This House Asserts That Ontology Necessitates God!

Pro does not define an “idea” nor does he define a test for what can be imagined and what cannot be imagined, yet his proof depends critically upon both definitions. I deduce from the reference to Hume and Pro claim that an idea of cognition must be true or false that an idea is a proposition. Ideas may be true, false, or meaningless Pro claims that an idea of cognition must be true or false. Let's try to apply that to three ideas of cognition. a. The jabberwocky 'twas brill and twillig in the slithy toves. This is an idea of cognition because Lewis Carroll thought it up for his poem The Jabberwocky. Without any knowledge of actual jabberwockys, which in fact are solely mental constructs. As a proposition is the jabberwocky proposition is neither true nor false because it nonsense. Being deliberate nonsense none of the key words have known meanings, and a meaningless proposition cannot be evaluated. It many have a poetic meaning derived by a sense of the properties of the English language as used in the poem, but whatever the poetic meaning it is not defined well enough to determine whether it is true of false. b. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Is a phrase coined by Noam Chomsky to illustrate a type of nonsense. Each word has a well-defined meaning, but when strung together the meaning of the sentence as a whole is lost through contradictions. Ideas are not subject to having or not having colors, and if they were subject to color they could not be both green and colorless. c. An omnipotent God can make a rock so big He cannot lift it. This proposition has been around for a long time as a theological question. The best resolution is that “omnipotence” does not include the power to perform a logical contradiction, so that even though it seems like a legitimate proposition it is not. It is nonsense in the same sense that asking if ideas are green or colorless is nonsense.To be meaningful, a proposition must in principle be testable What is the meaning of a proposition that has no testable outcome? We may think of the proposition “There are no black swans.” The proposition begins as an idea, but it is the kind of idea that can be tested. The existence of black swans in Australia settles the question. We ask if “The tri-omni God exists.” is a testable proposition, and hence empirical, or is it strictly an untestable proposition of cognition. If it is purely one of cognition, then it is meaningless. The most readily tested aspect is omni-benevolence, because benevolence only applies to sentient beings who can feel pain. Apparent benevolence is disproved by the argument from evil and the argument from non-belief. If an omnibenevolent God exists, then there would be incrementally less suffering than is observed. A child that suffers and dies from an illness could die more quickly or with less suffering than is observed. Non-believers would benefit from knowing that the tri-omni God exists, so such a God would not leave non-believers in doubt. However, if the claim is that omni-benevolence cannot be known to humans then the proposition of the existence the God is meaningless. That which cannot be imagined is nonsensical Pro argues that the concept of the tri-God can be conceived, but the God as a being cannot be imagined. Consider the proposition “i is the square root of minus one.” The proposition is true by definition, but can the concept of i be imagined? I argue that it cannot be understood by analogy to everyday experience of the senses, but it is understandable it terms of rules that apply the concept. We use some analogies to understand the concept of imaginary numbers, such as mapping the numbers to the complex plane. We may come to understand that according to the math rules that e raised to the power of itimes pi equals minus one. The proposition “time is two-dimensional” is not imaginable in any way other than by rules that apply the concept. If we ask if the universe exists in space having two-dimensional time, we can in principle test the theory without ever imagining the concept directly, but rather only in terms of the consequences. Something can only be imagined in a meaningful way if some aspect of existence is in principle observable. If observable, God is disproved by evil and non-belief. If not observable, then God cannot be imagined.Perfection is complex and undefined Pro argues that the God concept is simple, because the idea of perfection is simple. The idea of perfection is simple, but that does not mean the idea of God is simple. The idea of winning an auto race is simple: go the fastest. But a winning automobile race team is extremely complex. It involves complicated mechanisms in the car, and very complex interactions among team participants. The only thing that makes the God concept simple is refusing to consider the mechanisms. To be omniscient, the state and location of every particle in the universe must be continually tracked and updated for quantum events. Omnipotence require a control path and mechanism back to every particle. Omni-benevolence requires tracking of thoughts Refusing to think about the mechanisms of God does not remove the complexity any more than refusing to think about the mechanisms of auto racing makes it simple. If perfection is simple then we ought to be able to, say, compare two garden flowers and say which is closer to perfect. We can imagine that both flowers are free of damage, but which has the more perfect combination of color, shape, fragrance, and ability to survive in the garden? We must abandon the notion that perfection is simple, and in fact abandon the notion that perfection can even be defined. Because humans are inherently different, what is most benevolent to one may not be most benevolent to another. For some people, benevolence is adding excitement to their lives, for others benevolence is reducing excitement. Does a perfect being continually intervene in peoples lives, or occasionally intervene, or leave people alone? If the reply is that God works each case on its merits, then that asserts that perfection is enormously complex.Because the premises fail, Pro's argument fails.