This doesn't follow. It would only be possible to perceive God's existence by a creature endowed with this trait. I doubt my dogs know about God. Or a tree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Many proofs for God's existence.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Yup you are right.
That is why I said this is the only real disputable premise, if God's possibility can be known to be actually possible.
This is where the real discussion should be, because the proof that if he is possible, he definitely exists, is sound.
The phrase, "if a necessary being", assumes there is a necessary being. But why is it not possible for the mind (the logical mind) to conceive of all kinds of imaginary things that actually don't exist? I can imagine a unicorn, but they don't exist. (Of course, unicorns are not necessary beings...)
So if I imagine God and he/she turns out to exist, then I have imagined he/she exists because he/she is a necessary being, and, therefore, in imagining God this way, I have proven he/she exists.
I doubt we can prove anything by examining the contents of our imagination...
If God is a Necessary being all things in theory, have the possibility of knowing it to be necessary. Whether they actually do know or not is different.
But if God's definition is coherent, it actually, has to be that it exists. That is if it's rational that a necessary being is possible, it definitely exists.
This seems weird, but it's true.
The question arises, can there be more then one necessary being? I've already shown it's synonymous with Oneness and uniqueness because of it's absoluteness. That is if any other being is a necessary in all worlds, it would be eternal and have to be absolute as well. But that is paradoxical as far life goes.
So do you find it weird we know that if a necessary being is possible, it exists, and if it exists, it's actually has to be G O D as in the absolute being that can have nothing as it's equal? Moreover, there would be no other instances of God like there are chairs (many type of chairs and many type of those type of chairs and so on and so forth).
God is absolutely One and not only that whatever he is, there is only by definition, one possibility of what he is.
Actually if a Necessary being is possible to be rational justified and imagined, it's proven you aren't imagining, you are seeing the real thing.. It's impossible to imagine eternality and necessary being, it's only possible to remember it.
Therefore another way to phrase it, since it's impossible to grasp a necessary being in imagination without reality, if we grasp a necessary being, it actually exists and we are seeing the real thing.
Then you have to prove that it is possible that God exists. I doubt this is any easier than proving that God actually does exist.
Actually it's very easy to prove God is possible.
Yes, but what if no creature actually knows this? It is useless for the possibility of God's existence to be knowable if no creatures actually know this.
That's true, so should we investigate, do we know
(1) God is rational possible.
(2) God is Necessary if rationally possible.
(3) God exists if he is necessary.
We seem to agree on 2 and 3, so we are left with (1).
I will discuss this tomorrow, I'm taking 5 summer courses, and need to get to school work!
(1) God is rational possible.
(2) God is Necessary if rationally possible.
(3) God exists if he is necessary.
We seem to agree on 2 and 3, so we are left with (1).
I will discuss this tomorrow, I'm taking 5 summer courses, and need to get to school work!
exchemist
Veteran Member
Your example is a poor one. You seem to be confusing what you think you "know" with what could be generally accepted as "proof".
Jim
Nets of Wonder
@Link I’m not sure I understand what you’re thinking, but if I am, then you might be equating “it’s existence can never be disproved” with “it exists.” In other words, your argument is that for as long as we agree that God is possible, then we’re agreeing that its existence can not be disproved. I would agree with that statement.
Can we skip ahead and have an answer to the question, what if your God does exist? So what? What difference does that make? Why should anyone care?
Can we skip ahead and have an answer to the question, what if your God does exist? So what? What difference does that make? Why should anyone care?
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Okay. Sorry.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
A. I write:
(a) Seems to me that your bulleted first sentence above is missing a word or two, no?
(b) About your term “life/existence”:
- I’ll agree, for now, that “All living things exist”; but I hesitate to agree that “All existing things live.” Wouldn’t the latter claim drag us into a tedious discussion about what “living” means and what is living and not living. What if I just say: “God is a Maximal Being (By definition)”?
- God is a Maximal Being, if and only if such exists. (By definition)
- In a cosmos without God, God is not possible.
- God is possible.
- Therefore, a cosmos without God is impossible.
- Therefore, God exists.
(To be continued .... maybe)
Last edited:
This fails completely on the text highlighted. If independent existence is possible, then it is possible both for God and for something else. There is no rule that you can infer that says that "independent existence can only happen once."
I've read far too many of these supposed "ontological" type arguments in my life, and while nobody seems to see it, they all contain one feature in common, and it's the feature that eventually defeats them: each and every one of them attempts to hide one single unwarranted assumption, and to then represent that unwarranted assumption as somehow a part of the logical argument. And that unwarranted assumption that everybody's trying to hide is "God exists."
There's an old adage that goes something like: "in order to prove the existence of angels, one must first posit their existence."
But of course, having done that, why bother with the proof?
Of course, none of the ontological arguments ever directly includes the assumption "God exists." They seek to hide that in things like Anselm's "greatest possible to be imagined" (but don't get me started on what I can imagine), or on Hegel's "things that possess 'perfections.'" They are all illusory. The notion of a "perfection" is non-analytic. I can imagine something that has no flaws, but can never demonstrate one. What does it actually mean to posit the "existence of a being greater than any that can be conceived?" All of these things are obfuscatory, but very subtly so, which is why they have fascinated philosophers, and others, like those in RF, for so long.
I say, in every such argument, look for the carefully hidden introduction of an idea which is in fact "synthetic" and pretending that it is "analytic" (or a priori). I am using the words analytic and synthetic in the sense adopted by philosophy.
There's an old adage that goes something like: "in order to prove the existence of angels, one must first posit their existence."
But of course, having done that, why bother with the proof?
Of course, none of the ontological arguments ever directly includes the assumption "God exists." They seek to hide that in things like Anselm's "greatest possible to be imagined" (but don't get me started on what I can imagine), or on Hegel's "things that possess 'perfections.'" They are all illusory. The notion of a "perfection" is non-analytic. I can imagine something that has no flaws, but can never demonstrate one. What does it actually mean to posit the "existence of a being greater than any that can be conceived?" All of these things are obfuscatory, but very subtly so, which is why they have fascinated philosophers, and others, like those in RF, for so long.
I say, in every such argument, look for the carefully hidden introduction of an idea which is in fact "synthetic" and pretending that it is "analytic" (or a priori). I am using the words analytic and synthetic in the sense adopted by philosophy.
And bingo! there it is. In a cosmos without unicorns, there is no reason to suppose that there might not be, but just didn't happen to evolve. But nothing says that because they don't exist in that cosmos, that there it is impossible that they could have, or might yet be.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your time. But in any case, those are not proofs.