Q&A: The Ontological Proof Jumping to the Cosmological and Physico-Theological Proofs
The Ontological Proof Jumping to the Cosmological and Physico-Theological Proofs
Question
With God's help,
Hello Rabbi,
If the ontological proof that defines perfection as existence fails only because perfection is not necessarily existence.
But it is still a property, so if that’s the case, since perfection includes perfect properties within it—for example the most “simple” ones, or those that, if there is to be an explanation, seem to be the ones that would require such a thing the least—then wouldn’t it be preferable that the first cause is perfect for that reason? (As long as, given that at the beginning of the chain there is a perfect cause, this would explain our world well—for example, if one overcomes the objection from evil).
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. As for perfection itself, it is difficult to define it as a property. It is a meta-property, because it describes other properties.
Discussion on Answer
Same thing.
If so, then why did the Rabbi say in the first notebook that the main problem with perfection is its lack of identity with existence?
And otherwise it would be a claim and not a definition?
Chinese.
Literary Chinese at least, I hope.
In any case, there is the ontological proof that raises the definition of the object as the greatest thing that can be conceived, or the most perfect thing. And then the claim is that one can define the object that way, only you see the definition with respect to existence as a claim, because existence is not a property.
But if you hold that perfection is a huge continuum of properties, then all the more so you would reject the ontological proof from the outset, with the argument that there existence certainly played the role of a claim. Otherwise, if it is a definition, then you would say that the perfectly non-existent dragon exists, or that the pink bottle measuring 15 mm exists, and so on—and some kind of necessary-existent bottle would pop up for you.
Correction:
In the second paragraph, “would reject” was typed incorrectly.
I didn’t understand (beyond the typing errors).
What does it mean that it describes? If anything, isn’t it described by other properties?