• 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!

Shortest version -Ontological argument (again I know, I love this argument)

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
God is either (1)only seen to exist or (2) only imagined conceptually (2) both is imagined + seen to exist (for example mystics see him, but rest of world just has him conceptually as an idea).

You can start from any assumption of those, I'm saying, when reflecting with whatever assumption, you come to see it's 1. This is the purpose of the argument to show that.

Actually no. I see it as "I don't know" because there is no way to evidently prove any of the above. Any of those options are just possibilities at the moment, so the argument doesn't achieve its purpose.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Actually no. I see it as "I don't know" because there is no way to evidently prove any of the above. Any of those options are just possibilities at the moment, so the argument doesn't achieve its purpose.

You assume any of them possible, can be neutral, you can even assume God is only imagined conceptually, then you come to know after reflecting, he is seen to exist. This is what Anselm tried to prove and in this way.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Comment: Why do I love this argument, well because it's God being a proof for himself to all people, mystics and non-mystics alike.

I see God can be proven to exist through Logical argument, but at the same time we can not know what God is, only that oneness is apparent.

There is a talk you may like to red here;

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 46-51

From. That talk;

"... Then how could it be possible for a contingent reality, that is, man, to understand the nature of that pre-existent Essence, the Divine Being? The difference in station between man and the Divine Reality is thousands upon thousands of times greater than the difference between vegetable and animal. And that which a human being would conjure up in his mind is but the fanciful image of his human condition, it doth not encompass God’s reality but rather is encompassed by it. That is, man graspeth his own illusory conceptions, but the Reality of Divinity can never be grasped: It, Itself, encompasseth all created things, and all created things are in Its grasp. That Divinity which man doth imagine for himself existeth only in his mind, not in truth. Man, however, existeth both in his mind and in truth; thus man is greater than that fanciful reality which he is able to imagine.... "

So all we can imagine about God, man is greater than those thoughts, we have not approached an understanding of God.

It could be that Man is the greatest proof of the Existance of God, Baha'u'llah in this passage quotes passages like Quran 41:53, 51:20-21;

".... To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the Heavenly Books and the Holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not, then, behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King—may the souls of all that dwell within the mystic Tabernacle be a sacrifice unto Him—hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”

If we know our own selves, then we know there is naught but God. As to what is God, that only reverts back to knowledge of the Messenger.

Regards Tony
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
You assume any of them possible, can be neutral, you can even assume God is only imagined conceptually, then you come to know after reflecting, he is seen to exist. This is what Anselm tried to prove and in this way.

It is an illogical argument and has the potential to fall into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as there definitely are people who say that they do not come to such a conclusion upon reflection, but supporters might say that they never truly reflected.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Or they can just not grasp what it's saying or be in denial or just find it too good to be true. Many reasons, but the sound reasoning is there.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see God can be proven to exist through Logical argument, but at the same time we can not know what God is, only that oneness is apparent.

There is a talk you may like to red here;

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 46-51

From. That talk;

"... Then how could it be possible for a contingent reality, that is, man, to understand the nature of that pre-existent Essence, the Divine Being? The difference in station between man and the Divine Reality is thousands upon thousands of times greater than the difference between vegetable and animal. And that which a human being would conjure up in his mind is but the fanciful image of his human condition, it doth not encompass God’s reality but rather is encompassed by it. That is, man graspeth his own illusory conceptions, but the Reality of Divinity can never be grasped: It, Itself, encompasseth all created things, and all created things are in Its grasp. That Divinity which man doth imagine for himself existeth only in his mind, not in truth. Man, however, existeth both in his mind and in truth; thus man is greater than that fanciful reality which he is able to imagine.... "

So all we can imagine about God, man is greater than those thoughts, we have not approached an understanding of God.

It could be that Man is the greatest proof of the Existance of God, Baha'u'llah in this passage quotes passages like Quran 41:53, 51:20-21;

".... To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the Heavenly Books and the Holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not, then, behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King—may the souls of all that dwell within the mystic Tabernacle be a sacrifice unto Him—hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”

If we know our own selves, then we know there is naught but God. As to what is God, that only reverts back to knowledge of the Messenger.

Regards Tony

Dude, everything doesn't have to be about Bahaism. Give it a rest. This thread is about God.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Whatever existence is, it has it to the full amount possible. There is nothing incoherent about this.

Well, that's what I am saying *everything* that exists has existence to the 'full amount': there are only two possible 'amounts' of existence: none at all, or a full measure.

And, truthfully, it is incoherent to say that something that doesn't exist has any properties at all. So, anything that has any property at all exists (because it has a property).
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Or they can just not grasp what it's saying or be in denial or just find it too good to be true. Many reasons, but the sound reasoning is there.

Or it is that the reasoning isn't sound, which is the case, since imagining something doesn't make it true. Logic 101.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, that's what I am saying *everything* that exists has existence to the 'full amount': there are only two possible 'amounts' of existence: none at all, or a full measure.

And, truthfully, it is incoherent to say that something that doesn't exist has any properties at all. So, anything that has any property at all exists (because it has a property).

What are you saying is true. But the predicate is really irrelevant to all this.

We are trying to see if God is just in our heads or just seen by mystics or that we all know he exists by virtue of what he is (necessary being which is due to vastness of his life, greatness, and absolute degree of existence).

No one is saying, you can just define into existence a being. That's impossible.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Or they can just not grasp what it's saying or be in denial or just find it too good to be true. Many reasons, but the sound reasoning is there.

No, actually, it isn't sound at all. It is circular, and invalid. It's almost like believers want so much to prove God exists that they are willing to accept any argument, however bad, that reaches that conclusion.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What are you saying is true. But the predicate is really irrelevant to all this.

We are trying to see if God is just in our heads or just seen by mystics or that we all know he exists by virtue of what he is (necessary being which is due to vastness of his life, greatness, and absolute degree of existence).

No one is saying, you can just define into existence a being. That's impossible.

And what I simply answer is that no being is necessarily existent.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And what I simply answer is that no being is necessarily existent.

Yet if God is a Necessary being and we all see Him, in this scenario, we are just denying or doubting what we are seeing, when if we reflect about it, it's not only seen to exist, but it's not possible it doesn't nor can possible world be without it nor an existence independent of it.

I only re-routed to Al-Hayu and As-Samad, to give different options, so we don't have to get into the coherency debate. Otherwise, the re-route also showed the ontological argument was true by an additional argument.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yet if God is a Necessary being and we all see Him, in this scenario, we are just denying or doubting what we are seeing, when if we reflect about it, it's not only seen to exist, but it's not possible it doesn't nor can possible world be without it nor an existence independent of it.

In that case, I know from introspection that I do not see such a being. And that, according to your argument, shows that God does not exist.

I only re-routed to Al-Hayu and As-Samad, to give different options, so we don't have to get into the coherency debate. Otherwise, the re-route also showed the ontological argument was true by an additional argument.

Except those were just as circular and didn't manage to prove the existence statement claimed.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Yet if God is a Necessary being and we all see Him, in this scenario, we are just denying or doubting what we are seeing, when if we reflect about it, it's not only seen to exist, but it's not possible it doesn't nor can possible world be without it nor an existence independent of it.

I only re-routed to Al-Hayu and As-Samad, to give different options, so we don't have to get into the coherency debate. Otherwise, the re-route also showed the ontological argument was true by an additional argument.

Are you talking about a scenario or are you applying the argument to reality?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In that case, I know from introspection that I do not see such a being. And that, according to your argument, shows that God does not exist.
.

Or you do but keep telling yourself it's in imagination and can't be proven, when it's necessary nature (which is proven to synonymous with absoluteness of it in terms of existence and life) proves not only does it exist, but that it's unique and has to exist.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Or you do but keep telling yourself it's in imagination and can't be proven, when it's necessary nature (which is proven to synonymous with absoluteness of it in terms of existence and life) proves not only does it exist, but that it's unique and has to exist.

Let me be clear. I understand the argument. I just think it fails. In essence, it says that *if* a necessary being exists, then it exists.

And that is a circular argument. Simply claiming you can imagine a necessary being doesn't mean you can or that it must then exist in reality because you can imagine it.

An amusing alternative: the universe is God. if anything exists, then the universe exists (since it consists of all things that exist). So the universe must be the necessary item in existence.
 
Top