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

[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?

I will just reply briefly, there is only possible thing that can be seen to be Necessary Existence. I've shown why in every post. But I will be back and explain this in more detail tomorrow.

 

[blü 2]

God's existence is so big, nothing can exist with it or on par with it, it's high realm it is alone.

Are you talking about a real God or an imaginary one?

If a real one, where may I contact [him] so [he] can be interviewed on TV?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

My God is Descartes "Evil Demon":
Evil demon - Wikipedia

Pessimism - Wikipedia

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia

God and Evil - Schopenhauer | Philosophy | University of Southampton

Search Page Panentheism
Arthur Schopenhauer (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Man and Superman - Wikisource, the free online library

My favorite section is about the Life Force and more so the "Death Drive"

Man and Superman/Act III - Wikisource, the free online library

------

Here are some philosophical ideas important to me:
Subjective idealism - Wikipedia
and
Panentheism - Wikipedia

As well as:
Occasionalism - Wikipedia
and
Nicolas Malebranche - Wikipedia


Can throw this in:
Panpsychism - Wikipedia
and
Aztec philosophy - Wikipedia

God is literally Like Nothing (Subhan) in my view, so has no real or actual "bigness" as there is nothing but God and nothing outside of God and impressions of size and distances are all illusory Maya:

"However, in the devotional context, tasbih refers to Subhana Allah, which is often used in the Qur'an with the preposition 'an (عن), meaning "'God is Void'

Ayin and Yesh - Wikipedia

Śūnyatā - Wikipedia

Prima materia - Wikipedia

Shadow Galactica - Wikipedia


Maya (religion) - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

We are talking about defining God/Absolute being.

OK.

Set theory has to do with it, because I'm saying, it encompasses all existence and lacks none.

What's that got to do with set theory?

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.

Where did these "talents" suddenly come from? How are they "higher"? Why should I accept that they are "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 you've introduced "greatness" - what defines "greatness"? Also positivity - how do you define that in a way that isn't subjective?

Now if you understand set theory, the highest set is that which includes all sets, right.

You know that "the set of all sets" or universal set is excluded from most versions of set theory because it leads to paradoxes, yes?

God includes all existence in himself, that is same as being necessary.

Back to unsupported assertions. Why does that make it 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.

Why does including everything in your definition of god make it necessary? You haven't made an argument for it. What you've written doesn't even look like a logical argument.

You need to define all your terms, set out your premisses and each logical step along the way and why if follows from what you've said before.

 

[Tiberius]

God's existence is so big, nothing can exist with it or on par with it, it's high realm it is alone. This is what we are basically saying by Tahleel (only one God). God's Existence is not just so big that it happens there is no gods with God, it's that he so big, that there cannot be any possibility of a god with God.

Why is it that God's Existence is downgraded if he has something with it's Exact properties? Well, because Existence absolute amount of it, is such nothing can be beside it.

When we think of absolute existence, it's as such that if it exists, it would be the type that is Necessary. If It's necessary, just as we can know it is good, we can see it being necessary by just recalling it and seeing greatness is such that it's absolute and covers existence absolutely to the extent it definitely is necessary.

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. The reason is because ultimate existence is such that it covers all existence including reality as is, and is in fact so big, that reality of it's existence covers all possible existence.

The existence by which it covers all existence, a life that covers all life, is such that it's impossible to see this being and not see it exists.

Any possibly conception of a god that doesn't get this attribute of being necessary type existence, is a lesser god then the God that is necessary. Give all attributes like goodness, love, etc, but not being necessary type existence, it would fall short of being absolute being. Therefore, the true God can only be seen to exist and cannot be imagined not to exist, for by sheer recalling it is necessary, it is known to exist.

Anselm and Descartes both arguments were sound. Not only are they sound, but Tawhid only makes sense if they are sound. That is if they are not sound arguments, then Tawheed doesn't make sense either.

Tawheed (Oneness of God) was never about counting that there is One God only, but to see the Absolute Eternal Being is One such that it covers all existence and all greatness and all treasures and all possible life and power and glory and beauty.

This level if we conceive of the idea of that God - we recall instantly it not only exists, but cannot but exist, necessarily, that is no possible world can be free from it and that everything depends on it.

It is full container by which all things depend upon (Samad) such that existence is so full in it, no existence can exist but dependent on it, no existence can exist with it, and existence of it cannot be conceived to not exist.

If you an imagine a god that may or may not exist, that's lacking the absolute necessary level of existence which is absolute and hence not only exists, but cannot but exist.

I can imagine the perfect Starship Enterprise.

One of the qualities of perfection is existence.

Thus, the Starship Enterprise actually exists.

Want another one? Okay.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. A being that accomplishes some goal while facing a handicap is greater than a being which accomplishes the same goal without facing such a handicap.
3. For a being to be maximally great, it must accomplish some goal while facing the greatest possible handicap.
4. The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.
5. Thus, the greatest possible being by definition must be non-existent.

There you go, I just used your argument to disprove God.

 

[Link]

Things can't be defined into existence.

I agree things can't be defined into existence. What are we really discussing than, regarding God is three options.

(1) He is seen in imagination only.
(2) He is seen in both imagination and reality (conceptually can be imagined + can be seen to exist).
(3) He can only be seen to exist.

Now I'm talking about something unique about God, is that 3 Uniquely applies to Him.

Necessary facts.

A necessary fact is something that holds true in all possible worlds. Possible worlds means logically possible. This means for example mathematics. 1+1=2 is consistent and holds true in all possible worlds.

I also believe morality is like that. Moral rules are necessary truths.

Necessary Existence.

This would be an Existence that has to be there in all logical possible worlds.

Difference between asserting necessary and seeing

I can assert a pizza is necessary in all worlds. However it's impossible to conceive that no logical possible world can exist without a pizza. In fact, conceiving of a possible world without a pizza is easy and so there is a difference in asserting and conceiving. It's impossible to conceive a pizza as a necessary existence.

If God Exists

I find over the years with my experience with Atheists, they will assume in every argument, God doesn't exist and you trying to cheat them with words to make them believe.

If God doesn't exist, there is no proving Him. This is for sure. But like I said earlier, if God exists, I believe he is of category 3 out of these 3 possibilities:

(1) Can only be seen to exist in imagination and possibly seen not to exist in a logical possible world.
(2) Can be seen in in imagination or witnessed in reality, can be imagine to exist or not exist in a logical possible world.
(3) Can only be seen to exist in reality (cannot be imagined to exist nor imagine not to exist, only seen to exist).

God is a proof of himself for his creation

What does this mean? For example, you are yourself evidence that you exist. When you think, when you talk, you see yourself exist. Now God is I'm arguing is not only seen to exist, but, while you can imagine yourself not existing in a possible world (suppose your parents didn't meet), you can't imagine God doesn't exist. In fact, he is evident in his existence.

If this is true, what can we observe about him.

Fully conception of God is impossible. But we know things about it. That's it good, that's wise, that's powerful, that it's compassionate, etc.

I'm saying from viewpoint of existence, we can beyond observing it to exist, know it's impossible for it not to not exist in any possible logical world. This how we know there is only one God.

Greatness.

Greatness facts are also to me necessary truths.

Observing the Magnitude of God.

If God is of type three, when we think of his magnitude in terms of life, we see there is no life he lacks at all. If he was lacking any in life amount, he would be less great.

Lesser ideas of God can be imagined.

We can imagine Creator be whatever, this is true. In fact, three is only true of the true reality of God.

Why Necessary Being and Absolute Existence is synonymous.

His existence is filled solidified into a unity a oneness and a single essence, but from another perspective, nothing can exist but is rooted somehow from this oneness, and all perfections or beauty or glory is found in this being. Life wise he is immense to the extent, no possible life in any possible world, can exist, beyond it. He is the ALL.

Why Necessary Being can only be God.

Everything else by default is dependant on it. Life wise, if there exists any independent existence possible in any possible world, then it's proven by that, God is not Necessary Existence. This is because an existence in some world x that is logically coherent can exist without God. The reason this would be possible, is because God would no longer be absolute existence if this was the case. God in this case, would be a lesser magnitude in terms of existence.

Does God exist in imagination or in reality or both?

If in imagination only, the story is over. No need to reflect. You can't prove God in this case.

If both, this argument doesn't work. You will have to go to a different means to perceive God.

But when think about it, when we recall God, we see that magnitude of his is so great, that the Predicate argument that existence is irrelevant and doesn't add to the concept, is false, by Kant. In case of God, Getting to the intense level of Necessary type existence, does add to it. It's actually the only way you can know there are no more gods then God. Oneness of God in holy books hence was always proving God, but proving more. It was killing two or more birds in one stone.

Greatest Human being.

In the hadiths, Mohammad is said to be the greatest human being. In fact, in the hadith Ali is said to be the greatest human being. Contradiction? Not really.

It's not. In fact, there is Blessing prayer that calls each of the members of Ahlulbayt, that. A long Salawat I can share the link to it if anyone is interested.

I'm not sure how "greatest" or "best" works in English, but if a human being submits to God in the best manner possible, and there is no neglect or fault on their part in that, they are maximally great as human beings in Quran understanding.

If they embrace every blessing coming their way with utmost power and submission to God, then, there is no reason to say one is better then the other, they've reached all God can ask of humans to do.

There is more then 1 best in this scenario. And it doesn't downgrade their status to be in their realm as equals.

Why God can't have an equal or twin?

Unlike everything else, repetition would mean God is significantly less great than the greatest possible being. This is because God's Magnitude is comprehensive of all life, power, beauty, etc, and life and existence wise, that solidified intensity oneness where it's all found, can only be one single reality/essence.

So when we think about this from this perspective, it's realized, that only God be seen as needing to be unique to maintain the status of his greatness.

Mohamad doesn't lose status if Fatima is his equal. God does if he has an equal.

The Ontological argument and arguments for oneness of God are one and the same.

God absolute existence proven he exists is trivial. If he exists, we can see he exists. The ontological argument is even proving more then this. It's proving it's not that we happen to have a God/Creator and some other logical world could've have a different type of Creator. God is a Necessary Being. And it also proves there can't be an independent existence aside from God. Everything else possible - is dependent on it.

But for the sake of relevance to Atheists, it proves, God cannot be imagined to exist or not exist, but rather only seen to exist.

The question of defining things to existence we agree upon, it's impossible. The argument in the OP is that God is not only observable, but when we look at it, we see it can't be imagined to exist or not exist. Only seen to exist because the nature of it's magnitude and it being necessary.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If God won't guide us and his path is not the one we follow, what path will we follow and who will we rely on?

I've been relying on myself since I left religion and faith-based thought. It's worked out pretty well.

Besides, where is this divine guidance? In scripture? The pronouncements of self-declared prophets? When I was religious, my guidance came from people and books claiming to be channeling a deity, not gods themselves.

If you see it logically, there is no going back, you will see God exists for the rest of your life.

There is no logical seeing of gods since if one or more existed, they've left no evidence of that fact. There is only one path to a god belief, and that is faith. No argument or evidence suggests that any gods exist.

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. 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.

But you can't prove that gods are necessary. The ontological argument is proof of nothing except the absurd extremes people go to try to justify their god belief using evidence and/or reason. The argument relies on the idea that an infinite god must exist because those words can be strung together and an idea conceived.

In the meantime, science marches on demonstrating how the universe could come into existence, organize into galaxies with life and mind, and operate on a daily basis with no intelligent designer needed. The phrase "god of the gaps" refers to that progress in explaining reality without gods, whose possible jobs are shrinking as well. Far from gods being necessary, we have to wonder if gods are possible. Why would one or more exist? What would create such a thing? If things can exist uncreated, what do we need a god to explain?

What forces would keep a god intact so that it could continue to exist and know and think rather than dissipate like a cloud, and where would such forces have come from? Certainly, a god would not be able to create anything if it began dissolving or evaporating.

God is absolute and necessary, and that by definition, can only be One.

Here you are defining this god into existence by declaring it necessary. It is not. An unconscious multiverse serving as the source of our universe is a logical possibility. If you'd like to introduce the fine tuning argument, the multiverse accounts for the universe being the way it is as being one of possibly countless iterations of all possible universes. Naturally, there would be universes like this one.

The point is that you have narrowed your list of candidate hypotheses for the source of all we see down to just one - a god, by which I presume you mean a sentient, volitional agent responsible for our universe.

And you've done it simply by declaring that that one logical possibility is correct because it can be conceived of - that the source of our universe must be conscious because that is better than an unconscious source (multiverse) or no source if the universe has always existed or came into existence uncreated. None of this is ruled out by your argument, which simply ignores these possibilities in order to declare a god to be necessary.

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

I can easily conceive of gods being unnecessary as well as nonexistent. Why do you think that that is inconceivable much less untrue?

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

I can have a coherent concept of a god that is none of those things. You're trying to insert qualities through the back door simply be saying they must be.

We are talking about defining God/Absolute being

That's not a part of my definition of a god, which I just gave you - a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating universes like this one. There is no reason to assume that such an agent have any degree of power or intelligence beyond whatever is necessary to do that.

Nor need there be only one such creature, just as there need not be just one universe.

Now if you understand set theory, the highest set is that which includes all sets, right.

"In set theory, a universal set is a set which contains all objects, including itself. In set theory as usually formulated, the conception of a universal set leads to Russell's paradox and is consequently not allowed."

How are you avoiding this paradox for a god that you call the set of all sets?

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.

Proof is that which convinces. They're synonymous. When you say, "Prove it" you are saying "Convince me." If I tell you that Bob faked his own death and that he is really alive, you might say, "Prove it." If I produce a living, breathing Bob, I've done that. I've convinced you that of the two possibilities, bob is dead and Bob is alive, only one of those is correct, and which one - the second one in this case. That's proof because it convinces. It eliminates competing possibilities previously thought to be possible and now known to be wrong.

Who do you think has ever been convinced by this argument? Who do you think was convinced in this thread? I suggest that it was nobody. If you convinced nobody, you've proved nothing.

The people promulgating this ontological argument came to their god belief the same way everybody else who has one did, including you - faith, the simple will to believe something before that belief is justified. They weren't skeptics or agnostics, read this argument, and said, "I can't disagree with that. I see now that if somebody can conceive of a god, there must of necessity be one. The possibility that there is no god has been ruled out by these words, so I must pick a god and worship it." That is what would happen if this argument convinced an unbeliever and made him a believer, and if the argument were sound, the best trained thinkers would all be monotheists.

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.

Unless I missed it, you still haven't defined what absolute existence is, or how that differs from unqualified existence, but I see no reason that if one god can exist, that a race of them cannot. Nor that the agent that created this universe wasn't created by a greater god that came before.

You're simply excluding such possibilities because you've already decided to believe in a single, infinite god that has always existed, and so to you, such things aren't possible. But you haven't ruled them out to me. You've just dismissed the possibilities without justification.

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.

It a commonplace in religious apologetics to assume that if somebody rejects your argument, that they simply did not understand it. You have made no argument that God must be One, nor that He exists - just a bare assertions. This argument is easy to grasp and reject.

there is only possible thing that can be seen to be Necessary Existence. I've shown why in every post

No you haven't. You have made claims that have not been supported with evidence or compelling argument. We know of nothing that is necessary. It's possible that existence is necessary - that it could never have been any other way - but if so, we can't say so with confidence, nor can we say that it is impossible that nothing be necessary.

Notice that this is the larger use of the word possible, meaning not known to be impossible, which includes things are in fact impossible but that is not yet known to be the case, in contrast to the lesser set of things that it is known can happen, such as a pandemic, and includes nothing that can be or has been shown to have been impossible.

 

[Tiberius]

Things can't be defined into existence.

I agree things can't be defined into existence. What are we really discussing than, regarding God is three options.

(1) He is seen in imagination only.
(2) He is seen in both imagination and reality (conceptually can be imagined + can be seen to exist).
(3) He can only be seen to exist.

Now I'm talking about something unique about God, is that 3 Uniquely applies to Him.

Are you saying God is unimaginable?

Necessary facts.

A necessary fact is something that holds true in all possible worlds. Possible worlds means logically possible. This means for example mathematics. 1+1=2 is consistent and holds true in all possible worlds.

I also believe morality is like that. Moral rules are necessary truths.

Are you saying that God cannot do things which are logically impossible?

If anything God can do is already logically possible, then those things can happen without a God. Thus, God is not required.

Also, morality is subjective. That's why everyone has differing views on morality. Is it right to execute murderers and rapists? Some people say yes, other people say now. Is smacking a disobedient child okay? Some say yes, some say no.

Necessary Existence.

This would be an Existence that has to be there in all logical possible worlds.

Difference between asserting necessary and seeing

I can assert a pizza is necessary in all worlds. However it's impossible to conceive that no logical possible world can exist without a pizza. In fact, conceiving of a possible world without a pizza is easy and so there is a difference in asserting and conceiving. It's impossible to conceive a pizza as a necessary existence.

I disagree.

Any logically possible world is one in which I can make a pizza.

Show me a logically possible world in which pizza-making is impossible.

If God Exists

I find over the years with my experience with Atheists, they will assume in every argument, God doesn't exist and you trying to cheat them with words to make them believe.

If God doesn't exist, there is no proving Him. This is for sure. But like I said earlier, if God exists, I believe he is of category 3 out of these 3 possibilities:

(1) Can only be seen to exist in imagination and possibly seen not to exist in a logical possible world.
(2) Can be seen in in imagination or witnessed in reality, can be imagine to exist or not exist in a logical possible world.
(3) Can only be seen to exist in reality (cannot be imagined to exist nor imagine not to exist, only seen to exist).

God is a proof of himself for his creation

What does this mean? For example, you are yourself evidence that you exist. When you think, when you talk, you see yourself exist. Now God is I'm arguing is not only seen to exist, but, while you can imagine yourself not existing in a possible world (suppose your parents didn't meet), you can't imagine God doesn't exist. In fact, he is evident in his existence.

I am evidence that I exist only to myself (and even then I could be wrong if I am just a brain in a jar hooked up to a simulation somewhere.

Thus God could only be evidence of his existence to himself, not to us.

If this is true, what can we observe about him.

Fully conception of God is impossible. But we know things about it. That's it good, that's wise, that's powerful, that it's compassionate, etc.

I'm saying from viewpoint of existence, we can beyond observing it to exist, know it's impossible for it not to not exist in any possible logical world. This how we know there is only one God.

Non sequitur.

Greatness.

Greatness facts are also to me necessary truths.

Opinion, not fact.

Observing the Magnitude of God.

If God is of type three, when we think of his magnitude in terms of life, we see there is no life he lacks at all. If he was lacking any in life amount, he would be less great.

So God is the greatest there can ever possibly be?

He can overcome the greatest handicap?

The greatest handicap is non-existence.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Lesser ideas of God can be imagined.

We can imagine Creator be whatever, this is true. In fact, three is only true of the true reality of God.

My idea of a God that doesn't exist is greater than your idea of a God who has to exist in order to do anything. My God can do it without needing to exist, therefore my God is greater. Therefore, God does not exist.

Why Necessary Being and Absolute Existence is synonymous.

His existence is filled solidified into a unity a oneness and a single essence, but from another perspective, nothing can exist but is rooted somehow from this oneness, and all perfections or beauty or glory is found in this being. Life wise he is immense to the extent, no possible life in any possible world, can exist, beyond it. He is the ALL.

Are you channelling Deeprak Chopra?

Why Necessary Being can only be God.

Everything else by default is dependant on it. Life wise, if there exists any independent existence possible in any possible world, then it's proven by that, God is not Necessary Existence. This is because an existence in some world x that is logically coherent can exist without God. The reason this would be possible, is because God would no longer be absolute existence if this was the case. God in this case, would be a lesser magnitude in terms of existence.

Assertion without evidence.

Does God exist in imagination or in reality or both?

If in imagination only, the story is over. No need to reflect. You can't prove God in this case.

If both, this argument doesn't work. You will have to go to a different means to perceive God.

But when think about it, when we recall God, we see that magnitude of his is so great, that the Predicate argument that existence is irrelevant and doesn't add to the concept, is false, by Kant. In case of God, Getting to the intense level of Necessary type existence, does add to it. It's actually the only way you can know there are no more gods then God. Oneness of God in holy books hence was always proving God, but proving more. It was killing two or more birds in one stone.

My demonstration that the greatest possible God is a non-existent God shows more than the Oneness of God. It shows the NONENESS of God!

Greatest Human being.

In the hadiths, Mohammad is said to be the greatest human being. In fact, in the hadith Ali is said to be the greatest human being. Contradiction? Not really.

It's not. In fact, there is Blessing prayer that calls each of the members of Ahlulbayt, that. A long Salawat I can share the link to it if anyone is interested.

I'm not sure how "greatest" or "best" works in English, but if a human being submits to God in the best manner possible, and there is no neglect or fault on their part in that, they are maximally great as human beings in Quran understanding.

If they embrace every blessing coming their way with utmost power and submission to God, then, there is no reason to say one is better then the other, they've reached all God can ask of humans to do.

There is more then 1 best in this scenario. And it doesn't downgrade their status to be in their realm as equals.

Woah, hold up there. Even if you have been right so far (you haven't), it's a mighty big jump to go from a vague idea of a God to deciding that it's the God of Islam.

Why God can't have an equal or twin?

Unlike everything else, repetition would mean God is significantly less great than the greatest possible being. This is because God's Magnitude is comprehensive of all life, power, beauty, etc, and life and existence wise, that solidified intensity oneness where it's all found, can only be one single reality/essence.

So when we think about this from this perspective, it's realized, that only God be seen as needing to be unique to maintain the status of his greatness.

Mohamad doesn't lose status if Fatima is his equal. God does if he has an equal.

Using the definition of words to prove God sounds a lot to me like trying to define God into existence, which is something you said is invalid.

The Ontological argument and arguments for oneness of God are one and the same.

God absolute existence proven he exists is trivial. If he exists, we can see he exists. The ontological argument is even proving more then this. It's proving it's not that we happen to have a God/Creator and some other logical world could've have a different type of Creator. God is a Necessary Being. And it also proves there can't be an independent existence aside from God. Everything else possible - is dependent on it.

But for the sake of relevance to Atheists, it proves, God cannot be imagined to exist or not exist, but rather only seen to exist.

The question of defining things to existence we agree upon, it's impossible. The argument in the OP is that God is not only observable, but when we look at it, we see it can't be imagined to exist or not exist. Only seen to exist because the nature of it's magnitude and it being necessary.

I've already shown how the ontological argument proves that God doesn't exist.

 

[Link]

Are you saying God is unimaginable?

God can't exist in imagination or imagined to exist while possibly not existing, imagination is perception of things possible but they aren't necessarily there or existing, while God can only be seen to exist, why this is the case, I've been trying to show it all the way through this thread. Anyways, I think you guys should read the original works of Anselm and Descartes.

 

[Link]

Peace, I'm done debating on forums.

 

[Tiberius]

God can't exist in imagination or imagined to exist while possibly not existing, imagination is perception of things possible but they aren't necessarily there or existing, while God can only be seen to exist, why this is the case, I've been trying to show it all the way through this thread. Anyways, I think you guys should read the original works of Anselm and Descartes.

I can imagine lots of things that don't exist.

Lots of people also imagine God. There's no apparent justification for you to claim that God can't be imagined.

 

[Link]

I can imagine lots of things that don't exist.

Lots of people also imagine God. There's no apparent justification for you to claim that God can't be imagined.

God is the Justification, the proof of it. I just showed how when recalling God, we know this is true. The whole thread, I've been rehashing and trying to speak from different angles, and paraphrase it differently how when we remember God, we know this to be true. This is the conclusion the premise that God can't be imagined but only seen to exist, is the conclusion.

One of the titles of God in Islam is al-Burhan, which means "The Proof", and can you pray to God as "O Proof".

Anyways, I don't think me paraphrasing the same thing a million more times will bring any closer to faith. People are re-asserting the same misunderstandings or ways of error in thinking.

 

[Tiberius]

God is the Justification, the proof of it. I just showed how when recalling God, we know this is true. The whole thread, I've been rehashing and trying to speak from different angles, and paraphrase it differently how when we remember God, we know this to be true. This is the conclusion the premise that God can't be imagined but only seen to exist, is the conclusion.

One of the titles of God in Islam is al-Burhan, which means "The Proof", and can you pray to God as "O Proof".

Anyways, I don't think me paraphrasing the same thing a million more times will bring any closer to faith. People are re-asserting the same misunderstandings or ways of error in thinking.

I'm just pointing out that your logic is flawed.

And I've also pointed out that even if what you said were correct, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that this alleged God is the god of a particular religion.

All you've provided is a bunch of theological double talk which has been refuted by much greater philosophers than me. The ontological argument doesn't work. All you've done is claim that God must exist by defining God as something which must exist. That doesn't prove anything, and it contradicts your promise that you weren't going to define God into existence.

 

[Link]

I'm just pointing out that your logic is flawed.

And I've also pointed out that even if what you said were correct, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that this alleged God is the god of a particular religion.

All you've provided is a bunch of theological double talk which has been refuted by much greater philosophers than me. The ontological argument doesn't work. All you've done is claim that God must exist by defining God as something which must exist. That doesn't prove anything, and it contradicts your promise that you weren't going to define God into existence.

If God exists in imagination, it is as you said. But if he doesn't, observing Him and his light is important. That means you should look at God and see if he exists.

I believe you can assume God is either imagination or not (is real) while looking at it, observe the facts I told you about it in this thread, and you will see then it in fact doesn't exist in imagination and it's rationally impossible.

This is weird, because logic usually can see something both in imagination + in reality and make a distinction. But God is different in all respects, even in how is seen and known.

Logic when we recall God's Magnitude (even assume it's imagination that is possible) will then see, it's not possible that it doesn't exist. This is why all you have to do is remember God's Oneness with respect to existence and life, and it's easy to see He exists.

Now you might argue, if we can only look at the real thing, and so why need to argue for it. The truth is there is no need. Most people see God and realize they do, but the Devil's propaganda has shifted this being which we ALL see, into being imagined as if in our imagination.

Angels see him more intensely, but, we see Him as well, he is the God on earth and Heavens.

The sorcery from our sins and actions being for other than God, has allowed The Devil and the deceivers and his troops, to been constantly telling us "what if he is in your imagination" "how do you know he is not in your imagination" even though we see his existence just like we see ours.

But when we begin to really look at, ignore the whispers for a second, and say what if God is different, what if he can't be imagined but only seen to exist.

You become neutral and look at what he defined to be. This is what Descartes and Anselm did, and they realized, when you do that, you see that he cannot by definition but exist because his magnitude with respect to existence is absolute to the level of being necessary.

But really, you don't need this argument to see God, we see God regardless and are looking at the real thing. This argument just solidifies and it reminds of a whole a bunch different things to (like why God is One and how we know, no possible world can exist without God, there is no possible other logical Creator in x world and some world y a different Creator, etc)

Anyways, rehashing this over and over again, might be useless.

This is my last post. Take care Tiberius. Been a pleasure knowing you from the other forum.

 

[Tiberius]

If God exists in imagination, it is as you said. But if he doesn't, observing Him and his light is important. That means you should look at God and see if he exists.

I believe you can assume God is either imagination or not (is real) while looking at it, observe the facts I told you about it in this thread, and you will see then it in fact doesn't exist in imagination and it's rationally impossible.

This is weird, because logic usually can see something both in imagination + in reality and make a distinction. But God is different in all respects, even in how is seen and known.

Logic when we recall God's Magnitude (even assume it's imagination that is possible) will then see, it's not possible that it doesn't exist. This is why all you have to do is remember God's Oneness with respect to existence and life, and it's easy to see He exists.

Now you might argue, if we can only look at the real thing, and so why need to argue for it. The truth is there is no need. Most people see God and realize they do, but the Devil's propaganda has shifted this being which we ALL see, into being imagined as if in our imagination.

Angels see him more intensely, but, we see Him as well, he is the God on earth and Heavens.

The sorcery from our sins and actions being for other than God, has allowed The Devil and the deceivers and his troops, to been constantly telling us "what if he is in your imagination" "how do you know he is not in your imagination" even though we see his existence just like we see ours.

But when we begin to really look at, ignore the whispers for a second, and say what if God is different, what if he can't be imagined but only seen to exist.

You become neutral and look at what he defined to be. This is what Descartes and Anselm did, and they realized, when you do that, you see that he cannot by definition but exist because his magnitude with respect to existence is absolute to the level of being necessary.

But really, you don't need this argument to see God, we see God regardless and are looking at the real thing. This argument just solidifies and it reminds of a whole a bunch different things to (like why God is One and how we know, no possible world can exist without God, there is no possible other logical Creator in x world and some world y a different Creator, etc)

Anyways, rehashing this over and over again, might be useless.

This is my last post. Take care Tiberius. Been a pleasure knowing you from the other forum.

This is assuming that God is there to be seen. You have not shown this. You are just saying that God can be seen because he is there to be seen, and again that argument is circular.

Still, it's disappointing that you started a thread for debate, and now that you are facing challenges to your position, you decide to leave instead of responding to those challenges.

 

[Milton Platt]

God's existence is so big, nothing can exist with it or on par with it, it's high realm it is alone. This is what we are basically saying by Tahleel (only one God). God's Existence is not just so big that it happens there is no gods with God, it's that he so big, that there cannot be any possibility of a god with God.

Why is it that God's Existence is downgraded if he has something with it's Exact properties? Well, because Existence absolute amount of it, is such nothing can be beside it.

When we think of absolute existence, it's as such that if it exists, it would be the type that is Necessary. If It's necessary, just as we can know it is good, we can see it being necessary by just recalling it and seeing greatness is such that it's absolute and covers existence absolutely to the extent it definitely is necessary.

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. The reason is because ultimate existence is such that it covers all existence including reality as is, and is in fact so big, that reality of it's existence covers all possible existence.

The existence by which it covers all existence, a life that covers all life, is such that it's impossible to see this being and not see it exists.

Any possibly conception of a god that doesn't get this attribute of being necessary type existence, is a lesser god then the God that is necessary. Give all attributes like goodness, love, etc, but not being necessary type existence, it would fall short of being absolute being. Therefore, the true God can only be seen to exist and cannot be imagined not to exist, for by sheer recalling it is necessary, it is known to exist.

Anselm and Descartes both arguments were sound. Not only are they sound, but Tawhid only makes sense if they are sound. That is if they are not sound arguments, then Tawheed doesn't make sense either.

Tawheed (Oneness of God) was never about counting that there is One God only, but to see the Absolute Eternal Being is One such that it covers all existence and all greatness and all treasures and all possible life and power and glory and beauty.

This level if we conceive of the idea of that God - we recall instantly it not only exists, but cannot but exist, necessarily, that is no possible world can be free from it and that everything depends on it.

It is full container by which all things depend upon (Samad) such that existence is so full in it, no existence can exist but dependent on it, no existence can exist with it, and existence of it cannot be conceived to not exist.

If you an imagine a god that may or may not exist, that's lacking the absolute necessary level of existence which is absolute and hence not only exists, but cannot but exist.

I fail to see how this argument is sound or valid. You are merely defining something into existence. I can say that a unicorn have all these same properties, therefore unicorns exist. It just makes no sense.

What is absolute existence? Demonstrate it is real.
Demonstrate that your god's existence is necessary.

"The existence by which it covers all existence, a life that covers all life, is such that it's impossible to see this being and not see it exists".......I don't know what this sentence means.....

 

[Link]

This is assuming that God is there to be seen. You have not shown this. You are just saying that God can be seen because he is there to be seen, and again that argument is circular.

Still, it's disappointing that you started a thread for debate, and now that you are facing challenges to your position, you decide to leave instead of responding to those challenges.

Okay, I'm a little less distressed and more calm now.

There is no assumption. You can assume either of these are possible:

(1) God exists in imagination only and cannot be seen (because doesn't exist).
(2) God exists in both imagination and can be seen in reality (imagination can conceive + seeing him is possible as well).
(3) God can only be seen to exist (cannot be in imagination).

I'm saying reflecting on what you are looking at (God) will make you see he is not of (1) or (2) but of (3). The reason has to do with his Greatness to the extent it's absolute in existence and life.

For example, assume 2 was true. A person seeing God would have to see Him as absolute and great. But that would prove two is impossible, because Necessary type existence cannot be seen to potential exist or not and hence, doesn't exist in imagination.

So it would be definitely 3 if God was seen, right.

But it's the same with 1, when you look at what you are assuming is imagination, you realize by it's traits, it cannot be in imagination.

So you can come assuming all three are possible, but, you end up at concluding 3.

Think of all possible worlds except this one. God's Existence encompasses all possible existence in those right, if God was the Greatest possible being. It happens to be, our world is also a possible word. So conceptually, you can't exclude it.

I hope that helps.

 

[Link]

I fail to see how this argument is sound or valid. You are merely defining something into existence. I can say that a unicorn have all these same properties, therefore unicorns exist. It just makes no sense.

What is absolute existence? Demonstrate it is real.
Demonstrate that your god's existence is necessary.

"The existence by which it covers all existence, a life that covers all life, is such that it's impossible to see this being and not see it exists".......I don't know what this sentence means.....

Think of all possible existence except actual existence. God in imagination would include those right? But that would not make him absolute, to be absolute, you have to include actual existence in his. His Existence is Absolute it includes being in this world as well as all possible existence is dependent on him by definition, as they can only stem from Him.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree, but I would not say that you have to jettison belief in order to do science. Individual belief can be retained by that scientist, just not used in the process of science.

We're in agreement here.

Previously, in other RF threads, I wrote,

"Actually, it is necessary to jettison the god belief to do science properly. The scientist who can't leave his Sunday morning beliefs at home when he goes to work Monday will not be able to do science properly as the intelligent design people demonstrated. They brought a god belief to the lab and it caused them to do pseudoscience instead."

and

"A creationist can do good science, but only if he leaves his creationist beliefs outside of the lab or observatory - only if he does the same science that a competent secular humanist would have done. But if he injects his beliefs into his work in a way that causes him to do science differently, it ceases to be science"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God exists in imagination, it is as you said.

"God" doesn't exist in the imagination. Our imagination contains concepts - mental models - of things and not the things themselves.