A ROCK CAN'T THINK, SO…

About 1,500 BCE the Hebrews lived in the area of the Arabian Desert, a similar landscape to Uluru. They too had the same type of religion that the aboriginal people of Australia had, namely Animism, where they worshipped the gods of the sun and moon and of mountains too. While the Australian peoples were not influenced by other cultures or nations, they mostly kept their religion the same.

But the Hebrews were, mostly through conflicts with Babylon, Egypt and Rome, influenced by many cultures. When they eventually settled back in their own land (Thanks, Cyrus of Persia) they became a nation dominated by priests and their religion evolved from Animism to monotheism along similar lines to the Old Testament, which is a distorted history of events and was itself usurped by Christians.

I recently told my nephew not to throw rocks because some of them were more than 10 million years old.  I wonder if Descartes would have climbed that Rock.

The rock doesn’t know it exists, because it doesn’t think, and doesn’t know it doesn’t think.

And the ontological proof only demonstrates that your “thought” must emanate from something that exists in some form. It’s not anything remarkable really. It’s a virtual tautology. It says nothing about non-thinking objects that exist (nor objects that can think but temporarily do not). The only thing I think the ontological proof is useful for is dealing with esoteric discussions about solipsism.

I rock, therefore I am

“I have a thought, so something must exist.”

This is I think what Descartes thought. If we can hold a distinct idea of (say) the “perfect being” then that “perfect being” must have “existence” as one of its attributes. He held that distinct ideas are necessarily true ergo it is logical that this prefect being exists. Later Kant would say that existence is not a predicate but I don’t think we need too much help to see the flaws in his (Descartes) argument.

To know something exists it must necessarily and objectively exist before we can start coloring it in with attributes. This is where the ontological argument fails because it almost begs the question because we are assuming the rock to exist in order to prove it exists (or gods instead of rocks). No matter which side of the argument you are on, the best colored in conclusion arrived at is always going to be a hypothetical conclusion.

I know some theist is now preparing a rebuttal to inform us that because (their) god is an innate idea that god must exist but that is incorrect. It only seems that way to those that have grown up with the idea (i.e. indoctrinated). There are plenty of us who have not the slightest idea of what form other people’s gods take and can never get an explanation from any theist that does not fail upon hearing it. Of course, these varied but failed explanations are further evidence for the failure of Ontological arguments. It is incompatible with empiricism.

Descartes said we cannot separate God’s attributes from his existence any more that we can separate our idea of a sum of the angles in a triangle equal 180 degrees (or 2 right angles).  But it is easy to draw a triangle on a curved space with three 45-degree angles (Michael, you agree that reality is not measured in degrees?)  God is an abstraction of the mind, more inane than innate.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 12 months ago by Reg the Fronkey Farmer. Reason: reworded a poor line

Yes, Descartes could have said, “I think therefore I live”.

Live is not the same as exist, in most contexts. Most especially in this context.