Ontological proof （本體論証）

我為何這樣問 其實我有一個很大的疑惑。 據我所知， 1.「相信」的意思是：在没有實証推論的情況下，認定某一種理念。 2.而「信仰」的內容就是：去相信。 所以一直以來，我都認為「神」作為信仰的中心對象，是讓我們去相信，而不是去求証的。 既然如此，我就覺得「神的存在與否是不能被驗證的」。 但這樣的推理不嚴格，所以我就開始埋首苦幹，希望求得一個明白。較早前我就在企圖總結出一個較為普遍的神的定義（這個很困難），而當我遇上Ontological Argument這一環時，我的疑惑就來了。 究竟「存在」可否成為神的定義的一部份？若果可以，我們能否推論其存在呢？ 或許我太過狂妄；但我關心的，只是真與僞，其他的我管不得那多。 當真希望有識能指點一二。

The ontological argument Let's define G as "a omniscient person which exists and is standing beside me." Now, let's try to shout "Hey! G, can you help me? I don't know if the ontological argument is sound or not." If someone answer you, tell me. P.S. In my humble opinion, the existence of God is beyond the scope of human reason. Therefore, it cannot be proved or disproved.

Galahad But 'beyond the scope of human reason' is not an acceptable reason, logically, to support the proposition 'The existence or inexistence of god cannot be proved.'; otherwise everything on Earth is not to be proved, with such a premise.

本體論證 當你說本體論證時﹐似乎要說清楚是那個版本。如果是說Anselm底本體論證(這是基督徒傳統所說的)。他的論證大致是說﹐神是能想像中最偉大的。由於我們能想像神﹐所以神一定在真實存在﹐因為如果神只是在想像中存在﹐是不如真實存在般偉大﹐則不是能想像中最偉大的。 照此﹐我們也能想像最邪惡的﹐就叫做魔鬼吧。只在想像中的魔鬼不如實際的魔鬼邪惡。所以魔鬼真實存在。而這魔鬼不會被上帝打敗的﹐否則我們就能想像更邪惡的魔鬼。這和Anselm的結論有衝突﹐所以本體論證不能證明到神存在。 ｀存在＇是否一種性質﹐有不同的理論﹐如康德認為不是。但某些現代的神/哲學家認為是。

reference: Anselm's proof My friend helped finding this: 1. God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio) 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise) 3. A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise) 4. A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God (From (1) and (2).) 5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).) 6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of "God".) 7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).) 8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.) 9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

危機 我最擔心的是，若果「神的存在與否」是可以被論証的話（無論是先驗的還是後驗的），那一直以來以神為中心的宗教“信”仰在實質上便很難站得住腳。我認為這實在是一個很大的問題（或許已經解決了，是我有所不知）。 而最有趣（我認為是自相矛盾）的是，提出本體論、企圖論証神存在的人都是有信仰的，他們是“信”神的．．． 這就是我執意要想個明白的原因。

α //而最有趣（我認為是自相矛盾）的是，提出本體論、企圖論証神存在的人都是有信仰的，他們是“信”神的．．．// 如果這裡的「神」可以用α代替的話，是不是沒有問題呢？ 我「相信」這世上很多人都信α。 間接證據(之一？)：李博士的話及其二百學生的例子 (前提是李博士當時沒說謊)

不信就罷 先說明﹐這標題是想說得特別點﹐不是發晦氣。:) 你說如果找到證據就不再是｀信仰＇﹐可以這樣說﹐雖然現代某些基督教哲學家未必同意。 Pascal說信仰是wager。我不同意﹐這大數/哲學家完全是其他宗教如無物﹐是奇怪的。(信基督教可能會進伊斯蘭的地獄﹐或進佛教的地獄等等。)但另一方面我又同意他對信仰的性質的描述。如果你是賭神﹐能預測下一舖大小﹐那是｀知道＇了﹐有什麼不好﹖ 總結﹕｀相信＇誠可貴﹐｀知道＇價更高。:)

義務校對 <<不信就罷>>中的"是其他宗教如無物"之中的"是"應作"視"。（可敬的S.C.的筆誤,值得給以義務校對。）

um 我本人現時並未有信仰，我亦無傾向要去維護或衝擊信仰－－這些都不是我思考的動機－－我經常提醒自己以免於本末倒置，因為事實上「人能否以論証去確認神的存在（與否）」才是本；而「我們應當如何面對神」才是末。 所以我不是要刻意自圓信仰之說，而是想像到本對末影響實在甚大－－可能我們結果是要「接受」神存在或不存在的事實，而不是「相信」了。

抱歉 我剛才弄錯了留言名字。 羅樂俊=我要

Doubt it You said that //otherwise everything on Earth is not to be proved, with such a premise// I would like to know why. Thank you.

I am sorry. My previous post is to 羅樂俊 Kelson.

The Scope of Reason //But 'beyond the scope of human reason' is not an acceptable reason, logically, to support the proposition 'The existence or inexistence of god cannot be proved.'; otherwise everything on Earth is not to be proved, with such a premise.// I agree with Galahad that certain issues (e.g., the proof for the existence of God) are indeed beyond the scope of human reason. This claim does require some argument to support, but I do not see how one can argue that //everything on Earth is not to be proved, with such a premise.// We should notice that Galahad only said that //the existence of God is beyond the scope of human reason.// He did not claim that “everything” is beyond the scope of human reason. P.S. I think that religion should be founded on “faith” precisely because the discussion of the existence (and attributes) of God is beyond the scope of human reason. Being humble is to admit that there are limits to our abilities including the ability to reason.

Explanation First of all, I shall apologize for any ambiguousness that I have caused in the conversation. //..the existence of God is beyond the scope of human reason. Therefore, it cannot be proved or disproved.// I meant that IF the above claim ALONE (without further argument or evidence) is acceptable, then I may apply it on everything, by just stating "Since X is beyond the scope of human reason. Therefore, it cannot be proved or disproved." I do not disagree with your opinion that the existence of god may really beyond our scope of reason; but I want a further explanation/argument to support this claim (as what Faustus has said), and that's what I have long been doing. I might have gone too far, due to my ambition to work out that explanation. All I need is more reasons. //..I think that religion should be found on "faith"..// I do agree on this. The complete set of my concerns and opinions were stated beforehead, not to repeat at here again. Thank you for your kind advice and guidance.

n/t "Being beyond the scope of our reason" is equivalent to "cannot be proved or disproved" -- at least in the ordinary sense. So yes, I think the former can imply the latter. The problem is, A=>B doesn't always mean B. So we have to check if the antecedent is true or not. In order to check if "being beyond our reasoning" is true or not, we cannot just claim it, we have to give a proof to support it. I don't think this proof is simple generally, it may even be contingent itself. But in principle we have some tools to do this kind of proofs. Say if a claim cannot be confirmed by observation or deduction, this is "beyond the scope of reason." BTW, I don't really think "beyond" is a neutral word. Something provable is not inferior to something not. I am not sure which word we should use, maybe "non-reasonable"? :)

Thank you S.C. has figured out an clearer picture. And further more, I shall correct my mistakened statment (below) for the sake of precise enunciation: //But 'beyond the scope of human reason' is not an acceptable reason, logically, to support the proposition 'The existence or inexistence of god cannot be proved.'// The proposition by Galahad, in fact, is of no logical problem; but the antecedent, i.e. "the being of god is beyond the scope of human reason" lacks substantial proof for its verity.

Some Reasons Many able philosophers (e.g., Hume) have given arguments to support the claim that the discussion of the existence and attributes of God is beyond the scope of reason. I don’t think that I am capable of presenting or evaluating all of them. But here are some reasons in support of that claim: 1) The faculty of reason (to use Hume’s definition) is concerned about the relations of ideas or objects (e.g., resemblance, contiguity, causal relations, etc.) 2) A reasonable argument is that which is logical (what is the status of logic? This is an important topic which deserves a much more comprehensive discussion in some other occasions). 3) The concept of God, as conceived as the creator of the universe, involves logical inconsistencies (the idea of creation alone is problematic; the concepts of omniscience, omnipotence, evil, freewill, determinism, etc. will provide further support for this claim). 4) While one may argue a priori that certain things (e.g., a thing which both has and not has a particular property) cannot exist (i.e., non-existence), the existence of anything cannot be proved by reason alone. Given the above considerations, I think that the discussion of the existence of God is beyond the scope of reason. P.S. Agreeing with S.C., I think that the word “beyond” is not a completely neutral term (e.g., Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil”?). But when I say that something is “beyond” the scope of reason, it simply means that it is “out of” the scope of reason; so no normative judgment is implied.

An insight (or mere nonsense) If the existence of God is REALLY beyond the human reason, can we really know that the existence of God is beyond the human reason or not? If I know nothing about an entity A,can I really know that I know A or not? If I can really know that I know nothing about A, then I at least know one thing about A, namely, the knowledge about A is not known to me. However, it is contradictory to the assumption "I can really know nothing about A". Therefore, the assumption is false. And the conclusion is that I cann't really know nothing about A. If the above argument is sound, then what about the existence of God? If the existence of God is really beyond the scope of human reason, can we use our reason to find out whether the existence of God is beyond the scope of human reason or not? (The above idea suddenly appear in my mind. I don't know whether it is really an insight or just nonsense. Can somebody help me? Thank you.)

Faith //If I can really know that I know nothing about A, then I at least know one thing about A, namely, the knowledge about A is not known to me. However, it is contradictory to the assumption "I can really know nothing about A". Therefore, the assumption is false. And the conclusion is that I cann't really know nothing about A.// This is really a good insight but it would be true only if being “beyond the scope of reason” meant being “completely unknowable” (i.e., we know nothing about it). But when I said that “the discussion of the existence and attributes of God is beyond the scope of reason,” I meant only that “no ‘reasonable’ arguments can be given to prove or disprove the existence (and attributes) of God”. It does not imply that everything related to the concept of God is unknowable. At least, we know these: what the scope of reason is (e.g., what mental operations count as rational) and that the “proof” for the existence and the non-existence of God is not within the scope of reason (i.e., that is not reasonable, fallacious, etc.). P.S. I don’t think that the faculty of reason is necessarily superior than all other faculties (e.g., perception, intuition, etc.). So even if religion cannot be founded on reason, it can have other foundations, e.g., faith and religious experience.

n/t 1. Thank you, Law, for your "thank you." :) 2. Sure I don't mean that Fraustus implies "out of reason" is superior. That comment of mine was by no means directed to Fraustus or Law. But some people do mix the two. They claim some problems cannot be solved by reason. These problem can only be "solved by religion." This is quite misleading. 3. Well, you talked about Hume. I guess the critics of him have kinda revived lately. :) 4. Yes. I agree with you. "X is unprovable" doesn't imply "'X is unprovable' is unprovable."

Proving God's existence If "X is unprovable" is provable, how can we prove that? We maybe not able to prove X now, but we can't deny the possibility that somebody in the future may be able to complete this task. How can we prove that something is unprovable?

n/t There are too many examples of unprovable statements of which the unprovability is provable. For example, "when nobody is observing, Miss Change-e is living in the Rabbit Palace." We can show this statement is unprovable. This statement is not self-contradictory, and since we have stated that we are not observing, we cannot prove it.

Certainty S.C. has given a good example of how to prove that something is unprovable. I just want to add one point. //We maybe not able to prove X now, but we can't deny the possibility that somebody in the future may be able to complete this task.// This seems to be a question about certainty. I don’t think that anyone can deny that possibility with “absolute certainty”. At best, we can say that something is unprovable “given” the available evidence, our understanding of the nature (and scope) of reason, other relevant knowledge and beliefs, etc. If, in the future, there is a major revision of any one of those, someone //may be able to complete this task.// But in that case, if there is a major revision of our understanding of the nature of reason, being “provable” may mean something radically different from how we understand it now. P. S. Although, as 十三點 pointed out, I use the word “certainly” very often, “certainly” it is merely a rhetorical device; I never think that I can be sure of anything with “absolute” certainty.

to Faustus //I use the word “certainly” very often, “certainly” it is merely a rhetorical device; I never think that I can be sure of anything with “absolute” certainty.// Certainly. :)