Shortest version -Ontological argument (again I know, I love this argument)

[Link]

One way to phrase the ontological argument is to say everything else can be conceived as possibly not existing and be in imagination (like a unicorn) while God cannot be in imagination due to his necessary absolute nature, only be seen in reality. We do conceive of God conceptually, therefore, are looking at the real thing, therefore he exists.

Comment: Why do I love this argument, well because it's God being a proof for himself to all people, mystics and non-mystics alike.

 

[Polymath257]

And *if* God existed, then the ontological argument would be valid (although useless). The problem is that imagining something to have an absolute nature doesn't mean there is *in reality* a thing with that absolute nature. And the argument doesn't prove that existence because you need the existence *first* before you can say there is something with that absolute nature.

 

[Link]

The problem is that imagining something to have an absolute nature doesn't mean there is *in reality* a thing with that absolute nature.

True which is why I'm saying it's proven you aren't imagining God, you are seeing the real thing. When you have lesser gods imagined than the God that must be One and all things found in and dependent on it, all those can be done away with as imagination. God being conceived cannot be done away with though, it has to be the real thing.

But when you try to reach for the Highest and Greatest reality, and beginning to say what must this be, you are making use of it, the real thing. And when you conceive of it being mathematically absolute to the extent of being necessary, it definitely is known to exist.

 

[Link]

And *if* God existed, then the ontological argument would be valid (although useless).

It's not useless, it's recalling God's Oneness to prove himself existing and that he is seen to exist.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not useless, it's recalling God's Oneness to prove himself existing and that he is seen to exist.

Except that it doesn't prove it. It requires the existence (not just the imagination of that existence) to get that it is, in fact, absolute.

 

[Link]

It requires the existence (not just the imagination of that existence) to get that it is, in fact, absolute.

The argument itself is just words. Words are just symbols or sounds representing concepts. We are making use of God himself to prove God when recalling Him though. This is what the words when conceived properly remind of. When you remember God as far as his Absoluteness is concerned, it is known by that he exists in reality for sure.

 

[Polymath257]

True which is why I'm saying it's proven you aren't imagining God, you are seeing the real thing. When you have lesser gods imagined than the God that must be One and all things found in and dependent on it, all those can be done away with as imagination. God being conceived cannot be done away with though, it has to be the real thing.

But when you try to reach for the Highest and Greatest reality, and beginning to say what must this be, you are making use of it, the real thing. And when you conceive of it being mathematically absolute to the extent of being necessary, it definitely is known to exist.

No, it is not know to definitely exist. I can *imagine* a necessarily existing pigeon, but that doesn't mean one actually exists.

And, I don't know that there is *anything* that 'necessarily exists'. Even being able to imagine a necessarily existing being doesn't mean there is such a being in the real world.

The ontological argument is faulty at base. It uses circular logic to get to its result.

 

[Polymath257]

The argument itself is just words. Words are just symbols or sounds representing concepts. We are making use of God himself to prove God when recalling Him though. This is what the words when conceived properly remind of. When you remember God as far as his Absoluteness is concerned, it is known by that he exists in reality for sure.

And I certainly have no 'memory' of such a thing. You can't make use of X to prove the existence of X. That is called a circular argument and is invalid.

 

[Link]

No, it is not know to definitely exist. I can *imagine* a necessarily existing pigeon, but that doesn't mean one actually exists.

You cannot imagine anything to be necessary in terms of existence, only see something necessary to exist. There is a difference between seeing and asserting as well.

 

[Link]

And I certainly have no 'memory' of such a thing. You can't make use of X to prove the existence of X. That is called a circular argument and is invalid.

But if God is a proof for himself, then recalling God would be a proper way to see it exists. In this case, God is not just a proof for himself existing, but a proof that he cannot but exist and is a necessary being. What the ontological argument shows, is that when God is conceived of, he is known to exist. Love itself cannot prove love except by love itself. It can't be prove it's value except by itself. Everything has it's proper place.

 

[Polymath257]

You cannot imagine anything to be necessary in terms of existence, only see something necessary to exist. There is a difference between seeing and asserting as well.

And since I see no such thing, the argument given fails to be a proof.

 

[Polymath257]

But if God is a proof for himself, then recalling God would be a proper way to see it exists. In this case, God is not just a proof for himself existing, but a proof that he cannot but exist and is a necessary being. What the ontological argument shows, is that when God is conceived of, he is known to exist. Love itself cannot prove love except by love itself. It can't be prove it's value except by itself. Everything has it's proper place.

Except that I *can* conceive of such, but I don't see my being able to imagine it as proof for its existence. It would necessarily exist *in my imagination*, but that doesn't mean it necessarily exists in reality.

 

[Link]

And since I see no such thing, the argument given fails to be a proof.

But the argument happens to prove that you do.

 

[Polymath257]

But the argument happens to prove that you do.

Which shows the argument is wrong.

 

[Link]

Except that I *can* conceive of such, but I don't see my being able to imagine it as proof for its existence. It would necessarily exist *in my imagination*, but that doesn't mean it necessarily exists in reality.

You can't, you can assert it all day (different then actually conceived) but the argument mathematically shows there is only one possible necessary being and it cannot be imagined but only seen to exist.

 

[Link]

Which shows the argument is wrong.

Accepting God exists is hard for some people. The proof is solid, and what a better way to remember God exists then to see Him existing by virtue of what he is.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't, you can assert it all day (different then actually conceived) but the argument mathematically shows there is only one possible necessary being and it cannot be imagined but only seen to exist.

Actually, the argument, even if it were valid, does not show uniqueness. At most, it shows existence (and it fails at that as well).

 

[Link]

Actually, the argument, even if it were valid, does not show uniqueness. At most, it shows existence (and it fails at that as well).

It definitely shows uniqueness. It proves Oneness of God for sure. Maybe you've misunderstood it.

 

[Polymath257]

Accepting God exists is hard for some people. The proof is solid, and what a better way to remember God exists then to see Him existing by virtue of what he is.

I disagree. The argument is circular, and thereby invalid. It assumes the existence of that which it is trying to prove. And that makes it an invalid argument.

It isn't that 'accepting God' is hard. It is that *this* argument fails to give evidence of the existence.

 

[Polymath257]

It definitely shows uniqueness. It proves Oneness of God for sure. Maybe you've misunderstood it.

OK, please go through it step by step, stating what assumptions you are making and how it gets to what you want.