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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please read the thread. And other ones. The whole point is to prove this.

I have read the thread. I've read lots of threads. I've read hundreds of books, from before Christ (and therefore certainly before Mohammed), up until newly published this year.

And in nothing that I have ever read have I seen a single argument that convinced me that "if God does not exist, nothing could exist." That is the meaning of "necessary existence."

Oh, yes, I've read many people who have stated this as their personal belief -- you know, those who say things like, "well if God didn't do it, I can't think of how it happened." For them, that is a pursuasive argument, but it is also a wrong one. I like to call it the "Philosopher's Fallacy" -- which is to equate a failure of imagination with a philosophical insight.

Please add that to your lexicon, and I'll repeat it again as a reminder: "Philosopher's Fallacy" -- equating a failure of imagination with a philosophical insight.

 

[Polymath257]

Just assuming God can't be proven over and over again, won't do away with proofs lol.

It's not an assumption. The proofs simply don't prove the existence of a maximally great entity.

 

[Link]

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.

Nah, it's more like, if a necessary being is coherent, it cannot but be seen to exist. Now let's look at this being we assume is in our imagination, well look and behold, it is a necessary being that by virtue of what it is, has to exist and so not only were we looking at the real being, but it was such that it is unique and no repetition of it in any logical possible world is possible, it's the same being. In fact, Plantiga makes use of model logic, "what's possibly necessarily, is necessarily". I forgot a lot of model logic and don't feel like explaining all that, he probably has a sound argument too, I just forgotten so much of model logic, that I don't want to teach it.

And I get it, it's strange that God proves himself to exist by simply being recalled and that by being recalled it's known even that he is unique. But everything with God is different, even how to look at it and know it exists.

 

[Link]

"if God does not exist, nothing could exist." That is the meaning of "necessary existence."

Necessary existence as far ontological argument doesn't have this meaning. It has that implied, but the meaning is different.

 

[Link]

It's not an assumption. The proofs simply don't prove the existence of a maximally great entity.

I know it's strange, because it would be a unique thing about God that he can't be imagined not to exist and is known to exist by simply recalling it. But rationally wise, it's been proven to be the case.

 

[Link]

I was reading Du'a Jawthan Al-Kabir, and in it says "Ya Burhan", which means "O Proof". It's strange yet not so strange that God would be a proof of himself existing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Which is all about Messengers, which is all we can know of God.

I will leave you with that thought, because I see, we see, no God of any benefit, without seeing, God in all Names.

Regards Tony

 

[Polymath257]

I know it's strange, because it would be a unique thing about God that he can't be imagined not to exist and is known to exist by simply recalling it. But rationally wise, it's been proven to be the case.

I can easily imagine God does not exist and I don't recall such a being.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I can easily imagine God does not exist and I don't recall such a being.

That is interesting, as how do we imagine or even consider nothing?

That to me is the only alternative to God, that there is no God, no creation, no us.

Which, I guess, supports Links post.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

Actually, the argument shows non-existence is rationally impossible. That is, it always been impossible for non-existence to be the default state.

Further more, it shows any non-existence at all, any what so ever, is impossible. The reason is because only Absolute Existence is rationally possible due being necessary.

If this is the case, it's no wonder, the ontological argument works. We are just witnessing a feature about reality and existence, mainly that it's not rational any non-existence be possible nor that it was ever possible that there be no existence rather then existence.

 

[Polymath257]

That is interesting, as how do we imagine or even consider nothing?

That to me is the only alternative to God, that there is no God, no creation, no us.

Which, I guess, supports Links post.

Regards Tony

I don't see that as the alternative. The alternative is to have a universe (which we know exists) and no God (which we don't).

Imagining God doesn't exist is just as easy as imaging the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

 

[Link]

I don't see that as the alternative. The alternative is to have a universe (which we know exists) and no God (which we don't).

Imagining God doesn't exist is just as easy as imaging the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

You can't imagine yourself not existing. You can imagine others to exist or not exist, but you constantly witness yourself to exist. You believe what you witness of God is all imagination and fictional. But it's irrational to do so. And while you can conceive of yourself having never existed in the first place as rationally possible, you can't imagine a scenario without the God being part of a universe. You can assert it, but it's not rationally possible.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't imagine yourself not existing. You can imagine others, but you constantly witness yourself to exist.

of course I can. I just imagine what it was like before I was born. And guess what? I didn't exist then.

You believe what you witness of God is all imagination and fictional. But it's irrational to do so. And while you can conceive of yourself having never existed in the first place as rationally possible, you can't imagine a scenario without the God being part of a universe. You can assert it, but it's not rationally possible.

I strongly disagree. Not only is it possible, but I think it is the most likely scenario.

 

[Link]

I can assert I can imagine 1+1=3. It's not possible. It's impossible to imagine it or rationally perceive such a thing. Assertion is different then imagination and conception.

 

[Link]

of course I can. I just imagine what it was like before I was born. And guess what? I didn't exist then.

What I mean is while you exist, you can't imagine yourself not existing. You can conceive of the possibility of never having existed or dying, but you can't conceive of non-existence of yourself in the moment. You can't cease to witness you exist.

God is like that, but furthermore, his oneness is proven by being necessary and that it could not have been a different being then him. So his existence is witnessed, but he cannot be imagined to cease to exist nor any possible existence independent of him is a conceivable possibility.

 

[Polymath257]

What I mean is while you exist, you can't imagine yourself not existing. You can conceive of the possibility of never having existed or dying, but you can't conceive of non-existence of yourself in the moment. You can't cease to witness you exist.

Yes, if I exist, I know I exist. But I can easily imagine my own non-existence.

God is like that, but furthermore, his oneness is proven by being necessary and that it could not have been a different being then him. So his existence is witnessed, but he cannot be imagined to cease to exist nor any possible existence independent of him is a conceivable possibility.

I find your claims like this to not correspond to my experiences at all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Imagining God doesn't exist is just as easy as imaging the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

I do not see by saying God does not exist, is in any way imagining that God does not exist.

I see you already started the imagining with a name of something that is known. I see to try to contemplate a time before we became a rational being, that contemplation can not find nothing, or find no God.

To contemplate nothing, or no God, one would first have to accept nothing exists. But nothing does not exist by itself, nothing is only the result of not having something.

In the same way, we can put ourselves in darkness or deny the light exists, but that is only closing our eyes to the light. It is a choice, not a fact in the reality we share.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

I disagree. The argument is circular, and thereby invalid. It assumes the existence of that which it is trying to prove. And that makes it an invalid argument.

It isn't that 'accepting God' is hard. It is that *this* argument fails to give evidence of the existence.

You can phrase it this way, or you can say God is a proof of his own existence, and when we recall his greatness or absoluteness in terms of life, it is known he has to exist and hence does by virtue of being necessary.

The thing is we are just observing the property of being necessary. When we mediate on that, we recall it has to exist. Then we know definitely it does.

You can try to wiggle out of it as much as possible or find it strange or weird, but is it strange at all if God exists that we are making use of it's absoluteness to recall it.

Logic, morality, beauty, greatness is all linked to it if God exists, you use God for morality if he exists, you use his light, you use his beauty to see beauty, his love to assess love, etc...

Now if God exists and all this is true, you find it hard to believe that you cannot but see he exists definitely and absolutely even though if he exists he would be the necessary being.

The question is how do know God exists? Well there is many ways, but in this argument, we just have to observe him being necessary type existence.

It's like saying how do you know sky is blue? You keep saying well it's blue because I look at it, and this what blue implies. You keep nit picking at it and so simple.

You just look at God - and see he is a necessary being, bang you know he exists, and can't wiggle out of it. That's all that is happening, we are seeing his existence cannot be separated from the real being by virtue of it being necessary.

 

[Curious George]

OK, but now imagine three things, x, y, and z

y is wiser than x, but less strong than z.

z is stronger than x, but less strong than y.

Which is greater y or z?

Wait y is less strong than z and z is less strong than y?

If you meant for the last "strong" to be a wise why not just ask whether wiser was greater than stronger.

However if you meant to create a paper, rocks, scissors scenario, you left poor x in the gutter.

 

[viole]

One way to phrase the ontological argument is to say everything else can be conceived as possibly not existing and be in imagination (like a unicorn) while God cannot be in imagination due to his necessary absolute nature, only be seen in reality. We do conceive of God conceptually, therefore, are looking at the real thing, therefore he exists.

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.

It is very easy to imagine God as not existing. I do it every day. So, I am not sure what that does prove.

I have the impression your argument reduces to (I am just trying to put some structure):

1) God, if exists, is a necessary being
2) It is possible to conceive a possible world with God in it. Ergo, God exists in that possible world
3) But then God, by existing in that possible world, He is therefore necessary (because of 1)
4) Ergo, God inhabits all possible worlds, otherwise He would be contingent, by existing only in some of them, against 1)
5) Ergo, God inhabits also this actualised world (being one of the possible ones)

If that is a good representation of your argument, do you realise it has a fallacy as big as a house in it?

Ciao

- viole