there can't be a god; another ontological disaster

Although the question of God’s existence is a highly dubious one, J.L Mackie’s criticism of Anselm provides very a convincing counter-argument against the ontological assumptions he makes regarding the nature of existence and the ability to conceive the existence of a being which can or cannot exist.

Similarly to Gaunilo’s complaint that God is something which nothing greater can be conceived (according to Anselm’s argument from Proslogion 3) from its concept, Mackie argues that the existence of a being cannot be argued from the conceptual aspect of that being. Even if the supposition that God exists from a conceptual perspective, it does not follow necessarily that the existence (or existential realization) of such a being applies to the great-making properties which it conceptually possesses. In other words, if the supposition that existence was a greatness-making quality was accepted, the existence of such a being cannot be dually applied to the conception.

From this perspective it can be seen that Mackie is quite convincing. He illustrates the ontological weakness of Anselm’s argumentation: it cannot escape its own futility because it depends on “the impossibility of establishing some concrete reality on the basis of a mere definition or concept.” There is no such thing that falls under the concept of a not-really-existing being than which nothing greater can be conceived, because the existence of this concept is not realized. Even if the ‘fool’ can accept the greatness premise which is ingrained in the argument, it still fails because it is logically incoherent to claim that a being does not exist, while it still can be conceived in a conceptual fashion as a being which no greater can exist.

Lastly, it would be useful in mentioning that Anselm’s argument would be improved if the claim that God’s existence as a being which no greater being exists was not considered a self-evident one. Alternatively, the premise of greatness could be replaced with a stronger statement that the necessary existence of such a being would contribute to its perfection or greatness.

how much for a little new radiohead?

Much to my surprise, I discovered this morning that Radiohead's seventh album (which will be downloadable or purchasable come October 10) doesn't have a price tag attached to it.

Thom Yorke and the rest of the band have decided that it is "up to the fans," and that they ultimately will decide how much to pay for the new album.

This is Radiohead's first album unbound by any record label. They terminated their contract with EMI after their smash hit record Hail To The Theif, which sold millions of copies on either side of the Atlantic.

Just looking back on Radiohead's discography and past critical acclaim, In Rainbows has big musical expectations to fulfill.
As a music fanatic myself, I have dedicated hours to my daily worship to Radiohead. One of the greatest joys of this group is their mastery of the cornocopia of musical genres and political themes that they have explored.

In the beginning, Radiohead had the archetypical "grungey" noise that many bands of the early 90's also explored, with several iconic and timeless hits such as "High and Dry," "Just" and "Creep."

But Radiohead shocked their fans with their progression to jazzier, more technical albums such as Amnesiac, evolving to a sophicated hybrid of electronica and totalitarian political undertones between the OK Computer and Hail To The Theif eras. For the last 16 years, Radiohead has been astonishing the auricular caverns of Western ears by defying musical boundaries and maintaining critical acclaim.

My biggest question right now is, what is the new album going to sound like?