Can't remember God without knowing he exists.

Link said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, the argument does not. It is a faulty argument, as has been shown to you by others.
You have do demonstrate by other means (testable and reproducible) that a god exists. You must then demonstrate that the particular god you wish to exist is the only possibility and that it is necessary, none of which you have done.

viole said:

Well, thats the trick. This is philosophy, actually a pretty poor part of it, not empirical science.

The fun is to play and destroy it using the same rules.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

Yep. Philosophy cannot prove the existence of anything, it can only postulate about the possibility.

Link said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nope. I think the flaws might be yours, since you might delude yourself to conceive such a being, while in fact you don’t. Unless you give me a clear cut, and possibly not circular, definition of what things like “greatness” are, so that I might reconsider my inability to conceive It.

Ergo, your whole argument about the existence of God, is an argument about what the psyche of people might conceive. And how do you know they conceive the same thing, since all those things you mention are totally wishy-washy and ill defined?

Hardly an argument to convince the skeptic.

So, apart from being able to convince the convinced, or wanting to be convinced, what is your point really?

Ciao

- viole

viole said:

Nope. I think the flaws might be yours, since you might delude yourself to conceive such a being, while in fact you don’t. Unless you give me a clear cut, and possibly not circular, definition of what things like “greatness” are, so that I might reconsider my inability to conceive It.

Ergo, your whole argument about the existence of God, is an argument about what the psyche of people might conceive. And how do you know they conceive the same thing, since all those things you mention are totally wishy-washy and ill defined?

Hardly an argument to convince the skeptic.

So, apart from being able to convince the convinced, or wanting to be convinced, what is your point really?

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

There is two type of greatness with God we can discuss.

Math wise, the highest/greatest amount.

Morality wise, the type of virtues he has.

When discussing the ontological argument, it's making use of the former type, not the latter. The latter needs revelation, Prophets from God, Guides, mystical journey, etc.

The second type there is division of humanity upon morality. However, the first type is saying whatever the second type is, God has it to the ultimate amount which is synonymous with ultimate life.

God is the Living, so we should see him whether this necessary thing is true or not. But it's even more so evident, by the fact, he is not only living and in the clear horizon, but that it's impossible he does not exist by comprehending his definition.

God's abstract definition is exactly the same with his actuality. The only dispute because we follow conjecture, deviate, and sin, is what morality is God's morality. For that I suggest not making it up, but submitting to who he has proven from his Messengers. And not to equate those Messengers with false ones with no proof from God.

Link said:

There is two type of greatness with God we can discuss.

Click to expand...

I can't wait to discuss those.

Link said:

Math wise, the highest/greatest amount.

Click to expand...

what does that mean?

Link said:

Morality wise, the type of virtues he has.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am happy He is into abortion.

Link said:

When discussing the ontological argument, it's making use of the former type, not the latter. The latter needs revelation, Prophets from God, Guides, mystical journey, etc.

Click to expand...

I am an atheist. That is, I belong to a non-prophet organization.

Link said:

The second type there is division of humanity upon morality. However, the first type is saying whatever the second type is, God has it to the ultimate amount which is synonymous with ultimate life.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any two humans sharing the same moral worldview.

Link said:

God is the Living, so we should see him whether this necessary thing is true or not. But it's even more so evident, by the fact, he is not only living and in the clear horizon, but that it's impossible he does not exist by comprehending his definition.

Click to expand...

Spiritual nonsensical language. There is no God. That should be quite obvious to everybody by now.

Link said:

God's abstract definition is exactly the same with his actuality. The only dispute because we follow conjecture, deviate, and sin, is what morality is God's morality. For that I suggest not making it up, but submitting to who he has proven from his Messengers. And not to equate those Messengers with false ones with no proof from God.

Click to expand...

Yes, God actuality is as plausible as its abstract definition.

And who on earth do you think is his proven Messenger? Try to answer this without begging g the question.

Good luck.

Ciao

- viole

viole said:

what does that mean?

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with set theory? That there is grades of infinity. For example there is infinitely more real numbers from 0 to 1 then there are integers (all together).

God's hugeness in terms of life amount, even though there are no components in him, just oneness, is at the highest possible magnitude.

If he lacked any degree or amount of life, he would not be the greatest possible being.

We can if you understand move on to show, it proves he is the necessary being. And then can show how that implies he exists.

Link said:

Are you familiar with set theory?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Link said:

hat there is grades of infinity. For example there is infinitely more real numbers from 0 to 1 then there are integers (all together).

Click to expand...

Yes.

Link said:

God's hugeness in terms of life amount, even there is no components in him, just oneness, is at the highest possible magnitude.

Click to expand...

You seem to assume that there is a mathematical infinity that cannot be surpassed by any other nfinity. Can you prove that, before putting God oil that category?

Link said:

If he lacked any degree or amount of life, he would not be the greatest possible being.

Click to expand...

Since She does not exist, I wonder how She can claim to be the greatest possible being.

Link said:

We can if you understand move on to show, it proves he is the necessary being. And then can show how that implies he exists.

Click to expand...

Well, then show me how you manage that.

Good luck.

Ciao

- viole

viole said:

Yes, God actuality is as plausible as its abstract definition.

Click to expand...

Abstract definitions usually have to have a specific more detailed instance. For example, a fruit. There are apples which are a type of fruit. Then there is a red delicious which a particular type of apple.

A bike can be of various types. Colors. etc...

However, when it comes to God's abstract definition, it's exactly the same with the hard particular instance. Actually, there is no division in that regard.

So this is useful for the argument, because if it was not the case, it would be that you can which of the possible Gods are the necessary one. But there can only be one necessary being in reality. There is not types.

This is why we have to see that applying different morality to God does not change this. It's rather our morals can be right or wrong, and there are degrees of that, but that God has the ultimate moral standard, whether we recognize it or not.

Different standards of morals exist true, but that is because humans can be wrong about many things. Not that there multiple scenarios for ultimate morality.

I hope you understand. This is not the case for fruits. Many types of fruits for example.

viole said:

You seem to assume that there is a mathematical infinity that cannot be surpassed by any other nfinity.

Click to expand...

God is unbounded (so is infinite) but there can grades of infinity. If you understand God's magnitude, it's that, he is unbound in greatness to the extent that nothing can be absent from him. He is filled to the largest amount which is not finite.

Infinite does not mean necessary. And infinite does not imply there can't be other infinities besides that infinity. So God being infinite does not imply he is One God.

What implies he is one God is that he is great that to the extent nothing can be absent from him. That is no life is possible that can exist outside of him.

So if God is known to be One he is known to exist.

Now for the argument, we can't just say "God is Ultimate Life" and hence exists. What we are saying is that when looking at this being, we can't divorce existence from it.

So the question comes down to: is God an idea or real. Well, when we look at this trait, it has to be real. And that God cannot exist as an idea, it's impossible. So this makes us mystically jump or sinfully run away. The former means we recognize it exists, the latter, we might say it would be true that God has to exist if the idea is possible, but that for all I know, it's impossible.

The problem the latter is choosing to deny what knows inside that there is nothing incoherent about God's definition.