, I mostly wanted to see what people posted as far as what the elves and so forth believed about the nature of being. I don't have time now to get into it myself, but there have already been posts of such a quality that they are beyond my limited education anyway. 

As far as Anselm, it almost seems to me that the elves would have entirelly agreed w/ his O.P as far as it relates to Eru (note, I'm not sure if I agree with the O.P. argument, I just find it every interesting). Unlike us humans in this "real" (hehe) world questioning and doubting ourselves out of reality, the elves seems to somehow just know the Eru existed and that was that. The question is, did they do that from a rational standpoint, such as arguments like the O.P., or was in ingrained in them even more so than in us (assuming God does in fact exist, if he doesn't, this reasoning is pointless). 

Great posts guys, I have been finding time to read most of them.


----------



## Helcaraxë (Nov 21, 2003)

Both Lhun and Eriol pose strong arguments. However, I think both are flawed. Both arguments strictly adhere to the rules of logic to obtain their conclusions. But the guiding principle of logic is that to obtain truths YOU MUST BEGIN WITH TRUE PREMISES. To say that God exists because non-existence is an imperfection is flawed because

a). You are assuming that God exists independent of your conception of him.

b). For Anselm's argument to be correct, you would have to prove that God is indeed perfect.

As for Lhun's theory that we can only perceive the universe subjectively, this is often true. But not always. The thing is, the concept of "perfection," "absolution," "infinity" is an absolute truth because it is the greatest level of existence possible. Thus, because it is by nature limitless and ALL-ENCOMPASSING, is leaves no room for any perception of it that differs from it itself because by nature and definition this perception is encompassed by the actual thing.

As for the Morgoth: Evil by Nature or Choice?, here are my thoughts.

Previously Eriol mention this "chain" of greatness, with god at the top. Because perfection is the ultimate existence and thus encompasses and surpasses all other types of existence, the perfect creator must by necessity posses all aspects of his creation (or else he would not truly be more perfect than his creation). Thus, for Eru to create Morgoth, Eru would have to have some aspect of him that was evil, even if this evil aspect existed only in Eru's foresight that Morgoth would become evil.


----------



## Gandalf The Grey (Nov 21, 2003)

Hallo *Eriol:* 

Thank you for your warm welcome! * bows a friendly bow *

As for Aman's being unknowable to the Hobbits, I was seeking to contrast the immediate experiential first-hand knowledge of the Elves with the sort of belief/certitude/knowledge of Bilbo and Frodo BEFORE they reached Aman for the first time ... second-hand hearsay knowledge that requires taking something on faith and trusting your source. 

Of course you're correct in the estimations you made in your response to me, *Eriol*. * nods agreeably *

Beyond that, I'd also at the back of my mind been tying in the idea already presented regarding (to loosely paraphrase) "the actual existence of an idea being of surpassing perfection over the mere idea itself." It appears my post required further clarification, and I hope to remedy things here. 

Another way to put it?

Take the foreshadowing of Frodo's sea-voyage West in the dream he had while enjoying the heartening hospitality of Tom and Goldberry. For there is much hope in sailing West!



> "And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a green country under a swift sunrise."



The transcendant movement of the opaque curtain-turned-glass rolling back is reminiscent of the words, “Now we see through a glass darkly, then, face to face.” ... or to put it another way and revisit familiar territory ... the culmination wherein reality trumps the shadow of reality, where actual existence shows itself more perfect than the idea.

Looking forward to further conversation with you,

Gandalf the Grey

P.S. Business and the road have until now kept me unable to devote the time and attention to reading your most recent posts with the care they deserve. With the weekend upon us, I'm looking forward to catching up and indulging in the good reading you here provide!


----------



## Eriol (Nov 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MorgothsBane _
> * Thus, for Eru to create Morgoth, Eru would have to have some aspect of him that was evil, even if this evil aspect existed only in Eru's foresight that Morgoth would become evil. *



We discussed this once, remember? the Ontological x the Psychological Existence of Evil...

I agree with that sentence of yours... in a sense. Eru foresaw that Melkor would become evil. But I emphasize that there is no logical link between foresight and causation; in other words, though Eru foresaw that Melkor would become evil, he did not _make_ Melkor already evil, and he did not _wish_ that Melkor should be evil. 

The evil was not in Eru; it was in Melkor. Eru created the possibility of evil, but that possibility is not the same thing as Evil; and this possibility is intrinsically good. The possibility of evil is the other side of the coin of the possibility of good. 

As Eru said to Aulë, "would you want your creation to move when you move, and be still when you looked elsewhere?" (or something like that ). Aulë didn't; and neither did Eru. No one can be truly good if he does not have the possibility to be evil. In that question of Eru to Aulë is the solution of the "Problem of Evil" in Arda. 

All of this is to state that I reject any "dualist" conception of Arda. In our own world, perhaps, it is arguable (I still disagree, but it is arguable). But in Arda, with an "authoritative" creation myth, there is no room for dualism. Eru is perfect, All-Good, All-Knowing, All-Loving... there is no evil in Him. Melkor was Evil by Choice.

Or so I think .

P.S. I just saw your post, Gandalf the Gray. (I can't call you GG, there are too many GGs out there ). And I think I understand better now. And I agree. Aman can be seen as the "actualization of the potentiality" for the hobbits -- as "Perfection Incarnate". It's quite possible that this is how they thought about it. We don't know if they were disappointed there... but surely, from the info we have about Bilbo and Frodo, the trip to Aman can be easily considered (and probably was considered as such by themselves) as a Voyage Into Perfection, in that high-sounding, absolute sense of Perfection.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 22, 2003)

*1*

Eri:


> 1) God is perfect …
> God is not "perfect"; God is _"Perfection"_….
> Perfection is Infinite Goodness


_Goodness_ however is a subject of a subjective interpretation.
Therefore, if God is _perfection_ in the meaning of “Perfection is Infinite Goodness”, this logically leads to God=Goodness!
What will happen however to this equation if the
_Goodness_ in one’s individual=subjective understanding is NOT the _goodness_ in somebody else’s individual=subjective understanding?

Meaning, if a particular example is to be applied: 
If, say, to one individual _Goodness_ is to dedicate his/her life to helping other people, but to another individual _Goodness_ is to accumulate riches in order to live a most comfortable life, which of these two _Goodness_-s is to be accepted as equal to
_perfection_, hence to God?

In one case God = Goodness = self sacrifice .
In the other case, God = Goodness = self “accommodation”.

Therefore, to try to understand God’s existence, or essence, using the above definition, based on _perfection_, seems to me non-applicable.



> 2) Perfection entails existence (you can't be perfect if you don't exist, since existence could then be added to you and make you "more" perfect. Therefore you were not perfect to begin with.)
> 
> Therefore God exists.


This conclusion is somewhat strange.
To claim that _perfection entails existence_ means that perfection is NOT existence ONLY. What else it may include then? I would say – the _idea_ that led to existence.
Later in the discussion, you stated:


> Existence is essence actualised. When you take an essence (an idea, in the terminology we are employing in this thread) and turn it into an actual thing, partaking of Being, then it exists.


Which logically means that sth. which exists, does so only because of an idea being actualised. 
Then…. What is the primary source – the idea or the result from it – the being?

I am convinced that in most cases the _being_ which is in existence and which came to be in existence as a result of an idea materialized, is far inferior to the _idea_ itself. 
In simpler words: I may have the idea of how my perfect (Ah! That word!  ) house is. The house that I see in my vision is absolutely perfect (in MY understanding of perfection!). But, because of many factors, the house I get in reality = in existence, is far not the same as the one in my vision.

Then which one is _perfection_? 
IMO – *the idea* = my individual vision. 
Something existing materially (in any form of matter) IMO cannot be “perfection” in itself ONLY for being existent. 
But the idea CAN be perfection!

tbc


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 22, 2003)

*2*

The same applies even to Eri’s further examples, like this one:


> Most actions can be examined from this viewpoint. I want to kiss a woman; I never kissed her. But the idea of the kiss is quite clear in my mind... and nevertheless it is obvious to me that the existing kiss is better than the ideal (used as an adjective) kiss.


But how can you say that?! And what if you approach that women of whos kiss you’ve been dreaming and you’re met by a …smel of garlic, for example!  Will the _real_ kiss be as perfect as that in your vision?  

Therefore, if you say “God is perfection” but following my logic, _perfection_ is only in the mind, then God exists only in the mind!

Now I know many will say: “Perfection, Lhun, is achieved by idea+existence!” Right? 
But is this not what the good old Anselm say?

I can only trust your quotes because I have never read neither of these two Anselm or Aquinas and I neither accept nor reject their views. I’m just discussing them with you all! 
So, according to a provided quote, Anselm proves the existence of God in the following way:


> But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident. (...)



But true perfection, IMO, exists only in the mind in a form of an idea, and this idea’s result = the being in existence cannot contribute to or/and affect the perfection=the idea!
Therefore, if God=Perfection, it means that God exists only in the mind where perfection is.
Which, if I have correctly understood, objects to Anselm’s proof which I underlined in the above quote.

Whose mind, however, is an idea=perfection to be found in?
If in that individual’s, whose idea of perfection=goodness was to dedicate his/her life to other people, then God in this particular mind is one thing.
In the other case, God will be another thing!

Then such a definition: God=perfection becomes subjective, hence not to be trusted!

And yet, Eriol says:


> Anyway. God may be non-material and even so be "real" in the sense of "outside our minds"


WHERE????

_Stubborn wraith!_ 


tbc


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 22, 2003)

_*3*_

Now, to the issue of _creation-sub-creation_
To accept that _true creation_ is perfection because it comes from nothing, while _sub-creation_ only rearranges, hence cannot be perfect, could be all right with me.
But the Walter put forward something very interesting, after quoting Tolkien:


> So, Eru's "creation" can be considered a "creation within Tolkien's sub-creation".


Then, I am asking:
WHO was the creator – Tolkien or Eru?
Eru and his creation abilities exist only because Tolkien created them. Therefore, Eru’s “work is sub-creation is compared to Tolkien’s creation, because it was Tolkien who was the real creator.
And then, it turns out that Eru’s creation as being in fact sub-creations as he himself is, cannot be perfect, hence Eru cannot be THE perfection in ME!

And Walt, our questions are basically the same, don't you think? 


> No, in this case I was asking - somewhat veiled, though - whether or not Eru could be the root of all evil, as well as he is the root of all good in Tolkien's sub-creation


Only the subject of the sentence is different! In your - Eru, in mine - Melkor. If a 'yes" is the answer to your question, then it is the "no" to mine and v.v. But the essence is the same.


----------



## Eriol (Nov 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> 
> _Goodness_ however is a subject of a subjective interpretation.
> Therefore, if God is _perfection_ in the meaning of “Perfection is Infinite Goodness”, this logically leads to God=Goodness!
> ...



Lhun, you're doing it again . You are confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself. The individual interpretation of Goodness in each mind is NOT Goodness in itself. To put it in another way -- people can be mistaken about what is Goodness.

Compare it with "which is the most beautiful color". Can people be mistaken about that question? No. But when you ask "what is Goodness", people argue and debate and every one of them has a notion of what is and what isn't Goodness. This in itself shows that these people do not treat the ontological nature of Goodness as something purely subjective. To discuss Goodness is not to discuss to-may-toes or to-mah-toes. People argue, and disagree. What does it mean to disagree with somebody else in such a matter? It means this -- one believes that the other is wrong. And to believe that someone is wrong about something, this something MUST be outside the other's mind. 

If I think that Tolkien was a mass murderer, what is your argument to prove me that he was not? You point at something outside both our minds -- reality -- to say that Tolkien was an author, not a politician. But if I say that "Alfred Mussolini", a guy in my imagination, was not a mass murderer but a peaceful author, what can you say about that? Nothing.

So, to discuss Goodness (as we are doing) is to admit that it is objective. Our interpretations of it are subjective, but Goodness itself isn't. People may like or dislike the Lord of the Rings, they may think whatever they want about it, but these thoughts do not touch upon the real book. Likewise, our musings about Goodness, right or wrong, do not touch upon real Goodness.

Your example is quite refreshing in that context. Lhun, I can _prove_ that the pursuit of riches is not Goodness. Yes, prove it. Absolutely, without a doubt. And yet some people believe it is. A great example of how opinions about this are not trustworthy, and of how people can make mistakes. 



> Which logically means that sth. which exists, does so only because of an idea being actualised.
> Then…. What is the primary source – the idea or the result from it – the being?



A great question. And not one that will be answered by me, here . That's probably among the two or three most discussed things in the history of mankind. 

However, I point out that your use of the word "because" up there may be misleading. As if ideas were the causes of things. We don't know that. What I said is that something that does not exist may be real, as an idea. But I never said that ALL that exists was once real as ideas ONLY. I never denied it, either . This is tricky because we're dealing with God's ideas here, too. The world, and all that there is inside it, was once "an idea of God". But "once" implies time; implies a before and an after. Yet time is also an idea of God. What was there before God created time? How can we understand the word "before" in this question?

This is all very complicated. I have no idea of where it would lead us. I suppose it is too much for us little people .



> I am convinced that in most cases the _being_ which is in existence and which came to be in existence as a result of an idea materialized, is far inferior to the _idea_ itself.
> In simpler words: I may have the idea of how my perfect (Ah! That word!  ) house is. The house that I see in my vision is absolutely perfect (in MY understanding of perfection!). But, because of many factors, the house I get in reality = in existence, is far not the same as the one in my vision.



Lhun, if the house you saw in your vision existed, would it be better than the house in your vision only? You are comparing different things! You are saying that "the perfect house I dream about is better than the flawed house I live in". Sure! But I'm asking you whether the perfect house you dream about is better than the perfect house would be if it existed.

Surely the answer is no. A perfect house would be even more perfect if it existed.

The same happens with the "garlic kiss" . My vision of a kiss did not involve garlic. I'm not comparing my vision of a kiss with a flawed kiss. I'm comparing it with the perfect, EXISTING kiss. If I could have a kiss, an existing kiss, EXACTLY like my vision of a kiss -- which would be better?

The existing kiss. Right?



> Therefore, if you say “God is perfection” but following my logic, perfection is only in the mind, then God exists only in the mind!



If I agreed with your logic, I'd agree with that. But I don't. Perfection is not in the mind only. After all, if it were in the mind only, we would WANT nothing, we would strive for nothing. We would already have perfection. No, what you are calling "perfection" is nothing more than a dream. TRUE perfection is outside us, and we long for it and want to get it. This is why we act at all. We dream; we want to see the dream come true; we act. "The dream come true" is perfection. The dream as a dream is nothing compared to that. 

The basis of your argument is that perfection exists only in the mind. I can't agree with that, Lhun, for reasons already exposed here. If perfection were in the mind, we would not act; if perfection were in the mind, we would not argue about it; if perfection were in the mind, we would not be able to be mistaken about it; if perfection were in the mind, we would prefer it to the dream come true.

That's a lot of objections .

Then you ask me "where does God exist if not inside our minds?" Why, the outside of our minds is a big place . You are outside my mind, and I do not question your existence. This computer is outside my mind, too. And this is where God is. That's the meaning of the word "existing", once you look at it closely; for everything "inside" our minds is potential being only, it is a dream, not an existing thing. 

We'll reach a standstill here if I can't convince you that perfection is outside the mind. I don't think you'll be able to convince me of the contrary, but you can try . Check that list of objections above. 

Finally, sub-creation:



> And then, it turns out that Eru’s creation as being in fact sub-creations as he himself is, cannot be perfect, hence Eru cannot be THE perfection in ME!



Tolkien is not IN Middle-Earth . If we look at Middle-Earth as a closed system, Eru is its creator, and Eru is perfection there. If we look at Middle-Earth as Tolkien's dream, then of course Tolkien is more perfect than Eru; mostly because Tolkien _existed_ and Eru never existed in a more than immaterial form, as words in a book. 

From the point of view of the Christian God, Eru is a nonperfect creation of a slightly closer-to-perfection being, Tolkien. And then your sentence is correct, Lhun. Eru can't be perfection. He's just a description of the all-mighty God by a very finite being, Tolkien. 

From the point of view of Frodo, though, Eru is perfection. He's not aware of "Tolkien", or "Christ". If Frodo could become aware of those concepts, and understand them, he'd probably agree that (a) he is a mere non-existing character in a story and that (b) the really existing beings are more perfect than he in that they have existence and also (c) that Eru is in the same predicament as he, Frodo, is. 

And that's another way to come back to the little value of dreams. For surely you see that Tolkien is more valuable than his entire creation. You may say that the images conjured by Tolkien in the minds of the readers are tremendously valuable, but you won't be able to show that these images are more valuable than their creator. Even if he were not a good man; even if he were a paedophilic and sadistic wreck of a man, he would be more valuable than his works. Because the effect can't be greater than the cause.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 23, 2003)

HELP!!! 
Me and Eri need an arbiter! 

>> I say perfection can exist only in mind in the form of an idea.

>> Eri says (just as Anselm does) perfection is idea+existing result from materializing this very same idea.

>> I say the being in existence does not affect the idea which led to its existence, therefore does not affect perfection itself (IMO idea=perfection)

and so on.....
What do you say, Eri? Care for an opinion from outside? I would like one! 

But still there is a point or two I would like to address before that.

You have commented a lot on the issue of "mind". But why do I get the impression that you treat "mind" as some sort of place?  
When you say "out of mind" - giving me the sad example of how I am being out of your mind  , as well as all the other examples, including the issues of _God_ and _Goodness_ being outside of our minds, I just can't get rid of this thought that you are speaking of "mind" as a "place" and therefore - distinguish things "IN" and "OUT" of mind.
With this I can't agree. In my understanding, "mind" is our perception of the whole surrounding reality and it is as large as the reality is itself. But what is of greatest importance, "mind" is EVEN larger than reality, because a "mind" can "produce" sth. which does not exist in reality. Or a "mind" can take an existing thing from the existing reality and build a new "reality" for this thing and even in a new time, which has not yet come to be in the existing reality! 
Which makes _mind_ the greatest achievement ever that our ape's brain has reached. 
But I am afraid, we still have a long way to pass untill we understand the powers of our own mind!
IMO, whatever one says, whatever one thinks, whatever one understands, dreams of, contemplates of etc... this all is "mind". 

Eri says there is a reality which exists independantly from mind. If we take "mind" only as the mind of one particular individual - yes, this is true. Meaning, even if _my_ mind does not know about the existence of Eriol, he still exists! 

I agree. HEAR , Eri? I agree with you!  

I do not question this! But in my understanding "reality" is one universe and "mind" - another. What I'm saying is that the universe of "mind" is much larger and only there one can meet "perfection". Therefore, it many times happens that because of the perfection met and created in the mental universe of the "mind" people get so much attracted to such an idea that they are ready to believe it exists in reality.

*************
To THE Walt (though you realize, I'm sure, that I just "ate" one "n"-letter in that word! ):



> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lhun-quoting someone's words:
> 
> Now, to the issue of creation-sub-creation.
> ...


Hmmm... Whiose words was I quoting? 



> ...within ME Eru is perfect, because Tolkien wanted him to be perfect. Perfect, quasi per definition of the creator - Tolkien. But that, of course doesn't implicitly mean that if ME would actually exist in reality exactly as Tolkien described it, the then in reality existing Eru would be even "greater" or more perfect.


Two things here:
1/ I don't see Eru as "perfect". Neither any of his creations I accept as perfect. But why - I suppose we could start a separate thread about it.

2/ Am I to understand you support _my_ position, that the existing thing cannot affect nor contribute in any possible way to the perfection of the idea. 



> Not quite. Melko is a "creature" in the widest sense, the offspring of Eru's mind.


Eru is an "offspring" of Tolkien's mind, however! 

Now, I know you, just as Eri, will want me to distinguish between "IN" the story and "OUT" of the story.
But, then we start having two different points of view, which leads to numerous other differences. To pick one or the other line in the attempt to define and understand the essence of Eru and everybody and everything else in Tolkien's worlds, means to go along two different roads - from "within" and from "outside". 

And will these two roads lead to one and the same "point"?
 

We can give it a try!


----------



## Eriol (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> *What do you say, Eri? Care for an opinion from outside? I would like one! *



Sure. I would like even more if you addressed the examples of "perfect ideal house" x "perfect existing house", "perfect ideal kiss" x "perfect existing kiss"...

I think my case (and Anselm's  ) as pertains the added excellence of existence is airtight .



> You have commented a lot on the issue of "mind". But why do I get the impression that you treat "mind" as some sort of place?



Hehe, I got THAT impression from this last post of yours. You say that the mind and reality are "two universes". I never said that. Minds are "inside" reality. Yet, minds can conjure up _images_ (still within reality) of things that are NOT in the subset "reality minus mind". 

Mind can't be larger than reality, Lhun, for many reasons. Reality precedes mind (there was reality around before you were born; and you witnessed the birth of many minds in your lifetime, I suppose). Reality will be around after a mind is "gone". Reality does not stop when the mind stops (as in a coma). Mind can't create ANY idea without input from reality; a newborn mind is greatly dependent on reality to develop any concept, and an adult mind only uses the concepts it took from reality to imagine non-real things. In the concept of "hobbit" there are many concepts, "feet, hair, pipes, domesticity, size, mushrooms...". All of these concepts are taken from reality. We simply rearrange them. Mind can't create a concept completely new. 

This is how I see the relationship between mind and reality:

Imagine two concentric circles. The larger one is "reality", the smaller one is "a mind" (I'm talking about an individual mind here... since there is no such thing as a collective mind  ). Within this mind, there are images of things outside the larger circle, outside reality. The images, being inside the mind (the inner circle), are inside reality; but the things they are images _of_ are not. These things do not exist. Unicorns and hobbits do not exist . Their images are inside your mind, and mine. But their _beings_ are not. Their beings are nowhere. They have no being. They don't exist. "Nowhere" here means "outside the outer circle", since the outer circle encompasses "everywhere" -- it is REALITY.

Now, as any idea, the ideas of "God" and "Goodness" are inside our mind. The problem of the interchanges between the inner and the outer circle is a thorny one, and perhaps a side issue here. The idea of "God" is inside my mind. Is this idea like the image of a hobbit, or of a tree? Is the thing signified by the idea -- God -- within the outer circle? Or not?

This is the problem faced by Anselm and any other person who want to establish that the REAL God -- not our idea of God -- is inside the outer circle. The idea of God is forcibly inside the outer circle, since it is inside the inner circle. And that idea is therefore "real". But what about the thing signified by the idea? What about God Himself? Does he exist in reality? We can't answer that by looking inside our own mind. We can't answer it by looking only into the inner circle, since the question is, "is it in the space between the inner and the outer circles?". Or, in other words, "is it real?"



> IMO, whatever one says, whatever one thinks, whatever one understands, dreams of, contemplates of etc... this all is "mind".



Yep. And it is all inside reality (outer circle). However, the fact that an idea is real does not mean that the thing signified by the idea is real.

Ideas are symbols. They only become things if they go from the inner circle to the outer circle (as an aside, if you tell me your idea, the idea has "spread" to another "inner circle"; yet there is a space "not inside any inner circle", which may be called "objective reality", to distinguish it from "subjective reality", the space within a given inner circle). If you can genetically engineer a hobbit, and if you could create a race of them, and if you could inbreed in them the traits of Tolkien's hobbits (talk about mad scientists ), then there would be hobbits. Hobbits would become a real thing. And, just as the perfect house and the perfect kiss, they would be more perfect than the "hobbits inside minds" that we have now. 



> I do not question this! But in my understanding "reality" is one universe and "mind" - another. What I'm saying is that the universe of "mind" is much larger and only there one can meet "perfection".



And then I ask you about the perfect house and the perfect kiss again... our minds do not thrive in ideas only, Lhun. We want REAL things. No matter how perfect your ideal house is, you want it to be TRUE, existing. You feel that something is missing when it is only in your mind... this missing something is called "existence"; the actualization of the idea. An idea is simply a potential thing, and we want actual things. 

Ever read Leaf by Niggle?



> Therefore, it many times happens that because of the perfection met and created in the mental universe of the "mind" people get so much attracted to such an idea that they are ready to believe it exists in reality.



This has an easy name -- it's "a mistake" . If you delude yourself that a given idea is real -- outside the inner circle, inside the outer circle -- just because you are attracted to it, you're mistaken. It's just as if you believed that Elves exist because you like them so much. 

Do Elves exist? Not that I know of. If I found evidence of Elves' existence, there would be reason to believe that Elves exist (or perhaps existed). But if I believe in Elves just because Tolkien's words about them are so beautiful that I just love the idea of real, existing elves, then I'm mistaken. Just that. 

And by the way, this is another example of how the mind wishes for "perfect (in its eyes) things" to exist. How many people in this Forum would like if Elves existed? Lots and lots, I'm sure . We want reality. Ideas are fine, but reality is better.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 23, 2003)

To Eri:

The picture with the circles, Mariner, is just so..... _perfect_! 

But I gotya!  
Because the essence of your wonderful post is:


> Mind can't create ANY idea without input from reality.


And if this is true, then God could not create "from nothing"!
There must have been some reality around him! Therefore, it does not all begin or stop with him...her...it...

Whatever it is, it cannot be larger than reality! I must be some "product" of reality, no matter what form or powers he/she/it might have had. He (just for convenience) cannot come from nowhere and create things out of nothing. Because it is all related and the two circles just cannot exist one without the other.
Besides, how to believe that there are only two circles and out of them nothing but HE?

Understand me correctly! It's not that I deny the existence of something which billions of people believe in. But I just cannot convince myself (and it would be almost next to impossible for somebody else, unless some extremely solid proofs are offered!  ) that this "creator" can be one certain single being - a being outside everything - outside the minds, outside reality....

Or even if I did, then I'm afraid I'll find myself in the worlds of A.Azimov or D.Adams.

To Walter:



> Don't mistake me for anyone else...


Could I possibly?  

No, seriously, the point of this discussion is just this - to discuss. We may all have different opinions but this is wonderful! I even don't want to convince anybody, EVEN myself  that I am right! No wonder, taking into consideration what a great _*FAN*_  I am of the theory :"It all depends!".

And I don't believe we can ever reach a true understanding of existence. It is either extremely simple or extremely complicated for us to believe or to understand resp.

But, as I said, we can give it a try!


----------



## Eriol (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> *And if this is true, then God could not create "from nothing"!
> There must have been some reality around him! Therefore, it does not all begin or stop with him...her...it...*


*

Ah, but that sentence of mine (and the entire picture of the circles) was describing an individual, human mind. Who knows how does the mind of God work? However, by the very definition of God as the First Mover and First Principle of Being, God must create from nothing; or he won't be either of those two things. He would be like a greek deity, that "brings order to the chaos", but did not create the chaos itself.

The Christian God created matter itself. Greek deities didn't. While the Christian God is Being itself, Greek deities are simply "super-beings", beings with a greater power than some other beings... but "BEING" does not flow from them. 




Whatever it is, it cannot be larger than reality! I must be some "product" of reality, no matter what form or powers he/she/it might have had. He (just for convenience) cannot come from nowhere and create things out of nothing. Because it is all related and the two circles just cannot exist one without the other.

Click to expand...


Can't reality exist without minds? What about the time of Earth's history without humans? Or without life? No, Mind (individual human mind) can't exist without reality -- because "to exist" means "to be inside reality" -- but reality surely can exist without human minds. 

You say that God cannot come from nowhere and create things out of nothing. What is the option then? If God didn't do exactly that, you have only one way out, to claim that the universe is eternal and not-created. It's a theory. But this theory has bugs... in the sense that the empirical information available to us runs counter to it. We know by now that

1) The Universe began as an "explosion" of space and time from a point-sized particle;

2) There is no effect without a cause. (this was always known).

The "infinite chain of cause and effect" that results from the principle "God cannot come from nowhere" contradicts these two observations. This is not absolute proof... but it is what the data are telling us.

I can't imagine an infinite chain of cause and effect. No one can, our mind is not equipped to deal with infinities. Perhaps this is a limitation of the mind. But I observe (not imagine) those two facts up there. If I accept the infinite chain, I'm choosing imagination over data. There is no reason for me to do it. It is "wishful thinking" -- wishing that the infinite chain is real and that those two bits of data are somehow solved in that infinite chain, IN ORDER TO rule out God. 

The "Philosopher's God" -- the First Principle, First Mover -- is almost universally accepted by philosophers. It is very, very hard to disprove that without wishful thinking. That is not the Christian God, but it is "a" God -- something above Greek deities, above reality. The only thing that is NOT "an effect", and therefore requires no cause. 




Understand me correctly! It's not that I deny the existence of something which billions of people believe in. But I just cannot convince myself (and it would be almost next to impossible for somebody else, unless some extremely solid proofs are offered!  ) that this "creator" can be one certain single being - a being outside everything - outside the minds, outside reality....

Click to expand...


Well, offer an alternative then . It's not a matter of how many people believe in it -- especially because 99,99% of them never bothered to ask the questions we're raising here. It is a matter of satisfying ourselves with the answers to our questions. You are not satisfied with the "one Creator" answer; well, offer some other answers then . Let's examine them. If the "one Creator" is the one answer remaining at the end, then you'll have to shift the focus of your inquiry, and ask "why exactly am I not accepting this answer? Does it contradict anything?"

If it is both the best answer and not contradicted by anything, you have to surrender . That's the result of eating food for thought; you may even get indigestion momentarily (it happens surprisingly often), but you'll surely be nourished at the end. That's why we eat that kind of food, anyway .




And I don't believe we can ever reach a true understanding of existence. It is either extremely simple or extremely complicated for us to believe or to understand resp.

But, as I said, we can give it a try! 

Click to expand...


I don't believe that we can reach "true understanding of existence" -- a transcendental concept -- by reasoning. Accepting the limits of reason is sobering . And yet we love to try, don't we? Hehe. 

"Reasonable reason" gets us to the farthest point it can reach on its own, and then turns to us and says "I can't go any further. You need something else here, or this is the end of the journey." 

"Unreasonable reason" says "This is it, this is the end of the journey, no matter what help comes for us now, I won't accept being carried if I'm not leading." 

I'll be away for a week... I hope you'll get carried away and that I'll return to a thread that is already discussing the ontological notions of Elves .*


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 25, 2003)

> 1) The Universe began as an "explosion" of space and time from a point-sized particle;
> 2) There is no effect without a cause. (this was always known).


Where and when then was that _particle_, Eri? And what made it explode? 
If one tries to think about the answer to these simple questions, then the line of infinity becomes a fact even if we cannot answer them. We cannot understand this line fully perhaps because, as you well put it, "our mind is not equipped to deal with infinities". But it does NOT mean it does not exist! Didn't you say that reality is independant from an individual human mind? I agree with this statement. 
So, if there was that particle it must have been placed in place and time and there must have been a cause to produce the effect of this particle exploding. However, the cause itself has to be an effect itself and so on... 
This is sth. I believe to be the principle of existence in the world we live in (and I don't mean the known world only). Of course, I might be wrong because I am thinking using my individual human mind which is imperfect, burdened with prejudices, theories it once learned at school and even earlier when I could not even speak or have notion of me being a "being".... But the fact that my (or any other individual) mind cannot deal with infinity, cannot mean that it does not exist. I can't understand it. I can't imagine it. But I have the ..... call it a feeling, that it is the right thing! How does it "work" - I don't know! 



> You are not satisfied with the "one Creator" answer; well, offer some other answers then . Let's examine them.


Oh! I DO accept the idea of a "Creator"! The only thing I don't accept is it being one single _being_. I believe there is no other creator than _Nature_! Only don't ask me to give you a definition of "Nature"!  Because what I understand by this word is what I wrote above. To my understanding, this thing I call nature can create universes, matter, anty-matter... everything and anything. And I feel more comfortable thinking of myself as a "product" of this particular "creator" than being the product of your "creator". Because "my" creator thus makes me feel a part of the whole therefore I feel equal. Your creator makes me feel a subject to somebody else's will. I may be too "rebellious"  but I prefer the first option! 

To Walter:


> A true understanding of existence can - IMO - not be reached by examinating some data, seeking to understand their systematic connections, analyzing them according to their parts and functions or reach backward or forward to find "causes" and "effects".
> 
> Only when your mind is captivated by the total impression of it, and rests content with taking it in, then you might catch a glimpse of the very meaning of existence, reality or being....


Why do I find myself always agreeing with you?!  


> But I think we should try to steer back to the topic of this thread and move on from our philosophical and theological excurses to Tolkien's Middle-earth and see what we could find out about the knowledge of the Quendi about their own nature and the nature of the divine...


Ah! The Quendi and their concepts! 
All right.... This is going perhaps to be a simpler matter of discussion ...


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 25, 2003)

> No matter how hard we try, with our brains we will not even come close to "realizing" "reality", the origin of the "universe", a concept of "God", or the very nature of "being", regardless whether we use logic, philosophy, mathematics or science as tools.


Amen!  

Let's stick to the Elves, then!


----------



## Eriol (Nov 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> * "Analyzing" terms or phenomena like "existence", "being", "reality" through logical and philosophical examination will not bring us any closer to the real existence, reality or being. Not even if it would be done honestly and without having the outcome fixed in advance. *



Are you really sure you don't realize that your first sentence in this quote is "fixing the outcome in advance", Walter? Wow...

Funny thing is, I agree with you on that (and with Lhun as well -- ain't it good when we all agree? ). And I said as much in this thread. Though this was not "fixed in advance", not in my case at least, but a conclusion reached at the end of the road. But if the outcome of reasoning and philosophical examination is befuddlement, this is no reason to stop doing it; especially if we can find out the truth by other means. Reason is actually very rarely used by us humans to _find_ truth; it is more often used to verify (i.e. attempt to falsify) statements. What truth can be "found" by Reason is simply the unfolding of what is already implicit in the premises; and likewise, the fact that this is a truth already "implicit in the premises" and so already known "in a way" does not demean the work of Reason. 

As for the issue at hand, we can only _check_ whether the outcome we foresaw (better than "fixed" ) in advance is actually correct if we follow the long (but pleasing) road of philosophical examination. You don't strike me as an irrationalist, Walter, though that paragraph could be taken as such.

We can short-circuit the listing of credentials and books we've both read about the second point between you and me in this thread -- the "current state of science". Suffice to say that I disagree with you on both points raised, and I've read my share of science too. About the initial explosion of space and time, I'd like to know what is the _importance_ of the distinction you made for the question at hand... 

Also, science simply _can't_ disprove a metaphysical statement like "every effect comes from a cause". The metaphysician simply points to the imperfect state of our knowledge -- something you commented upon in that paragraph, and others -- when Science claims to have disproven such a principle. And Science can't answer that. 

In other words, Science can't make such claims. 

And, sure enough, it didn't make them . _You_ can make them, but Science can't. And when you make such a claim you are not speaking as a scientist. Also, I can still ask you for one (only one) instance of an effect without a cause. I did that in another thread once when you argued this point. I'm still waiting. This is actually important... for clear reasons. Science _should_ not make such a claim, _did_ not make such a claim... and since it can't find an instance to the contrary, _can't_ even attempt such a claim. 

The first thing you must find to begin this road is one instance (only one) of an observed effect without a cause. 

About what we can know of God, Lhun, it was always known by many, many people that we simply can't know anything _positive_ about God. We can know what God is _not_. That helps. But it is not positive knowledge. 

As I take it, you believe in a "God minus mind", that you call "Nature". What would be the difference between the sentences "Nature created the world" or "Nature is the world" for you?

(World is used here in the sense of "Everything", obviously, hehe).



> _Posted by Lhunithiliel_
> 
> Where and when then was that particle, Eri? And what made it explode?



That "particle" (in quotes for Walter's benefit...) was not "somewhere" or "somewhen", since from it space and time itself were born. That is empirical, observed, Lhun... It is not a metaphysical assumption. The correlation between space and time was established by Einstein; the expansion of space (which must NOT be confused with an expansion of matter inside an infinite "space" -- what is expanding is _space itself_) was also observed. 

From this we _know_ that space itself began with that "explosion" (any word we use for that is a bad word. And any word we use for any of these concepts is a bad word... we simply can't relate to that with our minds. Which is not an excuse for us to stop trying ). There was nothing "outside" this space, or more precisely there is no relationship between the "outside" and the "inside" (again this is empirical, required by physics). What is "outside" the universe? Whatever it is, it is unknown and unknowable. And this is the best answer physics can give you. The same consideration applies to time. What was "before" the universe is unknown and unknowable. 

But that is the answer of Physics. If you ask me where and when that "particle" was, I'd give an answer tied to the second question, "what made it 'explode'"... the "particle" was "in God's mind" (whatever that means) and God made it "explode". 

And this is not a contradiction of the principle "no effect without a cause", because God is not an effect. Therefore He needs no cause. This rule applies only to created things. 

The inability of our mind to apprehend infinity is no excuse for us not using it... I can give a picturesque example. In the Middle Ages light was popularly supposed to have instantaneous velocity; and space was popularly supposed to be infinite, with infinite stars. These two statements can't be both true... because if they were true, the night sky would be completely bright (since there would be one star in every direction, with infinite-velocity light, in such an universe). That's an easy conclusion from two "infinity-related" propositions. So it's not impossible to use them in reasoning.

The "infinite chain of cause and effect" runs into a similar problem. To describe it in terms of physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics assert that entropy is always rising in a closed system. _Always_ rising. This is probably one of the most established laws of nature. If this universe were part of an infinite chain of cause and effect, a state of maximum entropy would have been reached already -- and from this state nothing can emerge. Since we're here, this has not happened, and the "infinite chain" is false. 

The state of maximum entropy -- thermal homogeneity in every point of the universe -- can't be broken without "external" intervention. But if we posit "external" intervention, we posit God. Because if we posit another mechanistic event (as opposed to God), that mechanistic event would be subjected to the Laws of Thermodynamics, and so on. The infinite chain stops somewhere. This "somewhere" is God. That may be a mindless force (like your "Nature") or a Mind, like the Platonic God, or a Loving Mind, like the Christian God... there is room for disagreement about the nature of that "entity", especially since we don't (and can't ever possibly achieve) knowledge about it, except that it exists... and we also know some things that it is NOT. But while methodological atheism is required for science according to some, metaphysical atheism is really very rare among philosophers. There are reasons for that, and the causality principle is one of the strongest.

Think about all that, Lhun, and tell me where you disagree or not. Let's use our minds even if the outcome is fixed in advance . On the matter of the Elves, I don't see why they would find fault in this reasoning, but perhaps you or Walter see. Tell me about it then. Of course, the Elves also had first-hand knowledge... they had an easier job than ours in that they could speak with witnesses to the Creation.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 30, 2003)

Welcome back, Mariner! 

Here's something for "welcoming" you! 



> The infinite chain stops somewhere.


No, Eri, it cannot because it is _*infinite*_! Infinite is a word coming from the root "fin"="end" but with the prefix "in"=not >> = "_no end_" 

But I'll think about all you've said, I promise!( Moreover, next week I'm to plunge my mind into matters of a nuclear power plant ... It may teach me more about physical laws  )

As for the Elves.... Could the OP be found in their knowledge of life, the universe and everything else (_"The Hitchhiker"- D.Adams! Time to read it, Eri!_  )


----------



## Eriol (Nov 30, 2003)

Actually, it is the other way around. Since the chain stops somewhere (as the reasoning concludes), it is NOT infinite. Another way to state that is to say that since an infinite chain would lead to a nonsensical result, the chain is not infinite.

If you want to believe in an infinite chain, you have to find a "bug" in the reasoning. If you can't, then you have to accept that the chain stops somewhere. And you already accept that when you say that "Nature" is what created "everything". (I still want to know the difference between "Nature created everything" and "Nature is everything"...).

Good to be back


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 30, 2003)

Nature is everything = and => Nature created everything 

This is how I see it.

But:


> Since the chain stops somewhere (as the reasoning concludes), it is NOT infinite. Another way to state that is to say that since an infinite chain would lead to a nonsensical result, the chain is not infinite.


1/ I don't find any nonsensical result in accepting infinity.
because:
2/ The thing that our mind cannot handle/understand/accept infinity does NOT mean it does not exist!

To say that the "line" stops somewhere (why not at God's feet ) is only and just a convenient way to escape from the "headache" that usually infinity causes to our brains when trying to trace it and understand it.


----------



## Eriol (Nov 30, 2003)

Read back that post of mine carefully then, Lhun. The reasoning I'm talking about is this:

If there was an infinite chain we'd not be here (as explained in that post);

We are here;

Therefore the chain is not infinite.

If you can't find a mistake in that first premise, then the chain is not infinite. This reasoning has nothing to do with our ability/inability to deal with infinity. 

I could say that to claim that "the chain is infinite" is just a convenient way to 

1) "fix the outcome in advance" 
2) escape from the "headache" of accepting that the chain STOPS somewhere.

As for "Nature created everything" = "Nature is everything"... well, no effect can be its own cause. That's another empirical observation. You have to pick one of them 

If you pick "Nature created everything", you are giving a name to the First Principle, "Nature". 

If you pick "Nature is everything", you are saying that the universe is uncreated and therefore infinite in duration "to the past"; but that runs into the reasoning about the "finiteness" of the chain.

The two are contradictory. If Nature _created_ everything, it is NOT everything, since you can't create yourself. If Nature is everything, then it was not created (since there is "no thing" outside it), and then it can't have been created by itself...


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Nov 30, 2003)

Ah! Though I have dozens of things to do... I just can't leave you without an answer! 

A few points:
1/ "God minus mind = Nature"
And why would I accept that what I call "Nature" is mindless? Creation involves some form of mind even if it has nothing to do with our understanding of mind but is only a sum of universal laws in action. 

Therefore:

2/ Nature is everything = and => Nature creates everything.
Based on the above.... I see this valid.  
If I don't accept it as valid, then you should do the same with 
"God is everything = God creates everything" 

3/ "empirical" proof of anything that we - humans explore is only based on _our_ subjective nature. Subjectiveness comes in my understanding from the simple assumption that what we can empirically observe is ONLY a result from the action of a system of *local* laws that regulate *our* universe, or even in a narrower sense - our gallaxy. And how can we be sure that these laws we observe are really universal? 
The point is - we cannot trust 100% our understandings and observations because of the very simple fact that we have not yet explored the world outside. 
An example: What does a human embrio know while still inside its mother? Does it recognize the universal laws of the outer world? Or does it just exist and acknowledge only the laws of the "inside"? And mind it!, "inside" is from *our* point of view! Not from the embrio's p.o.v! It cannot still know that it is "inside" because it does not know there is an "outside"! 

4/ infinity - bug?

I could not find logic in the conclusions you showed based on the above examples!  
Therefore, I can't accept those conclusions!
I can't see why we could not be here if we follow the line of infinity  
Some more explanations ........ ?????


----------



## Eriol (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> *Ah! Though I have dozens of things to do... I just can't leave you without an answer! *



Good! 



> A few points:
> 1/ "God minus mind = Nature"
> And why would I accept that what I call "Nature" is mindless? Creation involves some form of mind even if it has nothing to do with our understanding of mind but is only a sum of universal laws in action.



I don't know why -- I was asking you . I want to understand what it is that you are calling "Nature". If it is a Mind behind everything, it is a God. I thought this was the difference between "Nature" and "God" in your view. If it isn't, what is it? 



> 2/ Nature is everything = and => Nature creates everything.
> Based on the above.... I see this valid.
> If I don't accept it as valid, then you should do the same with
> "God is everything = God creates everything"



But I DO the same . I don't accept that "God is everything". My God -- the Christian God -- is not immanent. He is transcendent; apart from his Creation. The creatures (another word for the Universe) are not God; God created them.

Look at it in this way. You say that nature can be a mind expressed "only as the sum of universal laws in action". Did that Mind _choose_ these laws? If it did, it is a Mind; if it didn't, it has no reason to be called a Mind. If it did, then it created them; if it didn't, it is an "emergent property", conditioned by the laws, and not above them. We can simply dispense with the concept of "Nature" and work with the laws only; the concept of a "Nature" which didn't choose the laws would be fruitless. 



> 3/ "empirical" proof of anything that we - humans explore is only based on _our_ subjective nature. Subjectiveness comes in my understanding from the simple assumption that what we can empirically observe is ONLY a result from the action of a system of *local* laws that regulate *our* universe, or even in a narrower sense - our gallaxy. And how can we be sure that these laws we observe are really universal?
> The point is - we cannot trust 100% our understandings and observations because of the very simple fact that we have not yet explored the world outside.
> An example: What does a human embrio know while still inside its mother? Does it recognize the universal laws of the outer world? Or does it just exist and acknowledge only the laws of the "inside"? And mind it!, "inside" is from *our* point of view! Not from the embrio's p.o.v! It cannot still know that it is "inside" because it does not know there is an "outside"!



But we have explored some of the world. And we know from this exploration that "available energy is always running down" (Law of Thermodynamics", that "A=A", that "if A=A, then A can't be non-A" (laws of logic), etc.

We can't use logic to prove logic; but if we abandon logic we stop thinking. In other words; if you want to think AT ALL you must use and accept the laws of logic. And that ground is enough for many conclusions...



> I could not find logic in the conclusions you showed based on the above examples!



I see you agree with me . You require logic; and that's the right thing to do. Follow me then:

1. Available energy always runs down in a closed system*;
2. If there was infinite time, by definition (it is concurrent with "infinity") everything possible would happen;
3. "Everything possible" includes the state of maximum entropy, in which there is NO available energy;
4. Nothing can come out of the state of maximum entropy in a closed system;
5. Therefore, if we accept infinite time, the state of maximum entropy has happened in the past;
6. Since nothing could come out of this state, we wouldn't be here.
7. Since we're here, therefore, there is no infinite time to the past (we don't know about the future).

Let's try to wriggle out of that reasoning. One way would be to question the "closed system" proviso*; to say that assuming that the Universe is "a closed system" without input from the "outside" is an unnecessary assumption. This seems to be the way you are taking.

If the closed system proviso is not accepted, though, we have to accept an "existential infinity" (as opposed to a temporal infinity, which was what I was questioning). Can it be done? Can we accept -- logically -- that there is no end to what exists?

The same reasoning we used for time applies for being. If there are infinite beings, then by definition everything _is_. If not here, then "elsewhere" (we would have to posit infinite space too). But in order for this to be a "solution" we need to state that what is "outside" the universe is influencing the "inside" (else the universe would still be a closed system). If we posit infinite space "outside" the universe, then -- another corollary of infinite space -- there must be no "gaps" between what is "inside" and the WHOLE of "outside"; because if there were a gap and infinite space the chance of the two elements separated by this gap meeting would be -- zero. And the chain would be broken.

So this is the only way to look at the infinite chain of being "outside" the universe -- an infinite linkage of infinite "things" (for lack of a better word) from which available energy somehow "emerges" somewhere and is passed on to the universes. 

But the same comment that was made as regards time applies to being! If there are infinite things, then (by definition) they have already expressed every possible state -- including maximum entropy. And this would mean, by a similar reasoning, that we are not here.

Yet we are here.

Another way to look at it is to realize that "infinity in being" and "infinity in time" are one and the same thing. To disprove one is to disprove the other, and for the same reasons. Try to separate them, logically . 

Another observation in that respect (I know you have a healthy doubt for observations... but since ALL of our knowledge comes from observations, they are in a similar place as "logic", we have to use them if we want to think at all) is Conservation of Energy, momenta, and information in the Universe. These imply a closed system.

So, on the strength of our observations and more importantly on the strength of our logic we can't accept the infinite chain. 



> Some more explanations ........ ?????



I hope that helped.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 8, 2004)

This might be of interest.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 8, 2004)

Dr. Ransom said:


> Since it seems we are again alowed to discuss philosophy, I would like to discuss Anselm's Ontological argument.
> 
> I will give Eriol some time to post, and the rest of you some time to look up "ontological" in the dictionary before we get started.  (I'm right there with ya...)Enjoy-



Okay Doc, I looked up ontological, which led me to _a priori_, which brings me to the understanding that we are discussing the unanalyzed, non-studied assumption that God exists because there is simply no other way to logically (there's that word again!) account for Reality. Count me in! 

It's a good thing that the term is Anselm's Ontological _Argument_, because it is by its fundamental nature neither proveable nor disproveable, sez I. And let's be careful of the idea that because something is logical it's irrefutable. Logic is just a methodical way of thinking, and no better than the truth of its premises (same goes for syllogisms). There! My guantlet is thrown! 

It may prove that I am outta my league, and I'll be made mincemeat of, a helpless victim of squadrons of bloodthirsty Logic Mavens, but I'm in it for now! I reserve the right to drop out at any time without (a priori of course) any explanation!

Lotho


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 8, 2004)

Eriol said:


> This might be of interest.



Hi Eriol,

I bookmarked your URL — good God!

Lotho


----------



## Eriol (Jan 8, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> It's a good thing that the term is Anselm's Ontological _Argument_, because it is by its fundamental nature neither proveable nor disproveable, sez I. And let's be careful of the idea that because something is logical it's irrefutable. Logic is just a methodical way of thinking, and no better than the truth of its premises (same goes for syllogisms). There! My guantlet is thrown!



The only thing that is (or should be) required is consistency. To use logic to refute logic is inconsistent if you do it once in a while. You either _refuse_ logic (which is not quite the same as _refuting_ it) -- and then you must do it consistently and, in effect, leave society and the real world -- or you accept logic, and then logic is irrefutable. 

All of this means, of course, that I agree with what you said . "Logic is no better than the truth of its premises". However, that does not touch upon the validity of logic, only on the validity of the premises of a given argument. The truth of _logic_'s premises is so strong as to be make these premises receive the name of "laws", and there is no _refuting_ that. There is no way we can refute the law of non-contradiction, of identity, etc. etc., since any refutation must use these laws.

I'd like to know what are your thoughts on these two paragraphs, Lotho .



> It may prove that I am outta my league, and I'll be made mincemeat of, a helpless victim of squadrons of bloodthirsty Logic Mavens, but I'm in it for now! I reserve the right to drop out at any time without (a priori of course) any explanation!





It's interesting. In the beginning of this thread I thought Anselm's Proof to be flawed. That site I just pointed at makes a very strong (in effect, _irrefutable_, hehe) argument in favor of the Ontological Proof. I don't know if that was what the good bishop had in mind when he wrote about his Proof of God, but whether Anselm had the right idea or not is quite irrelevant to the Proof's soundness. It is valid, and I don't disagree with the premises, therefore I must accept the conclusion. There is only one way one might disagree with the conclusion, which is to reject one or both of the premises:

1. If God exists, he is the greatest possible being
2. It is possible that God exists. 

I see no reason to dispute those premises, so I accept the proof. Check that proof carefully... 

Cheers


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 8, 2004)

Eriol said:


> I agree with what you said . "Logic is no better than the truth of its premises".



Migawd!



> However, that does not touch upon the validity of logic, only on the validity of the premises of a given argument. The truth of _logic_'s premises is so strong as to be make these premises receive the name of "laws", and there is no _refuting_ that. There is no way we can refute the law of non-contradiction, of identity, etc. etc., since any refutation must use these laws.
> 
> I'd like to know what are your thoughts on these two paragraphs, Lotho .



Not being a logic maven, I will leave all matters of logic to you. All I can go by is what seems sensible to me, which is immanently logical.



> 1. If God exists, he is the greatest possible being
> 2. It is possible that God exists.
> 
> I see no reason to dispute those premises, so I accept the proof. Check that proof carefully...
> ...



I say that we are biologically insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God. Whether that makes sense or is or is not logical, I believe it because all of my life's experiences and the contemplation thereof brings me to that conclusion. Unless I experience something radical enough to bring me to a different conclusion, I shall maintain this position.

Lotho


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 8, 2004)

Eriol said:


> I don't think Aquinas' proofs may be described as "countering" Anselm's Ontological Proof, Níniel. They are simply other ways to prove God's existence...



God's existence can be neither proved nor disproved following logic, which is itself the product of human thought, which is by definition biologically limited. If God's existence could be proven beyond doubt, it would have been done so long before now.

This is baloney. If the God of, say, the Old Testament wanted to prove his existence, all he has to do is whomp up an old-time miracle! Let's say that he made the all oceans turn a different color every ten minutes for a month. Or if world peace were established RIGHT NOW. THEN I'd believe God exists. THAT would indeed be a miracle! 

It is amazing to me the mental contortions, nipups and somersaults that men do when they have to explain that (1) there's a loving God at the same time that (2) man has done nothing but wage war, treat himself with bestial cruelty and (more recently) systematically destroy the planet. This alone is MY logical proof of the emptiness and falsity of the premesis logic uses to "prove" the existence of the God of the Judeo/Christian Bible. And please don't give me that old saw of "God HAS to let it all fall apart because he painted himself in a corner when he gave man free will." What kind of perfect God is THAT — unless of course you say that everything that's happening is God's will. In that case, I say God is playing not only a hot game of hardball, he is has an exquisite sense of _schadenfruede._

(And we've evidently gotten clobbered with asteroids that nearly destroyed all life on this planet and it may happen again for keeps. Howcum nunna that was mentioned in ANYBODY'S bible?)

Lotho


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 8, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> Was the race of Orcs then "perfect"?
> Were the Balrogs and the Dragons then "perfect"
> Were the Uruk-hai then "perfect"? ...



Exquisite logic!

However: logic itself is flawed, because mind is itself flawed, and so cannot create a perfect system. Therefore logic, being inherently flawed, can never prove its own perfection. Perfectly logical...

Lotho


----------



## Eriol (Jan 9, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> God's existence can be neither proved nor disproved following logic, which is itself the product of human thought, which is by definition biologically limited.



And therefore your conclusion is limited and untrustworthy .



> If God's existence could be proven beyond doubt, it would have been done so long before now.
> 
> This is baloney. If the God of, say, the Old Testament wanted to prove his existence, all he has to do is whomp up an old-time miracle! Let's say that he made the all oceans turn a different color every ten minutes for a month. Or if world peace were established RIGHT NOW. THEN I'd believe God exists. THAT would indeed be a miracle!
> 
> ...



The "Problem of Evil" may be neatly countered with the "Problem of Good". All criticisms of God as the caretaker of the Universe assume that the critic would know how to do better. Well, I must confess, I don't think I would do better. I can't even imagine how a better world would be. Call me optimistic . 

Could you do better?

Also, if the oceans turned to a different color every 10 minutes, you may be assured there would be all kinds of natural explanations for it, and atheists would still be atheists, agnostics would still be agnostics, and theists would still be theists. There are "miracles" all around us, all the time, we just call them "nature" and (feebly) try to understand its laws. By changing its name, from "miracles" to "nature", we think we have tamed it...



> Exquisite logic!
> 
> However: logic itself is flawed, because mind is itself flawed, and so cannot create a perfect system. Therefore logic, being inherently flawed, can never prove its own perfection. Perfectly logical...



And hence perfectly flawed, since logic is inherently flawed. Why would I trust a flawed conclusion, reached by a flawed system? Why do _you_ believe in that conclusion? Don't tell me "because it's logical", you have just established that logic is flawed .



> I say that we are biologically insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God. Whether that makes sense or is or is not logical, I believe it because all of my life's experiences and the contemplation thereof brings me to that conclusion. Unless I experience something radical enough to bring me to a different conclusion, I shall maintain this position.



No, it's not illogical. It is a very logical position, and your experience and contemplation are surely a more certain source of enlightenment than all the books in the world. 

Check that proof, though. Perhaps you're in for a new experience .


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 9, 2004)

Eriol said:


> And therefore your conclusion is limited and untrustworthy .



Yes, as is yours, for the same reasons!



> Could you do better?



Than what? Than who?



> Also, if the oceans turned to a different color every 10 minutes, you may be assured there would be all kinds of natural explanations for it



NOT if the phenomenon were a genuine miracle! A genuine miracle by definition is a phenomenon explainable ONLY by its having been done by God, and that's what I'm talking about.

Well, you hit on one thing: usually what we call miracles or mysteries are simply things we don't (yet) understand. It's religion (and science at times) that usually labels the as-yet-understood as "mysterious." And I believe it is the Catholic Church(?) which has a whole set of what are termed "Holy Mysteries" which, if my understanding is correct carry the connotation that there are some things which should not BE investigated. I can't buy that.



> And hence perfectly flawed, since logic is inherently flawed. Why would I trust a flawed conclusion, reached by a flawed system?



I don't for the life of me know, Eriol, why DO you put your total faith in logic? It's illogical!



> Why do _you_ believe in that conclusion? Don't tell me "because it's logical", you have just established that logic is flawed .



I wouldn't do that — that would be sophistry. In a prior post I stated that my belief in human limits is a conclusion I have come to as the conclusion to a great many of the things that have happened to me in my life, and many of the observations I have made about this life, especially the vagaries of human behavior. It satisfies me, it's the only thing that makes sense to me based on my life experiences. And I see the irony of that conclusion, because if what I believe is true, it means that any conclusions I come to may be also limited — as are yours. I also believe your belief in the infallibility of logic has a great deal to do with your own life's experiences and the conclusions you've drawn therefrom. So what we have here are two sets of beliefs, one that fits for you and one that fits for me.

(I want to mention in passing the notion of "satisfaction," which I believe would be good fodder for a thread in itself. I go back to the need for human survival. I think about what is safe and what is dangerous. I think of what "makes sense" and what doesn't as a way of figuring out what's dangerous and what's not. I think about "curiosity" as a survival instinct. We investigate things to find out if they're safe of dangerous. If we find they are safe, then we have the feeling of "satisfaction," and related to that, "it makes sense." Our mind will connect the dots of various things until they "make sense" to us. This seems to be a fundamental working of the mind. 

We try to make sense of things even when the things have no actual connection — the rooster crows and the sun comes up, therefore the rooster makes the sun come up. It's the fallacy of A occurs before B, therefore A causes B. This whole business of "making sense" is critical to survival, and when things make sense, then we feel relief, a cessation of mental and physical tension. So when I believe in biological limits, and when you believe in the irrefutability of logic, these beliefs give us a feeling of making sense, and a feeling of safety and relaxation. [Told you it's worth a thread in itself!])



> ... your experience and contemplation are surely a more certain source of enlightenment than all the books in the world.



Thank you. All we can do is make conclusions and proceed accordingly, and be willing to take the consequences. 



> Check that proof, though. Perhaps you're in for a new experience .



As in science, all it takes is one exception to disprove a long-standing rule!

For those seriously interested in the notion that we are limited by biology in our range of thought and action, I refer one and all to a fine book review dealing with some of the more important books that deal with this very notion, at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16882. I would have posted it, but it runs to at least three full posts, and I have found that overlong posts tend not to be read. I found it at http://www.aldaily.com, which I use for my main account's home page — a site I heartily recommend to all who enjoy the life of the mind.

We can never get away from limits, there is simply nothing without them. Limitation is a fundamental part of the nature of reality. To describe is to describe limits. Even to focus our attention on a subject (such as the subject of limits) is to block out everything else, and again, we have limits. And I will stop now, this post verily cries out for limits!

Lotho


----------



## Eriol (Jan 9, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> Than what? Than who?



Than what you are criticizing as "shoddy governance on God's part". When you complain about mismanagement of the world, it seems you think you can do better. 



> NOT if the phenomenon were a genuine miracle! A genuine miracle by definition is a phenomenon explainable ONLY by its having been done by God, and that's what I'm talking about.



There are plenty of those, too. Miraculous healings that science can't explain. Miraculous appearances that science can't explain. And I don't even need to get into the biblical narratives, "miracles" according to your definition happen all the time, throughout the world. It could be argued that Science is a miracle . How can you explain the explainability of the Universe without invoking God? 

However, many people do not believe in them. It is a phenomenon C.S. Lewis described when talking about an acquaintance of his; she said that she would not believe in ghosts, _even if she saw one_, because she would assume she was hallucinating. 

Many people would not believe in miracles, even if they saw one. I don't think the changing color ocean would help a lot .



> Well, you hit on one thing: usually what we call miracles or mysteries are simply things we don't (yet) understand. It's religion (and science at times) that usually labels the as-yet-understood as "mysterious." And I believe it is the Catholic Church(?) which has a whole set of what are termed "Holy Mysteries" which, if my understanding is correct carry the connotation that there are some things which should not BE investigated. I can't buy that.



Me neither. Luckily, the Church never said that. The Mysteries are simply revealed truths that could not be discovered by natural reason, such as the Trinity. There is no implication that we should not investigate the Trinity, or try to understand it as best as we can. It only means that natural reason can't reach the conclusion of the Trinity without the help of revelation. 

I spend many words in this forum dispelling wrong notions about the Catholic Church... 



> I don't for the life of me know, Eriol, why DO you put your total faith in logic? It's illogical!



Yes . However, the denial of logic is even MORE illogical. And so I choose the least illogical path among two illogicalities (if there is such a word). In fact, that's how we deal with life. We have no grounds for _knowing_ with certainty anything; but we act "as if" we knew. 

It is less illogical because it entails less contradictions (none in fact, only the -- admittedly unwarranted -- assumption that logic is correct). An unwarranted assumption is less illogical than a contradiction, since a contradiction _never_ can be logical, while an unwarranted assumption could be right. 



> And I see the irony of that conclusion, because if what I believe is true, it means that any conclusions I come to may be also limited — as are yours. I also believe your belief in the infallibility of logic has a great deal to do with your own life's experiences and the conclusions you've drawn therefrom. So what we have here are two sets of beliefs, one that fits for you and one that fits for me.



Amen .

However, when you refuse logic, you should do it altogether, in all realms of activity. If you don't do it, you're being not only illogical, but inconsistent. I, on the other hand, am consistent (if illogical) . 

I like consistency. It's, ultimately, an aesthetic and ethical choice. I prefer consistency to inconsistency; and therefore, since logic dictates all of my thoughts and actions, I prefer to believe that it is true rather than to disbelieve it and be forced to contradict myself whenever I speak or think or act. 



> So when I believe in biological limits, and when you believe in the irrefutability of logic, these beliefs give us a feeling of making sense, and a feeling of safety and relaxation. [Told you it's worth a thread in itself!].



You do realize that every act of yours is logical, don't you? That when you associate a thought with a word, it is a logical process, and that when you associate a word with a "thing", it is also a logical process...



> We simply cannot get away from limits. To focus our attention on a subject is to block out everything else, and again, we have limits. Limitation is part of the nature of reality.
> 
> Lotho



Yep. This is a logical conclusion from my own experience too .


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 9, 2004)

Eriol said:


> Than what you are criticizing as "shoddy governance on God's part". When you complain about mismanagement of the world, it seems you think you can do better.



If that's what you took away, then you completely misunderstood. But if God's in charge here, he's let a lot slip...



> There are plenty of those, too. Miraculous healings that science can't explain. Miraculous appearances that science can't explain.



Yet. Just because we find no explanations doesn't mean they don't exist. They may be of such a nature that our limits prevent us from finding them.



> How can you explain the explainability of the Universe without invoking God?



For that see the Buddhists; they do it very well. 



> However, many people do not believe in them. It is a phenomenon C.S. Lewis described when talking about an acquaintance of his; she said that she would not believe in ghosts, _even if she saw one_, because she would assume she was hallucinating.



Good point. And she may be right. 



> Many people would not believe in miracles, even if they saw one. I don't think the changing color ocean would help a lot .



Right again.





> The Mysteries are simply revealed truths that could not be discovered by natural reason, such as the Trinity. There is no implication that we should not investigate the Trinity, or try to understand it as best as we can. It only means that natural reason can't reach the conclusion of the Trinity without the help of revelation.
> 
> I spend many words in this forum dispelling wrong notions about the Catholic Church...



I'll bet you do, it must be wearying. 



> However, the denial of logic is even MORE illogical.



So you admit the existence of illogic! I was beginning to wonder...



> And so I choose the least illogical path among two illogicalities (if there is such a word). In fact, that's how we deal with life. We have no grounds for _knowing_ with certainty anything; but we act "as if" we knew.



Thank you! You have just made my case for the limits of logic as an expression of the limits of biology and done it in an elegantly logical manner!



> I ... am consistent (if illogical)



I know! You just need to keep reminding yourself of that! 



> I like consistency. It's, ultimately, an aesthetic and ethical choice. I prefer consistency to inconsistency; and therefore, since logic dictates all of my thoughts and actions, I prefer to believe that it is true rather than to disbelieve it and be forced to contradict myself whenever I speak or think or act.



Exactly: You have preferences and beliefs which give a pleasing structure and an inner sense of ease to your life — totally understandable! 



> You do realize that every act of yours is logical, don't you? That when you associate a thought with a word, it is a logical process, and that when you associate a word with a "thing", it is also a logical process...



Yes, it's logical, and that doesn't guarantee that logic leads to truth or progress. If my premises are false, then my logic becomes dangerous. And that is what I call the limitation of logic.

Okay. I've had enough. I leave the field. I will go on with my way and you with yours, and let's please leave it at that.

Lotho


----------



## Eriol (Jan 9, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> Okay. I've had enough. I leave the field. I will go on with my way and you with yours, and let's please leave it at that.
> 
> Lotho



Not without a good farewell . We meet on fleeting occasions, but it is always enjoyable.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 9, 2004)

Eriol said:


> Not without a good farewell . We meet on fleeting occasions, but it is always enjoyable.



As two Cruise Ships afloat on the Sea of Tolkien, we will blow our horns at each other whenever in sight!

Lotho


----------

