• 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!

Can't remember God without knowing he exists.

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The ontological argument proves that it's impossible to conceive of a Necessary Being without seeing it exists, and so if God's greatness or God's perfection includes the level of existence of necessary being, and you see that, it's impossible it be a mere idea, but has to be the real being, by definition, because it's impossible it doesn't exist by being necessary. The false version is saying apply "necessary" to some hypothetical imagination of God idea, and than that brings it to existence by definition, that's the one taught in University. But both Descartes and Anselm showed it's impossible, if the Necessary being exists, if you conceive of that being, you are looking at the real thing because by definition it has to exist. They also proved if God is the greatest being and necessity type existence and you see that conception of that Real being, you are looking a being that not only do you know exists but has to exist. These meditations were saying reason knows God exists merely by remembering him, but those ideas were a bit butchered with the strawman version of what they were saying!
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It doesn't prove you can apply necessary to some imagination of God then know it exists. This is not what they were saying.

So sorry dude Kant and Academia don't understand.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Let's take one of the formulations (from wiki):
  1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
  2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
  3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
  4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
  5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
  6. Therefore, God exists.
For starters "greatness" is a subjective judgement - if I define it differently, let's say that it must involve greatest evil, then (by this 'logic') I can magic up a contradictory god. Then we get to the utter absurdity of the whole thing. Just because I can imagine something that exists and imagine the same thing but only as an idea in minds, can't possibly tell us anything about what exists outside of our minds.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Read the original source, and read it, without bias of academia telling you what they mean. And perhaps you will see my perspective.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I got it from the wiki article - what version do you think proves something?


God's Greatness (perfection in case of Descartes) would include necessity if He exists.
Necessity implies existence.
It's impossible to therefore conceive of an idea of this being without the trait of it being necessary and hence exists.
Any conception of God without this trait is not God (the God who is greatest by definition is necessary).
It's impossible therefore to remember the true God without ability to recognize by this, it has to exist and thus does exist.
If God is seen as merely possibly existing, that's not the true God (only the necessary being is the true God).
God including the necessary trait, is conceived.

None of these premises are disputable really but the last one.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The ontological argument is not a logical argument at all. It is an exposition of aesthetical perception, even of preference.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sheep who rely on others to interpret meditations that remind about God may think so.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The ontological argument proves that it's impossible to conceive of a Necessary Being without seeing it exists, and so if God's greatness or God's perfection includes the level of existence of necessary being, and you see that, it's impossible it be a mere idea, but has to be the real being, by definition, because it's impossible it doesn't exist by being necessary. The false version is saying apply "necessary" to some hypothetical imagination of God idea, and than that brings it to existence by definition, that's the one taught in University. But both Descartes and Anselm showed it's impossible, if the Necessary being exists, if you conceive of that being, you are looking at the real thing because by definition it has to exist. They also proved if God is the greatest being and necessity type existence and you see that conception of that Real being, you are looking a being that not only do you know exists but has to exist. These meditations were saying reason knows God exists merely by remembering him, but those ideas were a bit butchered with the strawman version of what they were saying!
You can conceive of God? I've heard many theists tell me that God is ineffable.

How did you do it?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You can conceive of God? I've heard many theists tell me that God is ineffable.

How did you do it?

I haven't see every molecule that forms me, I still see myself in the mirror. No one fully sees God, no one doesn't see God.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Sheep who rely on others to interpret meditations that remind about God may think so.
And people who are honest with themselves _will_ realize that it is so.

As logical arguments go, there is in fact none that even hints at the existence of Ibrahim's God. That is no accident; that family of God-conceptions is purposefully impervious to logic, and strangers to logic.

Any and all versions of the Ontological Argument are of aesthetical nature, appeals to a preference of perception. They do not even attempt to have any logical significance. Even many of its criticisms, such as Aquinas' and Kant's, remain quite distant from anything resembling logic.


Ontological argument - Wikipedia
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus, do people parrot things and can't understand a single saying!
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
God's Greatness (perfection in case of Descartes) would include necessity if He exists.
Necessity implies existence.
I question the assumption that any proposed god is implicitly necessary. You (and many others) are explicitly defining a god which is necessary. It is perfectly possible to conceive of an existence in which no god needs to exist for it to be internally consistent, therefore no god is automatically necessary.

I also see circular logic here. You are saying god is necessary if he exists but then god exists if he is necessary.

The rest is just unnecessary complexity. These two lines form the core of your claims. It doesn’t matter whether we (or anyone else) conceives of anything or not. The god you propose either exists or doesn’t.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
God's Greatness (perfection in case of Descartes) would include necessity if He exists.
Necessity implies existence.
It's impossible to therefore conceive of an idea of this being without the trait of it being necessary and hence exists.
Any conception of God without this trait is not God (the God who is greatest by definition is necessary).
It's impossible therefore to remember the true God without ability to recognize by this, it has to exist and thus does exist.
If God is seen as merely possibly existing, that's not the true God (only the necessary being is the true God).
God including the necessary trait, is conceived.

Which is every bit as incoherent as the version I used. What's the exact definition of "greatness"? If two people have different ideas of greatness, we get two contradictory gods - which is a dead giveaway that the argument is a non-starter. And again, imagining something that exists doesn't mean that it does. You can't deduce anything about external reality from what you can imagine.

None of these premises are disputable really but the last one.

As far as I can see you could dispute all of them.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I haven't see every molecule that forms me, I still see myself in the mirror.
You see parts of you. You conceive of a model of yourself; you don't conceive of yourself in your entirety.

No one fully sees God, no one doesn't see God.
If no one fully sees God, then the ontological argument fails. The argument relies on the premise that God - not part of God, not a model of God, but God himself in its entirety - not only can but does exist as a concept in human minds.
 
Top