Many proofs for God's existence.

[Valjean]

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.

But this doesn't follow. The definition and assertion remain unsupported. I could define the Easter Bunny as necessary, but that doesn't make him real. Man can't "define" God into existence.

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.

But you haven't supported your definitions. Your major premise, the definition, is unsupported.

 

[Link]

I'm going to move on, because, any replies will just be paraphrasing something I already said.

 

[Link]

Proof from vision of God:

(1) We have an accurate reality to who we are (value of our personality, deeds, non-physical qualities).
(2a) We are perceived (whether by God, or by us, or by brain, something sees exactly who we are) and that perception of who we are is directly linked to how "who" we are is possible.
Another way to phrase 2,
(2b) If we aren't perceived, there is no qualitive qualities to who we are since those are non-physical traits.
(3) The only possible thing to give us an accurate reality through perfection vision and judgment to our deeds, traits, and sees us exactly as we are, is God (absolute being and perfect judge).
Therefore God exists.

Another way say the above is:

(1) If God didn't witness exactly who we are, we would not have an accurate reality to who we are.
(2) We have an accurate reality to who we are.
Therefore God exists (and witnesses us exactly as we are).

There is a lot that can be said to support or clarify these premises, but this is a very solid argument for God's existence and there is a lot more to come!

I will just add this premise to prove one of the above premises:

Without an accurate reality to who we are, there is no way to estimate who we are or get closer to an accurate reality of who we are.
There is a way to estimate and get closer to an accurate reality to who we are in perception.
Therefore there is an accurate reality to who we are.


And I can elaborate both these premises and what is meant by the conclusion as well.

 

[David T]

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.

Let me reword your title. "Proof for the existence of reality".. ok that's mental and totally normal across a near infinite spectrum from I believe, to I don't believe to i am agnostic". Weird but normal.

 

[Audie]

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".

Do you knpw why philosophy students are considered the most
tiresome people on campus?

 

[QuestioningMind]

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".

If no world is possible without God, God is necessary.

And if a world is possible without God, then no God is necessary. All you've done is make a statement. You have provided absolutely ZERO evidence that your statement is correct. FIRST you need to establish that no world is possible without God. I live in a world that exists, yet I see absolutely no verifiable evidence for any god.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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 think that the word salad you provided is in any way shape or form PROOF, you clearly don't comprehend what proof is.

 

[blü 2]

There are levels of existence.

How do you define "level of existence"? Hamlet had "to be or not to be". What did he leave out?

The highest level type is necessary.

How do you define "Necessary"? What is the test that will tell us whether something is "necessary" or not?

God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say "God"?

Or are you talking about "God" as an imaginary thing?

If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.

Before we can 'properly define' God, we'd first have to know what we were talking about, no?

If God is imaginary we can make up attributes and wish them on God ─ 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'eternal', even the ill-defined 'perfect'. And God will be whatever we like, whatever each of us likes (which seems to be the status quo).

If God is real then God will have real qualities and they will be essential to framing a definition of God, no?

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).

What does "life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more life" mean?

You seem to liken 'life' to a substance eg liquid water, and to imply that the universe is a pot that can only hold a definable amount of it. If that's what you mean, then it makes no sense. 'Life' is a generalized concept about particular dynamic and complex biochemical states, and the edges of its definition are the subject of ongoing debate.

If any life/existence is possible without God [...] then God [...] is not possible.

Assuming you have a satisfactory definition of a real God, then logically why not? It would simply mean you misunderstood God's function.

God is possible.

We'll have a clearer view of that when you provide those definitions and tests mentioned above.

 

[Link]

Do you knpw why philosophy students are considered the most
tiresome people on campus?

I am computer science student, wouldn't know.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

If no world is possible without God, God is necessary.

And if a world is possible without God, then no God is necessary. All you've done is make a statement. You have provided absolutely ZERO evidence that your statement is correct. FIRST you need to establish that no world is possible without God. I live in a world that exists, yet I see absolutely no verifiable evidence for any god.

What would the evidence look like?

 

[Audie]

I am computer science student, wouldn't know.

Never ran across the phil students?
Lucky you!

 

[QuestioningMind]

What would the evidence look like?

It would be available to everyone and could be consistently verified.

 

[KelseyR]

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.

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.

 

[KelseyR]

The ontological argument, when dissected amounts to this:

1) I desire the existence of God to be necessary, overlooking competing explanations for creation and afterlife.
2) My desire is real
3) Thus God is real

 

[Shadow Link]

How do you define "level of existence"? Hamlet had "to be or not to be". What did he leave out?

Knowledge and experience above or below a certain point.

The theory and practice of perspective?

[/QUOTE]How do you define "Necessary"? What is the test that will tell us whether something is "necessary" or not?[/QUOTE]
That which is good for the longevity and moral evolution of the whole.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Thanks for that explanation.

 

[Link]

The proofs for oneness of God is exactly the same proof that shows he is necessary.

That is to say if ontological argument fails so do all arguments for oneness of God.

If God is proven to be unique it’s because nothing can exist with him nor can he miss anything in absence.

It can Be said whoever grasped why God must be one also grasped that his greatness is such that no possible existence can do without dependency on.

Like I said the arguments for oneness of God do not only prove that an actual polytheism doesn’t exist but shows it’s impossible.

And in fact if any possibility of any amount of life or existence is possible without God then all arguments for oneness of God fail.

I wanted to say this because we live in a time where Muslims, Christians and Jews are giving up a lot of their classical proofs.

There can’t be possibly an argument for oneness of God philosophically except it would apply in the same way to prove God is a necessary being that it is implied it exists.

Another way to look at it just as no possible Gods are possible with God by definition then this world also cannot have Gods beside God and in fact no existence can exist independently including this world.

So when we think of greatness of absoluteness of God life force it is such that we recall not only would Gods not exist beside it but that’s it’s not even possible for them to possible if God is possible. The real world also cannot exist without dependency on God if God is possible.


Whoever truly remembered God as One had to remember that not only gods do not exist With it but it’s not even possible for anything to exist outside of God and dependency on it.

And if you grasp that as even rationally possible that God’s oneness can be proven then it in fact is proven and You witness it existing very easily after that.

 

[blü 2]

Knowledge and experience above or below a certain point.

Thank you for your reply. I wonder why @Link hasn't responded?

Knowledge and experience constitute a 'level of existence'?

I could agree that they constitute personal advantage and (among other things) potential but not necessary moral advantage. But that existence has layers that constitute distinct objective states of reality? I'd need quite a bit of persuading there, starting with a satisfactory demonstration.

[As to when something is, in this context, 'necessary'] That which is good for the longevity and moral evolution of the whole.

Again, thanks.

However, it's not clear to me that this is the sort of thing that Link had in mind. The term is sometimes used for something which, if the philosophical [read 'arm-chair'] reasoning is correct, must be a logical consequence, but Link didn't give enough clues to show that's what he intended.

 

[blü 2]

The proofs for oneness of God is exactly the same proof that shows he is necessary.

That is to say if ontological argument fails so do all arguments for oneness of God.

If God is proven to be unique it’s because nothing can exist with him nor can he miss anything in absence.

But you still haven't said whether you're talking about a god with objective reality ─ in which case that god is defined by its objective characteristics, not imaginary ones ─ or an imaginary god, in which case god can be anything you want, even 'necessary', whatever you mean by that word.

 

[Jim]

@Link What’s your definition of “exist” and your definition of “necessarily”?