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

[ratiocinator]

I know but I explained in the OP.

No, that was just vague assertions.

Do you know about set theory?

Yes.

God in terms of existence horizontally contains all and vertically it's all one at the highest realm which is himself.

What's that got to do with set theory? For that matter what does it even mean and how is it anything but an assertion?

Therefore God cannot be seen but to exist. Therefore God can't be remembered as a mere concept.

There's no "therefore" - you haven't presented anything at all that leads to these "conclusions".

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.

But you haven't presented any argument that says that something is necessary or how we can "see" that it is.

Therefore God is himself a proof of his own existence which is cool.

Again, you need to actually put something before the word "therefore" that leads to the conclusion after it. That's kind of how logic (and English) works.

You have provided no argument to conclude that this "God" of yours is necessary (the way in which we can "see" that it is necessary). You can't just assert that something must be necessary and then claim to have proved it exists - anybody could do that with anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Sounds like you don't actually know Anselm's Ontological Argument.

 

[Sunstone]

Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments are not identical. Descartes' argument is almost certainly the more profound and stronger of the two. But neither of them work for me.

 

[Link]

No, that was just vague assertions.



Yes.



What's that got to do with set theory? For that matter what does it even mean and how is it anything but an assertion?

We are talking about defining God/Absolute being. Set theory has to do with it, because I'm saying, it encompasses all existence and lacks none. But to understand this, you also have to understand it's highest version of those infinite talents/hues/colors/forms is a single undivided essence.

Why does "God" have to this absolute in terms of existence. Because it would be less great if it lacked any perfection or greatness or existence of any positive nature.

Now if you understand set theory, the highest set is that which includes all sets, right. God includes all existence in himself, that is same as being necessary.

So see this, just see that if no possible existence can be outside God by definition, then this includes mine and your existence and any existence possible, and the absolute magnitude of it is God.

Therefore understand this, and it synonymous with being necessary.

And also you aren't understanding how this proves God because you think God is being defined into existence. Rather, God is part of existence, same way time is part of your existence, God is with you, and your existence is linked back to it and so you can see it.

I'm merely describing why when you recall God - you can know it's not imagination because of it's magnitude.

If you try to imagine a god and another god existing with it, this is imagination, it's possible from your vantage they both don't exist.

But if you conceive of the magnitude of GOD - as in the greatest possible being, you know it exists, because is synonymous with being necessary.

And in fact, this is not hard to see, in that existence is either just possible or impossible or necessary, it has to have one of those three possibilities, and when we recall all possible existence to the magnitude of it's Highest type, we see it's Necessary, and the default is that it exists. Not just default, but it can't not exist.

It's not strange at all to look at existence and see it as necessary. Our existence is not real existence, but dependent type, it borrows from existence.

What I've done in this post, is remove the emphasis on absolute existence and us as existence, to that the absolute existence is existence and us relative dependency on Existence.

I hope you understand now, it's not weird at all, to perceive of Existence.

And I've shown by it's magnitude God is that Existence and when recalled, it's not only seen to exist, but exist Necessarily in all possible words.

God's Life is Magnitude that nothing can be with and yet nothing can be absent from Him.

 

[Link]

Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments are not identical. Descartes' argument is almost certainly the more profound and stronger of the two. But neither of them work for me.

Western Academia in Universities misconstrue both of them and so make them slightly different and strawman both. I've read the originals, and they are basically the same, just one in terms of perfection and the other in terms of greatness, one emphasizes being necessary type existence is part of being perfect and the other emphasizes it's greater to be necessary then being not. But Western Academia misconstrues both of them and doesn't emphasize on the Necessary and levels of existences, and dependency, and all that, though this was the heart of it, and instead make it look like a mind trick. And then talk about predicate nonsense, which is all based on a strawman if the predicate makes sense, and worse, if it doesn't make sense as well.

And to me the predicate thing is non-sense - showing what Descartes and Anselm both didn't mean and showing how if you do a trick like that, it would be a trick, which is a red herring. So yes, if you strawman there arguments, make it look like a trick, it's important to talk about predicate thing to show how that strawman version of his argument is a trick.

Yet Universities teach that Necessary being would be the conclusion of it, when the heart of it, was proving that conceptually God is of the necessary type which means he cannot but exist.

So if you say well give all attributes but that one, in terms of existence, it's not completely perfect (from Descartes view) and not the greatest possible being from Anselm view.

There arguments are exactly the same. But both misconstrued in Western Academia.

 

[Link]

Sounds like you don't actually know Anselm's Ontological Argument.

I know it better then Western Academia for sure. I've heard their explanation and 100% sure it's a strawman.

 

[Sunstone]

Western Academia in Universities misconstrue both of them and so make them slightly different and strawman both. I've read the originals, and they are basically the same, just one in terms of perfection and the other in terms of greatness, one emphasizes being necessary type existence is part of being perfect and the other emphasizes it's greater to be necessary then being not. But Western Academia misconstrues both of them and doesn't emphasize on the Necessary and levels of existences, and dependency, and all that, though this was the heart of it, and instead make it look like a mind trick. And then talk about predicate nonsense, which is all based on a strawman if the predicate makes sense, and worse, if it doesn't make sense as well.

And to me the predicate thing is non-sense - showing what Descartes and Anselm both didn't mean and showing how if you do a trick like that, it would be a trick, which is a red herring. So yes, if you strawman there arguments, make it look like a trick, it's important to talk about predicate thing to show how that strawman version of his argument is a trick.

Yet Universities teach that Necessary being would be the conclusion of it, when the heart of it, was proving that conceptually God is of the necessary type which means he cannot but exist.

So if you say well give all attributes but that one, in terms of existence, it's not completely perfect (from Descartes view) and not the greatest possible being from Anselm view.

There arguments are exactly the same. But both misconstrued in Western Academia.

If you have indeed "read the originals", then I take it you are fluent in Latin. But what is your actual knowledge of "Western Academia"? Which three papers, articles or books on those arguments are your top preferred sources for establishing "Western Academia's" thinking on the arguments? For instance, what do you think of Nolan Lawrence's analysis of Descartes' ontological argument? Specifically?

 

[osgart]

Descartes' argument, and Kant's rebuttal.

 

[osgart]

Just because I can imagine a triangle and a triangle is perfectly what it is does not mean naturally occuring perfect triangles exist in nature.

Perfect concepts do not necessarily exist in reality though conceptually they do and can be only what they are.

Perfect things need not exist.

 

[Link]

But what is your actual knowledge of "Western Academia"?

I'm talking about how it's taught at my university here in Ottawa, Canada, particularly Carleton University. I took a philosophy course and when I read the originals as in the translations, I understood it way differently, then how it was presented in class.

 

[Link]

Just because I can imagine a triangle and a triangle is perfectly what it is does not mean naturally occuring perfect triangles exist in nature.

Perfect concepts do not necessarily exist in reality though conceptually they do and can be only what they are.

Perfect things need not exist.

You don't see the point of the analogy.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm talking about how it's taught at my university here in Ottawa, Canada, particularly Carleton University. I took a philosophy course and when I read the originals as in the translations, I understood it way differently, then how it was presented in class.

I see. Well, all I can say is that you might want to reconsider using the term, "Western Academia" to refer to your professor. Please don't mistake me for chastising you. I make the same kind of mistake now and then. That is, I forget, to one extent or another, that my impression 'everyone is doing it' is actually based on very limited anecdotal evidence. So, I can understand your mistake, since I have been known to make very similar mistakes myself.

Sorry you had a bad professor. It happens.

 

[Link]

Descartes' argument, and Kant's rebuttal.

Kant's rebuttal doesn't understand Necessity. Existence doesn't add to the concept of things like Unicorns, but Existence being of the type necessary does. I shown mathematically why this is the case.

Kant strawman version of it doesn't address the issue.

Just like something being impossible is proven to not exist if you can prove it's impossible, if something is necessary, it's proven to exist.

Now conceptually, just adding existence adds nothing, but if you see existence to the absolute level which is necessary type mathematically, then it does add and is actually the most significant issue when it comes to God according to Holy Books.

This because we don't count how many God(s) there are and just see 1, we actually have to know, there can't be any god but God, that God is One.

This knowledge is synonymous with knowing God is Absolute in terms of Existence, nothing can be beside it. I've shown in the OP, the same thing is just paraphrased differently with respect to the ontological argument, and hence, Oneness of God also happens to prove he exists, not just that he is One, but that he exists.

In fact, it's impossible to grasp the proofs for Oneness of God without automatically seeing that he has to exist and so definitely does.

 

[Link]

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?

There can be many greatest conceivable grilled cheese sandwich - for example, identical ones. God can't even have an identical twin, because, or else, his greatness would be severely brought down mathematically in terms of absolute existence. He no longer is comprehensive absolute in terms of life if there can be a god beside God.

The same is not true of sandwiches. Even if one taste was the best, identical ones and repetitions would not diminish it any way.

Absolute Existence which is synonymous with Necessary Existence can only be One.

Go back to what I said about set theory and horizontal and vertical absoluteness in terms of life, greatness, power, talent, light, beauty and you will understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Left Coast]

There can be many greatest conceivable grilled cheese sandwich - for example, identical ones.

No, if the greatest had an identical twin, it wouldn't the greatest. The greatest grilled cheese sandwich can have no partner. This is the same exact logic you're using regarding God.

The same is not true of sandwiches. Even if one taste was the best, identical ones and repetitions would not diminish it any way.

You can't have it both ways. If having a twin wouldn't diminish the greatness of the grilled cheese, it wouldn't diminish the greatness of God. If it would diminish the greatness of God, then it would diminish the greatness of the sandwich.

Absolute Existence which is synonymous with Necessary Existence can only be One.

Go back to what I said about set theory and horizontal and vertical absoluteness in terms of life, greatness, power, talent, light, beauty and you will understand what I'm talking about.

I believe I do understand, but I don't see an answer to my question. Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it actually exists. So how do we know this greatest conceivable being/sandwich we have in our heads actually exists outside our heads?

 

[osgart]

Kant's rebuttal doesn't understand Necessity. Existence doesn't add to the concept of things like Unicorns, but Existence being of the type necessary does. I shown mathematically why this is the case.

Kant strawman version of it doesn't address the issue.

Just like something being impossible is proven to not exist if you can prove it's impossible, if something is necessary, it's proven to exist.

Now conceptually, just adding existence adds nothing, but if you see existence to the absolute level which is necessary type mathematically, then it does add and is actually the most significant issue when it comes to God according to Holy Books.

This because we don't count how many God(s) there are and just see 1, we actually have to know, there can't be any god but God, that God is One.

This knowledge is synonymous with knowing God is Absolute in terms of Existence, nothing can be beside it. I've shown in the OP, the same thing is just paraphrased differently with respect to the ontological argument, and hence, Oneness of God also happens to prove he exists, not just that he is One, but that he exists.

In fact, it's impossible to grasp the proofs for Oneness of God without automatically seeing that he has to exist and so definitely does.

You are creating God's necessity by conception. That leaves out demonstration that this is a perfect concept, and that leaves out demonstration that this concept is found in reality.

Those are two fronts of opposition.

I can conceive of the laws of nature being as such that they are the absolute necessity for existence.

I can attach many things to necessity besides God. Why is God the perfect triangle?

I can reach for tons of answers, but to me you endowed God with perfection and necessity and not demonstrated it.

I can conceive of a domino falling and call that the necessity for existence. But I have not demonstrated the necessity of it nor the perfection of the concept. God seems like that domino concept to me.

So you are adding your mathematical proofs to these arguments to show they are sound? To enhance the argument, or fill in blanks?

 

[Link]

No, if the greatest had an identical twin, it wouldn't the greatest. The greatest grilled cheese sandwich can have no partner. This is the same exact logic you're using regarding God.



You can't have it both ways. If having a twin wouldn't diminish the greatness of the grilled cheese, it wouldn't diminish the greatness of God. If it would diminish the greatness of God, then it would diminish the greatness of the sandwich.



I believe I do understand, but I don't see an answer to my question. Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it actually exists. So how do we know this greatest conceivable being/sandwich we have in our heads actually exists outside our heads?

Sandwiches can be the greatest in terms of being sandwiches, and have repetitions or even different sandwiches of different taste can be equal in terms of being best sandwiches possible but of different tastes.

Necessary Absolute existence misses no existence, and so if you put a twin equal to it, it's paradoxical, and you would have to see them as significantly both less than the absolute being (no where near it's level even if both infinite, see set theory for reason why).

The problem is if you grasp why God must be One, you will see why he must exist. It's no wonder you aren't grasping either.

 

[Link]

You are creating God's necessity by conception. That leaves out demonstration that this is a perfect concept, and that leaves out demonstration that this concept is found in reality.

Those are two fronts of opposition.

I can conceive of the laws of nature being as such that they are the absolute necessity for existence.

I can attach many things to necessity besides God. Why is God the perfect triangle?

I can reach for tons of answers, but to me you endowed God with perfection and necessity and not demonstrated it.

I can conceive of a domino falling and call that the necessity for existence. But I have not demonstrated the necessity of it nor the perfection of the concept. God seems like that domino concept to me.

So you are adding your mathematical proofs to these arguments to show they are sound? To enhance the argument, or fill in blanks?

God suffices a proof for himself. Once you understand this as possible, I Can explain to you why looking at it you know it exists and can't imagine it not existing. We can go through this over and over again.

But this is it for today,

 

[Left Coast]

Sandwiches can be the greatest in terms of being sandwiches, and have repetitions or even different sandwiches of different taste can be equal in terms of being best sandwiches possible but of different tastes.

If another sandwich tastes as good as mine, I don't have the best-tasting sandwich.

Necessary Absolute existence misses no existence, and so if you put a twin equal to it, it's paradoxical, and you would have to see them as significantly both less than the absolute being (no where near it's level even if both infinite, see set theory for reason why).

The same logic applies the greatest possible sandwich. Another sandwich being equal to it would be paradoxical and you would have to see them as significantly both less than absolutely the greatest sandwich. The logic follows no matter what term you use, whether "greatest possible being" or "greatest possible sandwich" or "greatest possible snoobaloo." Insert whatever you like. The logic remains the same. What applies to one, applies to all.

The problem is if you grasp why God must be One, you will see why he must exist. It's no wonder you aren't grasping either.

Again, you assert that I don't understand, when I don't think that's the case. Pointing out the flaws in your argument doesn't mean I don't understand it.

 

[Link]

Peace friends, I Will be back tomorrow.