• 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
Your initial claim was that the idea of a “necessary” God means we must know he exists. That is essentially saying “God must exist”. Now you talk about conceiving he exists and that suggests it’s still all just in your head and doesn’t actually say anything about reality. This is the difference between the internal logical consistency of the ideas in your head and whether the ideas in your head actually reflect reality.

I'm saying you can't witness a possibility of God as in he may or may not exist, to see God as possible in world x as in the Necessary, you can only do see if you see the REAL EXISTING one. You can't imagine non-existence of the necessary existence it's impossible.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Declaring God necessary doesn't prove him nor make it possible a Necessary being exists, seeing God as Necessary will prove it to the one conceiving of it.
So just wordplay to self-validate a personal belief and not an ontological argument by definition then. I hope you enjoyed the journey because we're right back where we started. :cool:
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So just wordplay to self-validate a personal belief and not an ontological argument by definition then. I hope you enjoyed the journey because we're right back where we started. :cool:

The ontological argument is misconstrued.

They were meditations on how we can know God exists. To perceive God as Necessary is just to know God has absolute existence and necessary type existence would be a trait of that. Oneness of God also relies on him being necessary.


If you don't see God as Necessary, their meditations don't prove anything. But if you are convinced the absolute greatest being would be necessary and that you can actually see that being, that it should be known it's impossible for you to see a "possible idea of that as it can or may not exist" type idea.

Another way to see this is to say God exists in a way that we can't remember him without knowing he exists. He has given us knowledge and sight of his eternalness and essence being necessary. This doesn't mean fully seeing the absolute, but it means were are looking at the absolute and seeing this trait and the trait is easily seen.

All Anselm and Descartes were saying if you see God you know God exists because his greatness and perfection traits include necessary type existence. This is all.

They weren't trying to convince people who refuse to look at God and turn away from his remembrance.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You can't imagine God by this argument, only see Him. If you imagine it, it would mean it's possible it exists or doesn't, which would be a lesser version of the "the God". The God is such that he necessarily exists. If you see that one, you know/see it necessarily exists.

This is still just silly games with words - it proves nothing whatsoever about reality (other than some people can convince themselves of some incredible nonsense).

You've just defined something that has to exist if you imagine it - in other words an impossibility. Humans are like that, we can imagine impossible things.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
No everything but God are possible type they may not have existed. God oneness is such that nothing exists on his level but furthermore nothing can exist with him on his level. This is true because he is absolute which when thought of from type of existence he is necessary. If oneness of God (why God must be one) is perceived it’s through his necessary nature. It doesn’t make sense to say you can see no other god but God can exist without knowing he is necessary because there is no way to count that way and know he is one and nothing on par with him. Anything not eternal also by definition cannot be necessary.

You are giving properties to a being that you have not yet shown exists.
Demonstrate what being "absolute" entails. Demonstrate "oneness". Demonstrate that nothing exists on god's level (which god, by the way?) Demonstrate that your god is eternal.
You are simply defining the god into existence.
That is not the way it works. I could ascribe the same properties to virtually any entity I wish to make up and then say "therefore, it exists".

Also, anything at all can exist without me personally knowing that it exists, including a god or gods. The universe is filled with such things now. The existence of things is not predicated on my knowing that they do.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
If you conceive of the necessary existence you would not only know what it is but that it exists but not only that but it’s unique eternal reality.

Conceiving of something does not necessitate it's existence, even if one thinks it is a necessary thing. And the "necessity" would have to be demonstrated.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
The ontological argument is misconstrued.
Only by you! I honestly don’t know whether it’s down to limitations of English, wishful ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It doesn’t matter whether we can “know” God exists or “see” God, it is a simple assertion that God exists in reality. I can only assume you’re trying to twist the idea in to something more than that because all ontological arguments singularly fail in their intention. I don’t see any point in continuing this endlessly circular discussion any further.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
You can’t imagine away God’s existence.

Then YOU can't imagine away the existence of my magical farting pixie. Isn't that delightful? You have EXACTLY as much evidence for your silly god entity as I have for my magical farting pixie. No wonder you can't defend your ridiculous claims.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
This is true, but trivial. The reason you have to understand is a Necessary being can't be conceived as a mere idea, you would have to be looking at the real thing to conceive of it.

So to conceive of it any possible world x or y, you have to see the real thing.

Well, the problem I have, is that I cannot conceive a necessary being.

But how can a necessary being, having Its greatness, which must necessarily include its obvious existence and raison d’etre, not being conceivable by a normal human like me?

My impression is that a being with more visibility would be even greater, and then, truly necessary. But since i cannot conceive any such being, then that being cannot possibly exist.

You seem to be able to, but I have to take it on your word. Which is far from being a necessary thing to do.

So, what is next?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's good argument for those who see why God must be necessary. The meditation is for them. So everyone who believes in oneness of God can know how easily it is to witness God exists by the same argument for the oneness of God (God is so great that his existence is absolute and necessary).
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
(
This is still just silly games with words - it proves nothing whatsoever about reality (other than some people can convince themselves of some incredible nonsense).

You've just defined something that has to exist if you imagine it - in other words an impossibility. Humans are like that, we can imagine impossible things.

No I've proven it's impossible to imagine God, you can only see him. If it's just imagination without witnessing He exists, it's a misconceived idea of what God is.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are giving properties to a being that you have not yet shown exists.
Demonstrate what being "absolute" entails. Demonstrate "oneness". Demonstrate that nothing exists on god's level (which god, by the way?) Demonstrate that your god is eternal.
You are simply defining the god into existence.
That is not the way it works. I could ascribe the same properties to virtually any entity I wish to make up and then say "therefore, it exists".

Also, anything at all can exist without me personally knowing that it exists, including a god or gods. The universe is filled with such things now. The existence of things is not predicated on my knowing that they do.

The argument shows if God can be conceived it is known he exists. I can't make you conceive of God, but if you do witness that he is necessary, then you should know you are looking at the real thing and not an imaginary thing, because it's impossible a necessary being doesn't exist, it has to and it does.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then YOU can't imagine away the existence of my magical farting pixie. Isn't that delightful? You have EXACTLY as much evidence for your silly god entity as I have for my magical farting pixie. No wonder you can't defend your ridiculous claims.

I can't imagine away your magical farting pixie doesn't change the fact you can't imagine away God.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, the problem I have, is that I cannot conceive a necessary being.

But how can a necessary being, having Its greatness, which must necessarily include its obvious existence and raison d’etre, not being conceivable by a normal human like me?

My impression is that a being with more visibility would be even greater, and then, truly necessary. But since i cannot conceive any such being, then that being cannot possibly exist.

If you can't conceive of that being, it might be flaw of yours. Others still might be able to, so this argument will remind them how to witness and know God exists.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No I've proven it's impossible to imagine God, you can only see him. If it's just imagination without witnessing He exists, it's a misconceived idea of what God is.

Which just confirms what I said. You've proved nothing - you've just imagined something that's impossible to imagine without it being real - which is just nonsensical.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which just confirms what I said. You've proved nothing - you've just imagined something that's impossible to imagine without it being real - which is just nonsensical.

I've proven that God cannot be imagined, only witnessed to exist. Make of it what you will. If God doesn't exist, then it's true he can't be imagined as well, but if he exists, he can't be imagined but rather is known to exist when looking at him/her/it.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I've proven that God cannot be imagined, only witnessed to exist.

So you keep pointlessly asserting. Assertion isn't proof.

God is so great that his existence is absolute and necessary

This can't be part of a logical argument because "great" has no objective definition. If I decide "greatness" includes maximum evil, then, by your "logic", I've magicked your god's evil twin into existence.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think you don't understand, so I'll let you re-read what is stated and read the original works of Descartes and Anselm.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I can't imagine away your magical farting pixie doesn't change the fact you can't imagine away God.


ROFL... Honestly, you CAN'T imagine away my magical farting pixie, which is nothing more than a FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION? How ridiculously sad for you. Sounds like your stuck believing in EVERY SINGLE moronic claim that anyone cares to make up out of thin air. Guess that's what happens when you abandon standards for evidence when determining reality.

Personally I AM capable of imagining away your unfounded claims of a god being... just like I can imagine away magical farting pixies, little green men from Mars, and every other IMAGINARY entity anyone can think up.
 
Top