Gasking's proof

[galtgulch]

I just heard about this moments ago and wonder if anyone here has ever heard of this delightful notion.

I did a search of the Objectivist Living site for Gasking and found no sign of it here. I believe that Douglas Gasking was a Professor of Philosophy in Australia and is now deceased. I believe he was actually described as a Communist.

I am not prepared to quote his proof here now. I do not want to paraphrase it either for fear I will misrepresent his argument.

I googled Gasking's proof and found reference to an article for sale which included the proof. I do not want to be mysterious and just wondered if anyone here ever heard of this professor and his proof which was evidently taken seriously and critized in academic circles.

I do not have the time to find a quotable version of his proof at this time but will endeavor to find it. I am not sure he intended to be taken seriously but it is at least amusing for those of us who are put off by traditional philosophical ontological arguments. The one which we all learned about in Philosophy 101 was St. Anselm's which stated that God is that being than which non greater can be thought.

An accomplishment such as the Creation of the Universe is considered to be a rather marvelous feat. It would be even more awesome if done by a handicapped or disabled entity. What could be more of a handicap or a disability than to be non existent!

The delightful conclusion is that since the Universe does exist that its Creator does not exist!

No kidding! Will wonders ever cease?

galt

Edited January 29, 2007 by galtgulch

[Rich Engle]

I like the part where you can buy the proof. Talk about balls...

"I like thinking about big things. If you're going to be thinking about something, it might as well be big."

--Donald Trump

For only 19.95 you can assure your atheism, or put an end to that annoying agnosticism...

rde

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[galtgulch]

i don't know how "official" this is, however i promised so here is a more formal version of, wait for it...

Gasking's Proof

1. The creation of universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. Therefore, God does not exist.

[Brant Gaede]

i don't know how "official" this is, however i promised so here is a more formal version of, wait for it...

Gasking's Proof

1. The creation of universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (B) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. Therefore, God does not exist.

I wrote a refutation of this nonsense, but erased it when I realized it is not being read by morons.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Thanks...

I think...

Michael

[galtgulch]

I wrote a refutation of this nonsense, but erased it when I realized it is not being read by morons.

--Brant

Brant and Michael,

I appreciate your responses. Gaskings "proof" clearly does not need to be refuted in Objectivist circles. I just thought I would post it because it was new to me, obviously absurd, and it is incredible that it was presented by an "academic" who held a post at a university.

I just thought it was peculiar enough to be a curiosity for all to see. I have always known Objectivists who have a sense of humor. although there are those without as well.

I don't know if a literal 'moron" could grasp Objectivist concepts. I have always been struck that many of the more educated folks I have encountered have an unwillingness to check their premises and are often not as open to Objectivism as less "intelligent" individuals with less "education."

galt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

galtgulch,

You mean this guy was serious? I thought it was a parody of logical twists and I found it very charming as such.

Actually, it is a very good example of what happens when the normative gets mixed up with the cognitive. (Existence as a whole has no "greater" or "lesser." It simply is. One would assume those proposing creation by a deity would use that same standard, since there is nothing to compare it against except a pure state of divine being, whatever that might.. er... be.)

Michael

[galtgulch]

<<<"You mean this guy was serious? I thought it was a parody of logical twists and I found it very charming as such.

Actually, it is a very good example of what happens when the normative gets mixed up with the cognitive.">>>

Michael,

thanks for your inquisitive response. I assume the fellow, being a professor of philosophy with a prestigious university, was serious. It appears to have been taken seriously by some of his fellow academics.

On another subject, while I have your attention, regarding the planned production of AS in the near future. I know a strikingly good looking gentleman, who is not an actor, but my impression is that he would be a wonderful unknown to play either John Galt or perhaps Ragnar. I have not mentioned it to him but wonder if it makes any sense to contact whoever is casting to see if they might be interested in taking a look at this guy. If so I would let him know or put him in touch with them. I don't even know if he has read the book but i work with him and he has a wonderful presence and sense of life, e.g. "the face that knew neither pain, nor fear, not guilt." BTW whenever I run that phrase by my wife she makes a face to look like a dopey fool! It is a scream!

William

[John Dailey]

~ Once the word 'greater' got put in there, it became merely a new version of dear old Anselm's concept-puzzle. Strange that this professor thought that he was onto something, even if a mere refinement of A's O-A.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: I don't think that Anselm used the term 'being' in his argument; merely "that than which..."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I only met the Baldwins briefly during the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar. They would be the ones to approach with casting suggestions for Atlas Shrugged at this stage. Here is their site:

Baldwin Entertainment Group

There is an email, telephone number and addess given on the site ("Contact Us").

In general, casting of unknowns will be the director's call and, from what I know, no director has been chosen yet. The competition is very stiff on this level. It is hard to even be heard. However, the Baldwins appeared to me to be very simple and creative people who are open to new ideas, so give it a shot. Who knows? You can't win if you don't play.

Michael

[heusdens]

The delightful conclusion is that since the Universe does exist that its Creator does not exist!

You might think that is correct, but it can be shown quite easily that your conclusion is not correct.

As a matter of definition let me assume here (as I think that is what you also assumed) that universe in this sense means "all of existence".

[ Just to be sure I add this, since acc. to some cosmological theories, there might be not just one, but an infinite number of different universes which for a multiverse. In such a case "universe" is then just this multiverse ].

Ok, now your conclusion you state here is that the universe does exist. I take that you mean to say that the universe does not just exist as a concept of mind (in more-or-less the same way as that one can have a concept of God in one's mind) but exists in reality, so in the objective sense.

But what does it mean for something to exist in the objective sense?

Let us first explore that, and see in what way for instance an apple can be said to exist:

I have an apple. The apple to me is not just an apple in thought, but a real apple, that is an object which exist apart and independend of my mind, which I can know through my senses. The apple is an object to me, and I am an object to the apple. I am a different reality as the apple, and the apple is a different reality as me. Me and the apple are objectively related, the apple and myself are existing objectively.

Now let us explore the case for the universe:

For the universe (in the strict sense of all that exists) there are no object outside and apart of it. The universe has no objective relations with anything strictly outside, apart and independent of it. The universe has no reality outside of itself, and neither is there a reality that has the universe as a reality outside of itself. Neither has the universe an object outside and apart of itself, nor is there an object outside and apart of the universe that has the universe as an object.

So in fact there are no objective relations for the universe.

The universe therefore is just a creation of our mind. A concept. A usefull concept, without doubt, but not something that has objective existence, that is based on (possible) objective relations.

Remarkable, maybe, and counter-intuitive, maybe, but still true.

However, we must note that this hasn't any consequence on how we perceive reality, and how reality itself is objectively based, because of the fact that objective relations in fact DO exist, and of which we can be aware of and test for. People exist, other planets exist, other stars exist, other galaxies exist, and so forth. We do not have to doubt any of this.

I guess that most people miss this fact and somehow insists on the idea that the universe (as "all of existence") must exist in the objective sense, while such can not possibly be the case. The inference on which this most often is assumed is that it is assumed that if parts of the whole exist, also the whole must exist. This is normally indeed always the case, except for the whole universe.

This just means that any reasoning which makes use of this concept of universe, like reasoning about "where does the universe come from" etc. all make assumptions about an objective existing universe which in reality (in the objective sense) is not even there.

In fact, if we DO insists on an objective existing universe, we can not do so with reason, but ONLY by postulating it as an absolute. But such is rather dangerous, since if one allows that there are things in existence (outside the mind itself) which are not objectively based, then all kind of things would have to assumed also to exist, of which none of them is objectively based. The invisible elf in my backyard would then also exist.

[Rich Engle]

This just means that any reasoning which makes use of this concept of universe, like reasoning about "where does the universe come from" etc. all make assumptions about an objective existing universe which in reality (in the objective sense) is not even there.

Yeah... he's on it some.

Trying to use linear in the face of things like temporal physics. We look for where things "come from." Past, present, future are how we are wired, elsewise sensory overload.

Works usefully with day-to-day stuff, but not with the universe. And those that try to argue that there is no universe. Well, there's parts, for sure. Experiment: if you're sitting at your desk reading this, drop your head down and smack your forehead.

That's the universe talking to your head, ow. "Existence exists," indeed! I suppose one could argue that that now-swelling bruise on yonder head is just part of a dream. See, that's where pragmatism has its uses--future plan: avoid smacking head on desk, in either case. Smacking head=bad, not smacking head=better.

Objectivity is very useful for human day-to-day living. It's just not capable of fully explaining The Universe.

A lot of this is terminology. Gurdjieff wrote well about this. He was talking about the use of the word "world."

What is this to people? To some, the world is their village. To others, it's 3rd stone from the sun. To others, it is all and everything that is.

[John Dailey]

~ Any probs regarding the 'explanation' for/about ANY thing (including The Universe) all boil down to one simple situation: insufficient data. This includes that which is needed to, if needed, broaden the 'explanatory' base.

~ Without sufficient data, 'mysteries' will remain such, whether talking about Lizzie Borden, who created the wheel or 'What makes Cosmos run?'. Some mysteries may forever remain so. I can live with it.

LLAP

J:D