The ontological argument (Anselm and Descarte both) is sound.

[Link]

I replied to this in your last thread, and I didnt get an answer. Replace "God" in your argument with "grilled cheese sandwich." Does a supernatural grilled cheese sandwich therefore necessarily exist?

Grilled cheese sandwich is only best if it's a limited thing. It's limited by definition, if it covered all life and possible life, we would all be really, really, fat trying to eat it no?

In fact, Necessity in terms of existence, by definition, there can only be one thing. Which is why we know there is only One God.

 

[osgart]

I replied to this in your last thread, and I didnt get an answer. Replace "God" in your argument with "grilled cheese sandwich." Does a supernatural grilled cheese sandwich therefore necessarily exist?

What are the properties of a supernatural grilled cheese sandwich that would able replace the attributes of God as God is defined. Or did he define God at all?

 

[Left Coast]

Grilled cheese sandwich is only best if it's a limited thing. It's limited by definition, if it covered all life and possible life, we would all be really, really, fat trying to eat it no?

Goodness no! The greatest conceivable grilled cheese sandwich wouldn't make you fat at all. It would give you a six pack!

In fact, Necessity in terms of existence, by definition, there can only be one thing. Which is why we know there is only One God.

How do you know there is only one necessary thing? That's not part of the definition of being philosophically necessary.

 

[Link]

This is why if Ali is equal to Mohammad, Mohammad is not belittled, nor if Moses and Jesus are equals and part of one Ahlulbayt.

However, the only being, that if you say there is a twin version of him or something on par with his status, he looses so much of his greatness, is God. God is absolute and necessary, and that by definition, can only be One.

 

[Left Coast]

What are the properties of a supernatural grilled cheese sandwich that would able replace the attributes of God as God is defined. Or did he define God at all?

Such a sandwich doesn't have to replace God, it merely has to be the greatest conceivable version of what it is. The structure of the argument remains the same.

And no, I don't think he actually did define God, other than some necessary thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

If we can prove that God is Necessary, it's proven by default that he exists. This is for sure. The way to make this not just an assertion (asserting to the conclusion) is to say why he must be necessary.

Okay....

The reason is because the Greatest Possible being covers all life (possible life). His life is so huge that there is nothing that can be with it there, because it's absolute. Necessary means it cannot be that it doesn't exist any possible world. The highest type existence, is the absolute type, the type that no existence can exist, but is found in Him. Necessity that is proven, when we recall God, it's known it exists.

This is just more assertion. How do you know anything is necessary? How would you know what would make it necessary? How do you know that what you are talking about is anything outside of your imagination?

There is no logical structure here.

In fact, it terms of perfection, it's part of perfection to hold life at absolute level. So it terms of existence type, it's perfect to be necessary.

Who's to say what is "perfect"? That's a subjective term. Why is it "perfect" to be necessary? How do you know anything at all is either perfect or necessary?

In terms of greatness, it's greater to be necessary then not to be.

Greatness is another subjective term. Why is it "greater" to be necessary? How do you know anything is that "great"?

 

[Link]

How do you know there is only one necessary thing?

In terms of existence, there can only be One. Let's do a though experiment to show this. Suppose x was independent of God and y was dependent of God. God would contain y in existence but not x. God would then not be the greatest possible being in such a scenario.

Therefore in terms of existence, there is two ways God is absolute. Vertically he is the Highest. But Horizontally, there is no goodness, no greatness, no beauty, no power, no light, no existence, but that it's found in Him.

If something is necessary in terms of existence, it's eternal and independent of others. We saw how if the Greatest possible being exists, it has to contain all and so everything must be dependent. In the highest realm, it's a complete sheer unity, and if it wasn't, it would be form of non-absolute parts.

However, his existence is horizontally infinite despite being sheer unity, that is why creation is diverse and get's multiple forms and talents from God.

 

[osgart]

Such a sandwich doesn't have to replace God, it merely has to be the greatest conceivable version of what it is. The structure of the argument remains the same.

And no, I don't think he actually did define God, other than some necessary thing.

So this is nothing more than an argument from imagination.

He isn't aligning creation with the attributes of God or something like that I take it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thus when we recall Ultimate possible being we see the actual being existing and CANNOT conceive of it not existing or possibly existing or not existing, it is rather seen to exist necessarily.

So you CAN conceive of God?

Edit: I mean - God in his entirety can exist in your mind?

I find this unlikely.

 

[Link]

Okay....



This is just more assertion. How do you know anything is necessary? How would you know what would make it necessary? How do you know that what you are talking about is anything outside of your imagination?

There is no logical structure here.



Who's to say what is "perfect"? That's a subjective term. Why is it "perfect" to be necessary? How do you know anything at all is either perfect or necessary?



Greatness is another subjective term. Why is it "greater" to be necessary? How do you know anything is that "great"?

Okay let's phrase this way:

If A Necessary being exists, and can be conceived, it cannot be conceived to be possibly not exist but only seen to exist.

We can rephrase and elaborate.

(1) If something can be seen to need to be necessary, by definition, it cannot be conceived as a concept that possibly exists or doesn't exist but only seen to exist.
(2) Absolute Existence is coherent and conceived as a concept.
(3) Absolute existence is proven to be needed to be necessary to be coherent.
(4) Absolute existence is coherent.
Therefore Absolute existence cannot possibly not exist but has to exist and therefore does.

A shorter way to say this, if God exists, you can't imagine him, only see his existence. But what is the reason for that? It's because he is absolute being - necessary being. Therefore if God is coherent - he cannot be perceived as a mere concept without seeing him existing at the same time (looking at the real thing).

We do recall God therefore we know he exists.

 

[Link]

So you CAN conceive of God?

Edit: I mean - God in his entirety can exist in your mind?

I find this unlikely.

The argument doesn't rely that God can be fully seen, just seen from a vantage point, no matter how far or close, all we have to see is that mathematically it's absolute in terms of existence and hence necessary. To look at that, you can't see it as a concept, but you are rather looking at the real thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

If A Necessary being exists, and can be conceived, it cannot be conceived to be possibly not exist but only seen to exist.

Why not?

(1) If something can be seen to need to be necessary, by definition, it cannot be conceived as a concept that possibly exists or doesn't exist but only seen to exist.

OK, if we can see the necessity of something, then it must exist, but I have no idea why anything would be necessary.

(2) Absolute Existence is coherent and conceived as a concept.

No it isn't - you haven't even defined it. What is "Absolute Existence"?

(3) Absolute existence is proven to be needed to be necessary to be coherent.

No, it hasn't. I see nothing that is "proven to be needed to be necessar" - certainly you have said nothing that leads to that conclusion.

A shorter way to say this, if God exists, you can't imagine him, only see his existence.

Now you've made a massive leap from some something or other that we might be able to see the necessity of but which you've given us no reason at all to either know what it is or why it would be necessary, to suddenly being "God".

But what is the reason for that? It's because he is absolute being - necessary being.

Back to baseless assertion.

 

[osgart]

The argument doesn't rely that God can be fully seen, just seen from a vantage point, no matter how far or close, all we have to see is that mathematically it's absolute in terms of existence and hence necessary. To look at that, you can't see it as a concept, but you are rather looking at the real thing.

Are you relying on cause and effect to make your argument?

I can conceive of anything by your argument, replace God with it, and at the end of the argument I will have only what is solely in my imagination. Or can we exclude all forms of imagination but one, a specific definition of God?

Are not we living in absolute existence here and now? Define absolute existence?

 

[Link]

OK, if we can see the necessity of something, then it must exist, but I have no idea why anything would be necessary.

I know but I explained in the OP. Do you know about set theory? God in terms of existence horizontally contains all and vertically it's all one at the highest realm which is himself. Therefore God cannot be seen but to exist. Therefore God can't be remembered as a mere concept.

We do remember God, therefore we know he exists by virtue of him being necessary or absolute in terms of existence.

 

[Link]

Are you relying on cause and effect to make your argument?

I can conceive of anything by your argument, replace God with it, and at the end of the argument I will have only what is solely in my imagination. Or can we exclude all forms of imagination but one, a specific definition of God?

Are not we living in absolute existence here and now? Define absolute existence?

No this doesn't rely on cause and effect. That's the cosmological argument.

 

[Link]

No, it hasn't. I see nothing that is "proven to be needed to be necessar" - certainly you have said nothing that leads to that conclusion.

If something is necessary and we do see it as such, it doesn't need other things leading to show that, it itself is a proof of that. Therefore God is himself a proof of his own existence which is cool.

 

[Link]

Descartes did the analogy of triangles. You can know certain properties about triangles just by virtue of what triangles are.

God as coherent concept, you can know certain properties must be of it like being wise, good, etc.

In terms of existence, it's absolute type, the necessary type. You can see that from it as well.

Therefore if you see it linked to it coherently, you should know, there is no imagination happening here, you are seeing the real thing.

 

[osgart]

Here's the argument in a nutshell!

It relies on intuition, and coherent conception.

I don't see it as objective argument.

It requires an intuition of faith.

 

[Link]

Here's the argument in a nutshell!

It relies on intuition, and coherent conception.

I don't see it as objective argument.

It requires an intuition of faith.

Plantiga has is own version. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but, it's not my taste. I understood Anselm and Descartes original works differently then him.

Anyways, I will read Plantiga sometime in the future by as far I understand, my understanding of original works of Anselm and Descartes is both of theirs is more sophisticated and robust and intuitive then Plantiga version of what is possibly, then necessarily in Model logic type proof.

 

[Left Coast]

In terms of existence, there can only be One. Let's do a though experiment to show this. Suppose x was independent of God and y was dependent of God. God would contain y in existence but not x. God would then not be the greatest possible being in such a scenario.

Therefore in terms of existence, there is two ways God is absolute. Vertically he is the Highest. But Horizontally, there is no goodness, no greatness, no beauty, no power, no light, no existence, but that it's found in Him.

If something is necessary in terms of existence, it's eternal and independent of others. We saw how if the Greatest possible being exists, it has to contain all and so everything must be dependent. In the highest realm, it's a complete sheer unity, and if it wasn't, it would be form of non-absolute parts.

However, his existence is horizontally infinite despite being sheer unity, that is why creation is diverse and get's multiple forms and talents from God.

I can see how there could only be one greatest conceivable being, as there could only be one greatest conceivable grilled cheese sandwich. But how do you know either thing actually exists, simply because you can imagine it existing in a thought experiment?