Many proofs for God's existence.

[Link]

I will start with the ontological argument.

Something that is impossible to exist, cannot exist by definition and so doesn't exist.
Something that is possible to exist has two possibilities, it exists or doesn't exist.
Something that exists necessarily, cannot but exist by definition and so it exists.

Descartes argument from what I understand unlike what is taught in Academia goes something like:

There are levels of existence.
The highest level type is necessary.
God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.
If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.
That is we can see by merely remembering God is necessary by the concept of necessary, that it exists.

Some proofs to the above.

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).
If any life/existence is possible without God (any independent aside from God is possible) in any possible world, then God (not a Creator or lesser god is meant here, but the big absolute being) is not possible.
God is possible.
Therefore any life/existence is impossible without God.
It follows then God exists.

In fact, it's easy to see:

If God exists, he would be a necessary being.
If a necessary being exists, it would be possible for us to recognize that as an aspect or trait of it.

The predicate contention doesn't make sense:

(1) It's a red herring if true since those categories exist anyway.
(2) A dependent existence is lower then an independent or necessary existence as far existence attribute goes.

The bold is purposeful and self-explanatory.

(3) It would make necessary existence incoherent but then the same can be said about impossible to exist, and both are coherent and are directly related to the issue of existence.

If a necessary being can be conceived, it definitely has to exist.

When we think of God not only is it a candidate for necessity in definition, but it's in fact impossible any other thing exists by necessity but it.

At the end, the only faith premise is: "God is possibly conceived to be possible". If this is true, then he will be proven to exist by reflecting over what absolute existence implies.

I will be discussing more proofs.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I will start with the ontological argument.

Something that is impossible to exist, cannot exist by definition and so doesn't exist.
Something that is possible to exist has two possibilities, it exists or doesn't exist.
Something that exists necessarily, cannot but exist by definition and so it exists.

Descartes argument from what I understand unlike what is taught in Academia goes something like:

There are levels of existence.
The highest level type is necessary.
God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.
If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.
That is we can see by merely remembering God is necessary by the concept of necessary, that it exists.

Some proofs to the above.

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).
If any life/existence is possible without God (any independent aside from God is possible) in any possible world, then God (not a Creator or lesser god is meant here, but the big absolute being) is not possible.
God is possible.
Therefore any life/existence is impossible without God.
It follows then God exists.

In fact, it's easy to see:

If God exists, he would be a necessary being.
If a necessary being exists, it would be possible for us to recognize that as an aspect or trait of it.

The predicate contention doesn't make sense:

(1) It's a red herring if true since those categories exist anyway.
(2) A dependent existence is lower then an independent or necessary existence as far existence attribute goes.

The bold is purposeful and self-explanatory.

(3) It would make necessary existence incoherent but then the same can be said about impossible to exist, and both are coherent and are directly related to the issue of existence.

If a necessary being can be conceived, it definitely has to exist.

When we think of God not only is it a candidate for necessity in definition, but it's in fact impossible any other thing exists by necessity but it.

At the end, the only faith premise is: "God is possibly conceived to be possible". If this is true, then he will be proven to exist by reflecting over what absolute existence implies.

I will be discussing more proofs.

Hi! I have a question as I am unfamiliar with these arguments. Does the first (the ontological) argument assume God is necessary? Is that a very old argument?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I will start with the ontological argument.

Something that is impossible to exist, cannot exist by definition and so doesn't exist.
Something that is possible to exist has two possibilities, it exists or doesn't exist.
Something that exists necessarily, cannot but exist by definition and so it exists.

Descartes argument from what I understand unlike what is taught in Academia goes something like:

There are levels of existence.
The highest level type is necessary.
God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.
If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.
That is we can see by merely remembering God is necessary by the concept of necessary, that it exists.

Some proofs to the above.

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).
If any life/existence is possible without God (any independent aside from God is possible) in any possible world, then God (not a Creator or lesser god is meant here, but the big absolute being) is not possible.
God is possible.
Therefore any life/existence is impossible without God.
It follows then God exists.

In fact, it's easy to see:

If God exists, he would be a necessary being.
If a necessary being exists, it would be possible for us to recognize that as an aspect or trait of it.

The predicate contention doesn't make sense:

(1) It's a red herring if true since those categories exist anyway.
(2) A dependent existence is lower then an independent or necessary existence as far existence attribute goes.

The bold is purposeful and self-explanatory.

(3) It would make necessary existence incoherent but then the same can be said about impossible to exist, and both are coherent and are directly related to the issue of existence.

If a necessary being can be conceived, it definitely has to exist.

When we think of God not only is it a candidate for necessity in definition, but it's in fact impossible any other thing exists by necessity but it.

At the end, the only faith premise is: "God is possibly conceived to be possible". If this is true, then he will be proven to exist by reflecting over what absolute existence implies.

I will be discussing more proofs.

If you need to go through all that complexity and smoke and mirrors just to point things out, the only thing it proves well is the ongoing fustration that people have in convincing others that something is there that they themselves can't point out directly.

 

[ChristineM]

I will start with the ontological argument.

Something that is impossible to exist, cannot exist by definition and so doesn't exist.
Something that is possible to exist has two possibilities, it exists or doesn't exist.
Something that exists necessarily, cannot but exist by definition and so it exists.

Descartes argument from what I understand unlike what is taught in Academia goes something like:

There are levels of existence.
The highest level type is necessary.
God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.
If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.
That is we can see by merely remembering God is necessary by the concept of necessary, that it exists.

Some proofs to the above.

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).
If any life/existence is possible without God (any independent aside from God is possible) in any possible world, then God (not a Creator or lesser god is meant here, but the big absolute being) is not possible.
God is possible.
Therefore any life/existence is impossible without God.
It follows then God exists.

In fact, it's easy to see:

If God exists, he would be a necessary being.
If a necessary being exists, it would be possible for us to recognize that as an aspect or trait of it.

The predicate contention doesn't make sense:

(1) It's a red herring if true since those categories exist anyway.
(2) A dependent existence is lower then an independent or necessary existence as far existence attribute goes.

The bold is purposeful and self-explanatory.

(3) It would make necessary existence incoherent but then the same can be said about impossible to exist, and both are coherent and are directly related to the issue of existence.

If a necessary being can be conceived, it definitely has to exist.

When we think of God not only is it a candidate for necessity in definition, but it's in fact impossible any other thing exists by necessity but it.

At the end, the only faith premise is: "God is possibly conceived to be possible". If this is true, then he will be proven to exist by reflecting over what absolute existence implies.

I will be discussing more proofs.

Proof : Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

In the above i see no facts or evidence, only leaps of faith.

And welcome to RF, sit back and enjoy the ride

 

[Link]

Hi! I have a question as I am unfamiliar with these arguments. Does the first (the ontological) argument assume God is necessary? Is that a very old argument?

No it argues by definition the absolute being when thought with respect to levels or types of existence would hold the highest type, which is synonymous with existing necessarily. Sure, you can't separate existing from Necessity, but it's proven the Greatest being is necessary.

Just think about it from another perspective:

If no world is possible without God, God is necessary.
A world is possible only if an independent existence there is possible.
Say independent existence(s) is possible without God in some possible world(s).
God if exists, would by definition be absolute existence that all existence must be derived from it and constantly depended on it.
If independent existence aside from God is possible, it's impossible God exists.
It's possible God exists (God is a possibility).
Therefore independent existence aside from God is impossible.
Therefore no world is possible without God.
Therefore God is Necessary.

And if God is Necessary it is implied he exists.

In fact, the real disputable premise (because the others there is no wiggle room, they are implied by definition) is "it's possible God exists".

 

[Koldo]

No it argues by definition the absolute being when thought with respect to levels or types of existence would hold the highest type, which is synonymous with existing necessarily. Sure, you can't separate existing from Necessity, but it's proven the Greatest being is necessary.

Just think about it from another perspective:

If no world is possible without God, God is necessary.
A world is possible only if an independent existence there is possible.
Say independent existence(s) is possible without God in some possible world(s).
God if exists, would by definition be absolute existence that all existence must be derived from it and constantly depended on it.
If independent existence aside from God is possible, it's impossible God exists.
It's possible God exists (God is a possibility).
Therefore independent existence aside from God is impossible.
Therefore no world is possible without God.
Therefore God is Necessary.

And if God is Necessary it is implied he exists.

In fact, the real disputable premise (because the others there is no wiggle room, they are implied by definition) is "it's possible God exists".

Arguments from definition don't really work I am afraid...

If they did then you would have to accept the following argument:

By definition, Koldo is God.
I am Koldo.
Therefore, I am God.

 

[Link]

Arguments from definition don't really work I am afraid...

If they did then you would have to accept the following argument:

By definition, Koldo is God.
I am Koldo.
Therefore, I am God.

Your argument is valid, but premise 1 is false and impossible.

 

[Link]

If you need to go through all that complexity and smoke and mirrors just to point things out, the only thing it proves well is the ongoing fustration that people have in convincing others that something is there that they themselves can't point out directly.

It's actually very simple. God unlike everything else, is a necessary being. If you can grasp that, you will automatically know it exists because it's impossible for it to not.

There is no smoke or mirrors. To some, it's very simple. To others, very complicated. It's a matter of who wants to see God and who wishes to blind themselves to the ocean of light around them.

 

[Link]

Hi! I have a question as I am unfamiliar with these arguments. Does the first (the ontological) argument assume God is necessary? Is that a very old argument?

I wanted to add, I started with this argument, not because of how much convincing I think it is, it's just to show Western Academia has not presented it as it ought to be. They strawman that, and the other more famous version.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's actually very simple. God unlike everything else, is a necessary being. If you can grasp that, you will automatically know it exists because it's impossible for it to not.

There is no smoke or mirrors. To some, it's very simple. To others, very complicated. It's a matter of who wants to see God and who wishes to blind themselves to the ocean of light around them.

Just knowing and believing in something isn't enough without something far more concrete to back it all up.

I swallowed it all up when I was a Christian and it went quite well for a while until reality came and made a house call one day.

 

[Koldo]

Your argument is valid, but premise 1 is false and impossible.

Definitions can't be false in the context of an argument.

 

[Link]

Just knowing and believing in something isn't enough without something far more concrete to back it all up.

I swallowed it all up when I was a Christian and it went quite well for a while until reality came and made a house call one day.

What you said is true (1st line) but it's irrelevant. The argument/proof is still sound.

Definitions can't be false in the context of an argument.

They can be all the time, otherwise, all valid arguments conclusions would be true.

However I think you are trying to say necessity and greatness are unrelated, but I don't see how that is the case and also did a proof by contradiction, that if God is possible, it's proven he is necessary.

 

[Windwalker]

No it argues by definition the absolute being when thought with respect to levels or types of existence would hold the highest type, which is synonymous with existing necessarily. Sure, you can't separate existing from Necessity, but it's proven the Greatest being is necessary.

Just think about it from another perspective:

If no world is possible without God, God is necessary.
A world is possible only if an independent existence there is possible.
Say independent existence(s) is possible without God in some possible world(s).
God if exists, would by definition be absolute existence that all existence must be derived from it and constantly depended on it.
If independent existence aside from God is possible, it's impossible God exists.
It's possible God exists (God is a possibility).
Therefore independent existence aside from God is impossible.
Therefore no world is possible without God.
Therefore God is Necessary.

And if God is Necessary it is implied he exists.

In fact, the real disputable premise (because the others there is no wiggle room, they are implied by definition) is "it's possible God exists".

This is good stuff. I have to wrap my mind around a couple of your points a little more, but in general it resonates to me as true. Particularly this statement: "God if exists, would by definition be absolute existence that all existence must be derived from it and constantly depended on it." I think you meant to say dependent, but I got the gist.

To me this is how I think of God, not in the sky-person anthropomorphic sense, but as the Fabric upon which All That Exists arises from and returns to as Source. It is to me, an inescapable conclusion from any perspective. How can you have music without silence? How do you have a drawing, or form, without a canvas? Something that exists as that, is the Ground of all Being. It must Be. Nothing can exist or be known to exist except it be in full, and constant connection with That, as its Source?

It's an illusion to imagine otherwise.

 

[Link]

Proof : Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

In the above i see no facts or evidence, only leaps of faith.

And welcome to RF, sit back and enjoy the ride

Leaps of belief can happen with respect to falsehood or conjecture or with proofs and insights. The latter is the praised "faith" in it's proper place, while the former is just drowning and destroying one's ability to see and reason.

Of course, not seeing is sometimes not proof of anything but just that, not seeing.

If the concept of Necessity in terms of existence can be grasped with respect to a thing, impossible not to exist in any possible world, the person grasping will definitely know that thing exists.

That is a simple way of putting it, the question is, do we know of anything like this? I argue, all humans, when reflect, will see God by definition is a Necessary being. In fact, God must be a necessary being if she/he exists can be proven in so many ways.

But it will follow, if then it can be see in fact possible any possible world, it exists and not only that, but that no possible world is possible without it.

 

[Link]

This is good stuff. I have to wrap my mind around a couple of your points a little more, but in general it resonates to me as true. Particularly this statement: "God if exists, would by definition be absolute existence that all existence must be derived from it and constantly depended on it." I think you meant to say dependent, but I got the gist.

To me this is how I think of God, not in the sky-person anthropomorphic sense, but as the Fabric upon which All That Exists arises from and returns to as Source. It is to me, an inescapable conclusion from any perspective. How can you have music without silence? How do you have a drawing, or form, without a canvas? Something that exists as that, is the Ground of all Being. It must Be. Nothing can exist or be known to exist except it be in full, and constant connection with That, as its Source?

It's an illusion to imagine otherwise.

What you said appeals to poetic people and poetic tend to see God through his beauty, majesty, and greatness being found in everything. This is in fact, even for the least poetic, most art hating, type people as well.

For a person who has no spirituality, this is a very good starting point. The reason is because it's mathematical the necessity (Life in terms of mathematical (not qualitive though qualitive greatness is absolute in God) greatness)).

If you can see life forget all the beauty forget all the greatness, forget the beauty, forget the light merged in us type thinking, just sheer number wise, has to be at magnitude of absoluteness for definition of God, then it follows everything would depend on God in all possible worlds if God is possible.

Another way to phrase that is if it's possible any world exists in any possibility without God, God is impossible by definition. God is not impossible by definition. Any if no world is possible without God, he is necessary. And if he is necessary, he exists.

It's hard for people to wrap their hands around because the concept is unique to God AS FAR existence goes.

But we easily see necessity with definitions, like squares by definition have properties, triangles by definitions have properties, that if you destroy one of those properties, it's no longer a triangle.

God by definition if you take away necessity in all possible worlds, is impossible.

So at most, it's either impossible or God exists, but there is no he may or may not from framework of possibility which is saying a lot.

 

[Koldo]

What you said is true (1st line) but it's irrelevant. The argument/proof is still sound.






They can be all the time, otherwise, all valid arguments conclusions would be true.

However I think you are trying to say necessity and greatness are unrelated, but I don't see how that is the case and also did a proof by contradiction, that if God is possible, it's proven he is necessary.

No. The problem is not that I had a false definition on that argument. The problem is that I was begging the question. My conclusion was included in my definition. When I concluded that I am God I merely rephrased 'Koldo is God'.

It is the same problem on this part of your argument: "God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being."

You are saying that by definition God is a necessary being, which means a being that exists. You are literally defining God into existence by saying that so it should come as no surprise that you conclude God exists.

 

[Link]

No. The problem is not that I had a false definition on that argument. The problem is that I was begging the question. My conclusion was included in my definition. When I concluded that I am God I merely rephrased 'Koldo is God.

It is the same problem on this part of your argument: "God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being."

You are saying that by definition God is a necessary being, which means a being that exists. You are literally defining God into existence by saying that so it should come as no surprise that you conclude God exists.

Sure, so that it's just semantics. It is believed by some proofs of God can't prove God in themselves but simply remind of God.

Let's phrase it a different way.

Suppose an Eternal Necessary being exists, that not only is it impossible for anything to be with it in existence because it's absolute life, but nothing can exist independent of it.

Is it possible to grasp it?

In fact, for example, Triangles. You start with it's definition, then you prove something about it's angles.

God is defined among many things to be absolute life and highest type of existence. In this case, you can remember from that that it is necessary.
And if it's necessary, it by definition exists.

So in this case, God exists in actuality and we can observe it is aspect of being necessary.

Another way to think of it, chair has abstract concept, then actual chairs, instances red chair, wooden chair, plastic chair, and those have particular till you get all the fine details in real life in actually life.

God however there are no instances of Him, the abstract is indentical with who he is. That is when we say that God is the absolute, there is no well there can be one absolute instance and another in actuality. We are talking about the thing in actuality.

If you understand this, you understand a lot already. God is from this possible to be grasped through a priori reasoning.

That is not to say he is not alive and there is no living connection to him, just that there would be no difference from an abstract concept of God to the actual, unlike chairs, or phones, or computers etc.

 

[Koldo]

Sure, so that it's just semantics. It is believed by some proofs of God can't prove God in themselves but simply remind of God.

Let's phrase it a different way.

Suppose an Eternal Necessary being exists, that not only is it impossible for anything to be with it in existence because it's absolute life, but nothing can exist independent of it.

Is it possible to grasp it?

In fact, for example, Triangles. You start with it's definition, then you prove something about it's angles.

God is defined among many things to be absolute life and highest type of existence. In this case, you can remember from that that it is necessary.
And if it's necessary, it by definition exists.

So in this case, God exists in actuality and we can observe it is aspect of being necessary.

Another way to think of it, chair has abstract concept, then actual chairs, instances red chair, wooden chair, plastic chair, and those have particular till you get all the fine details in real life in actually life.

God however there are no instances of Him, the abstract is indentical with who he is. That is when we say that God is the absolute, there is no well there can be one absolute instance and another in actuality. We are talking about the thing in actuality.

If you understand this, you understand a lot already. God is from this possible to be grasped through a priori reasoning.

That is not to say he is not alive and there is no living connection to him, just that there would be no difference from an abstract concept of God to the actual, unlike chairs, or phones, or computers etc.

It is still the same problem all over again. You are still defining God as something that exists rather than properly reaching this conclusion.

 

[Left Coast]

PSA:

Begging the Question

 

[Link]

it possible to grasp it?

It is still the same problem all over again. You are still defining God as something that exists rather than properly reaching this conclusion.

I'm going to move on to different arguments. If God is Necessary then he exists true, and so it seems like cheating to just assert he is necessary. I get it.

The derivation of why God must be necessary has been proven many ways and in fact, even it wasn't, and God can be grasped to be necessary the following can be phrased:

(1) If God can be grasped to be necessary, then it will be known to exist by the one grasping God is necessary.
(2) God can be grasped to be necessary.
Therefore God exists (the conclusion is more, but that can be derived from conclusion).

To prove God can be grasped to be necessary is easy.

Absolute life (mathematically) cannot miss anything in life. This proves nothing is on par and equal with it in eternality, there is no divisions, parts, etc, but it also shows all creation derives existence from it, and is dependent on it (borrows existence without God losing any).

Now God is defined to be greatest being. Let's think of wisdom. Suppose God lacked a tiny bit of wisdom. He would cease to be God. It's the same with life, power, love, etc.

Therefore if it's possible any independent existence exists, it's impossible for God to exist.

Another way to think of it, suppose the absolute being exists. Then suppose another one that doesn't know about that one exists. It's a contradiction, because they both are not all knowing anymore and also both not absolute in life. Just as impossible for there to be more then one God if God exists, then it's impossible for any independent existence to be possible and God being possible. You have to choose one.

Another way to phrase, suppose God exists, and then it's possible other absolute beings on par with him exist but don't exist in actuality. The contradiction is the same if two Gods exist in actuality as it is for a god to exist in possibility. And since if God is possible then he is necessary, it will follow that if he is possible, he exists. So like I said the disputable premise is whether or not God is possible.