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

[Tiberius]

From the viewpoint that God doesn't exist, it looks like it's cheating, bringing him into existence. Some trickery going on.

But from the viewpoint that God exists, we are just observing something about it, that aside from witnessing existing, we are seeing that it's a Necessary being. Then we conclude so many things like it's One unique, that all things depend on it. You can even derive mystical facts that all existence and it have a unity in that creation existence doesn't add to the amount of existence but is purely derived from his. In this case, there is a link between loving God and love his creation (there is a unity between God and his creation).

But I understand, from the viewpoint of an Atheist, it looks like it's cheating, adding the word necessary to God and boom it has to exist. Like what.

But take a step back, and say suppose God exists. For morality, it would be linked to him. Who you are would be in his vision. Judgment to your deeds and how your deeds form part of you, all from Him. Even logic and math would be originally from him and derived from his essence. Beauty from him, derived from Him.

It would not be hard to see such a reality is consistently witnessed and glorified.

All the ontological argument is saying, is when you look at that being, you see it is necessary and has to exist.

Absoluteness and necessary is synonymous in this scenario. If it's the Greatest being or absolute life that is synonymous with being necessary.

It's hard to wrap your idea that the mere remembrance of God proves he exists beyond doubt, but if you grasp his oneness, that is what his oneness implies.

In fact, the proof for no other god beside God, is the same as the ontological argument. If ontological argument fails, so do arguments for One God fail.

But you can't claim you have proof if that proof depends on IF.

You're basically just saying, God exists if God exists. And that doesn't really mean anything. I could say Smurfs exist if Smurfs exist and it is just as valid.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

But you can't claim you have proof if that proof depends on IF.

You're basically just saying, God exists if God exists. And that doesn't really mean anything. I could say Smurfs exist if Smurfs exist and it is just as valid.

Can you slowly read this? I want to see at what points people might misunderstand the words I use and misinterpret:

Two Logics One Miracup(s) - Pastebin.com

 

[Link]

But you can't claim you have proof if that proof depends on IF.

You're basically just saying, God exists if God exists. And that doesn't really mean anything. I could say Smurfs exist if Smurfs exist and it is just as valid.

What I am trying to say by that, it seems weird if you don't suspend disbelief. If you keep assuming it's some sort of trickery with words through disbelief, it will seem that way, no matter how robust and clear it is.

 

[ratiocinator]

What I am trying to say by that, it seems weird if you don't suspend disbelief. If you keep assuming it's some sort of trickery with words through disbelief, it will seem that way, no matter how robust and clear it is.

The whole point of a logical argument is that you don't have to suspend disbelief. It's not supposed to be a work of the imagination, it's supposed to follow the rules of deduction from premises that people can agree on.

You are obviously assuming your conclusion from the outset, so it's anything but robust and clear.

 

[Link]

It proves it no matter what. It's just if you follow it, and don't accept the conclusion by sheer disbelief, it will always appear like it's tricking you.

 

[ratiocinator]

It proves it no matter what. It's just if you follow it, and don't accept the conclusion by sheer disbelief, it will always appear like it's tricking you.

It doesn't prove it no matter what. There are rules of logic and deduction and what constitutes valid and sound arguments (and they mean different things: Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The problem is that you haven't even set out your case in a format that even allows us to see the difference between your premises, your logical steps, and your conclusions - it's just a muddled mess that appears to be entirely circular.

 

[Tiberius]

Can you slowly read this? I want to see at what points people might misunderstand the words I use and misinterpret:

Two Logics One Miracup(s) - Pastebin.com

Is that just the First Cause argument? If so, it's logically flawed from the start, regardless of the words you use.

 

[Tiberius]

What I am trying to say by that, it seems weird if you don't suspend disbelief. If you keep assuming it's some sort of trickery with words through disbelief, it will seem that way, no matter how robust and clear it is.

And yet what you are asking me to do is the same thing in reverse. Allow myself to believe and I will believe.

In any case, you have not got my position correct. You are painting me as someone who is determined to not believe. That is not true. I am more than happy to believe in any deity at all. I just evidence to support the claim that the deity exists before I will believe in it, and that evidence must withstand a great deal of scrutiny. The simple fact is that your evidence has not withstood the scrutiny it has been subjected to, and I am telling you where it has failed.

 

[Link]

Here I will present a version if you like premises and stuff like that:

1. A Necessary being if can be conceived of or observed would be proven to exist to the observer by virtue of being necessary.
2. A being absolute in life amount (quantity wise, the maximum in life) would have to be a necessary being.
3. Since dependency is possible on existing things, it's not rationally impossible that an being absolute in life amount be conceived, since life of dependent beings would be derived from it.
4. An Absolute life is a coherent thing we conceive of that lacks no life and no possible life.
Therefore an Absolute life is conceived to be a necessary being - combining (4) with (2) (conclusion 1)
Therefore an Absolute life is proven to us to exist by observing it being necessary - combining (conclusion 1) with premise 1.

Clarification of each premise.

1 is known because by definition impossible means cannot exist, and so doesn't, possible can exist and you have to see if it does or does not, while necessary existence means it has to and so does.
2 you have to see that any independent existence if possible in any possible world, then it's not the absolute amount in life (because it lacks possible life amount).
3 This is just saying: God existence amount = God existence amount + creation amount of life.... basically, since it's constantly derived from him and is not lost in him, it's dependent on God, so, this is showing absolute life is not incoherent concept because of life.
4. Think of set theory and think of oneness being filled of all things and all life and all power and all wisdom and all light etc... the absolute amount is such that there can't be a decrease, it's the universal set in terms of absolute infinity.

The rest is clear enough I hope.

I wanted to use absolute life, because greatness can even be assumed to subjective, but this argument, would prove we can put that hold, the coherency of God and balance of mercy and wrath on hold, and still prove God indirectly through the title "Al-Hayu" in Quran.

 

[Link]

3 and 4 are the same premise phrased differently and to clarify each other. I know I didn't use premise 3, it's because premise 4 is just a rehash of it.

 

[Tiberius]

Here I will present a version if you like premises and stuff like that:

1. A Necessary being if can be conceived of or observed would be proven to exist to the observer by virtue of being necessary.
2. A being absolute in life amount (quantity wise, the maximum in life) would have to be a necessary being.
3. Since dependency is possible on existing things, it's not rationally impossible that an being absolute in life amount be conceived, since life of dependent beings would be derived from it.
4. An Absolute life is a coherent thing we conceive of that lacks no life and no possible life.
Therefore an Absolute life is conceived to be a necessary being - combining (4) with (2) (conclusion 1)
Therefore an Absolute life is proven to us to exist by observing it being necessary - combining (conclusion 1) with premise 1.

Clarification of each premise.

1 is known because by definition impossible means cannot exist, and so doesn't, possible can exist and you have to see if it does or does not, while necessary existence means it has to and so does.
2 you have to see that any independent existence if possible in any possible world, then it's not the absolute amount in life (because it lacks possible life amount).
3 This is just saying: God existence amount = God existence amount + creation amount of life.... basically, since it's constantly derived from him and is not lost in him, it's dependent on God, so, this is showing absolute life is not incoherent concept because of life.
4. Think of set theory and think of oneness being filled of all things and all life and all power and all wisdom and all light etc... the absolute amount is such that there can't be a decrease, it's the universal set in terms of absolute infinity.

The rest is clear enough I hope.

I wanted to use absolute life, because greatness can even be assumed to subjective, but this argument, would prove we can put that hold, the coherency of God and balance of mercy and wrath on hold, and still prove God indirectly through the title "Al-Hayu" in Quran.

Yeah, but you are still defining God as a "NEcessary Being," and concluding that God exists because he is necessary. You are still just defining God into existence, despite the fact that you said you weren't going to do that.

 

[Link]

Yeah, but you are still defining God as a "NEcessary Being," and concluding that God exists because he is necessary. You are still just defining God into existence, despite the fact that you said you weren't going to do that.

*smiles*

Two points. Draw between two points, and you get a straight line as the fastest shortest route. You don't even need to draw it, you know it. You know it intuitively, without need of it being proven from any other thing. It's a self-evident fact.

Not everything has to be proven in the way you think. Logic knows a lot.

In this case, it acknowledge a Necessary being if conceived of definitely exists. So this is not the disputable premise.

The premise is can we see why God is Necessary. Well we see that as well to be true.

So what's the problem? Why must God be put in imagination category? Why can't you say you are making using of God himself to see him.

O well, but unicorns? No. Unicorns are contingent.

God is proven to exist by his own essence. My words "necessary" "proof" "god" are just symbolic or sounds, and you formed the concept.

I'm trying to make you reflect over his own essence. It's a unique thing about God and necessary being can only be one thing, so it does seem like, well, what about other things, you can't do that.....

But with God, I just did it my friend. You recall his oneness and you know it exists automatically.

You know it is necessary when you recall him. I used word Absolute life, but who cares. You knew what I meant by it, because it makes sense. You understood. Those letters are not coming to being.

Nothing is coming to existence. I'm not defining anything into existence. I'm using words to make you recall God.

You recalled he has to exist, and now it's up to you to do with that what you want. If you phrase it as trickery or just defining God into existence, you are assuming in all that, God doesn't exist or that by remembering God as a Necessary being it's some sort of cheat code, to define him into existence.

But all I did is remind you by these words, you recalling the Necessary being, didn't bring into existence, the words just made you recall it and recognize with the concept of necessary with respect to it's existence.

If I had the power to bring God into existence..... sure, sue me. I don't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Here I will present a version if you like premises and stuff like that:

1. A Necessary being if can be conceived of or observed would be proven to exist to the observer by virtue of being necessary.
2. A being absolute in life amount (quantity wise, the maximum in life) would have to be a necessary being.
3. Since dependency is possible on existing things, it's not rationally impossible that an being absolute in life amount be conceived, since life of dependent beings would be derived from it.
4. An Absolute life is a coherent thing we conceive of that lacks no life and no possible life.
Therefore an Absolute life is conceived to be a necessary being - combining (4) with (2) (conclusion 1)
Therefore an Absolute life is proven to us to exist by observing it being necessary - combining (conclusion 1) with premise 1.

Clarification of each premise.

1 is known because by definition impossible means cannot exist, and so doesn't, possible can exist and you have to see if it does or does not, while necessary existence means it has to and so does.
2 you have to see that any independent existence if possible in any possible world, then it's not the absolute amount in life (because it lacks possible life amount).
3 This is just saying: God existence amount = God existence amount + creation amount of life.... basically, since it's constantly derived from him and is not lost in him, it's dependent on God, so, this is showing absolute life is not incoherent concept because of life.
4. Think of set theory and think of oneness being filled of all things and all life and all power and all wisdom and all light etc... the absolute amount is such that there can't be a decrease, it's the universal set in terms of absolute infinity.

The rest is clear enough I hope.

I wanted to use absolute life, because greatness can even be assumed to subjective, but this argument, would prove we can put that hold, the coherency of God and balance of mercy and wrath on hold, and still prove God indirectly through the title "Al-Hayu" in Quran.

This is still muddled, full of undefined terms, and basically circular.

1. Imagining a necessary being doesn't make it exist and we certainly can't observe any such being.
   
2. I see no reason at all to accept this. Also "absolute in life amount" is undefined and you've not shown that it can be maximised.
3. Something not being impossible is rather irrelevant.
4. Again, you're just trying to imagine something into existence.

You haven't established even the basics of why you think anything is necessary, let alone a being or what would make it necessary. You've just basically asserted that a being with maximum "absolute in life amount" would ne necessary and further asserted that it must exist because you can imagine it.

There isn't even a single statement that would serve as a reasonable premise, that is, something that is clearly true that can be agreed upon. All your statements (with the possible except of 3, which is vague) contain your own assumptions.

 

[Tiberius]

*smiles*

Two points. Draw between two points, and you get a straight line as the fastest shortest route. You don't even need to draw it, you know it. You know it intuitively, without need of it being proven from any other thing. It's a self-evident fact.

Not everything has to be proven in the way you think. Logic knows a lot.

In this case, it acknowledge a Necessary being if conceived of definitely exists. So this is not the disputable premise.

The premise is can we see why God is Necessary. Well we see that as well to be true.

So what's the problem? Why must God be put in imagination category? Why can't you say you are making using of God himself to see him.

O well, but unicorns? No. Unicorns are contingent.

God is proven to exist by his own essence. My words "necessary" "proof" "god" are just symbolic or sounds, and you formed the concept.

I'm trying to make you reflect over his own essence. It's a unique thing about God and necessary being can only be one thing, so it does seem like, well, what about other things, you can't do that.....

But with God, I just did it my friend. You recall his oneness and you know it exists automatically.

You know it is necessary when you recall him. I used word Absolute life, but who cares. You knew what I meant by it, because it makes sense. You understood. Those letters are not coming to being.

Nothing is coming to existence. I'm not defining anything into existence. I'm using words to make you recall God.

You recalled he has to exist, and now it's up to you to do with that what you want. If you phrase it as trickery or just defining God into existence, you are assuming in all that, God doesn't exist or that by remembering God as a Necessary being it's some sort of cheat code, to define him into existence.

But all I did is remind you by these words, you recalling the Necessary being, didn't bring into existence, the words just made you recall it and recognize with the concept of necessary with respect to it's existence.

If I had the power to bring God into existence..... sure, sue me. I don't.

All you have done is say that IF there is any such thing as a necessary being, then such a being exists.

You have not shown that necessary beings actually exist, and even if they do, you have not shown your God fits into that category.

 

[Link]

Tiberius, I think the serum is in. You will digest it after sometime. I hope.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius, I think the serum is in. You will digest it after sometime. I hope.

I doubt it.

You are not the first person to present the ontological argument to me, and you have not produced anything which I have not already seen. I saw the flaws in the argument the first time, and I see the same flaws in the argument now. You're conviction that you are right does not change the fact that the ontological argument is fundamentally flawed, nor does it change the fact that you are merely attempting to define God into existence by claiming he is necessary when you said you would not do that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it seems weird if you don't suspend disbelief.

Why would I want to do that, even if I could? Empirical skepticism is one of the most powerful ideas man has ever invented. All l ideas are questioned before being accepted, and then, only if the idea is supported by compelling evidence and argument.

You've allowed yourself to do that - to accept an idea uncritically - and now you're here trying to make other people believe what they see is plainly incorrect, and then asking them to suspend the critical judgment that protects them from such ideas so that they might join you.

Imagine thinking that you had to go to a house of worship these days. I'm grateful to be free of religion.

Incidentally, no response is expected or even desired at this point. You don't do your part in a debate, a common failing among religious apologists when they come to questions and comments that they prefer to ignore : https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-ontological-argument-anselm-and-descarte-both-is-sound.233594/page-4#post-6667579

If you keep assuming it's some sort of trickery with words through disbelief, it will seem that way, no matter how robust and clear it is.

Your verbal sleight of hand is a sort of trickery, but not powerful enough to be effective against critical thinkers. You need people to let down their guard and just soak up your beliefs, but they won't without good reason, and you have given them none.

 

[Link]

I doubt it.

You are not the first person to present the ontological argument to me, and you have not produced anything which I have not already seen. I saw the flaws in the argument the first time, and I see the same flaws in the argument now. You're conviction that you are right does not change the fact that the ontological argument is fundamentally flawed, nor does it change the fact that you are merely attempting to define God into existence by claiming he is necessary when you said you would not do that.

God exists regardless if we see to exist or not. And if we see God exist, this argument is not even needed for that.

With respect to God, Theists believe they are looking at the real thing, he exists in reality. Atheists believe it's most likely made up in our heads and just imagination.

But the ontological argument shows, it's impossible that God doesn't exist in reality by virtue of it being necessary. So yes God is being defined to be necessary, but not only that, exactly how we know it is necessary (by vastness of it's life/existence) is shown.

So while everything else can be conceived to not exist, this is not true of God. You can keep believing, you imagine a world without it, but you don't know coherently that a world can exist without it.

And if logic, morality, beauty, is all linked back to God and is contingent on Him, than, what is so odd to see God as an absolute reality, when logic for example is necessarily consistent in all possible worlds.

There is nothing weird about it. Two points - the shortest distance between them is a straight line. You know this to be self-evident and it can be proven mathematically, but you don't need all that. You know it.

Triangles, okay, you need a bit more conceptually to see properties that are true of all triangles.

God - okay, so you thought it may or may not exist, what is the evidence for it. But now that you know by reality of what it is it's pure existence immense existence that no possible world can have existence independent of it by the fact of how full and great his existence is, that is equivalent to being Necessary in terms of existence. This is unique about God, because everything else is limited in terms of life. Actually if unlimited infinities - they would not be Necessary except the universal ultimate set of infinity which is God himself in terms of existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

But the ontological argument shows, it's impossible that God doesn't exist in reality by virtue of it being necessary.

It simply doesn't though. Nothing you've posted here even looks like a sound argument.

Try reading this book (it's a free download), how to construct logical deductions (proofs) is covered in chapters 8 and 9: Critical Thinking (pdf).

 

[Tiberius]

God exists regardless if we see to exist or not. And if we see God exist, this argument is not even needed for that.

With respect to God, Theists believe they are looking at the real thing, he exists in reality. Atheists believe it's most likely made up in our heads and just imagination.

But the ontological argument shows, it's impossible that God doesn't exist in reality by virtue of it being necessary. So yes God is being defined to be necessary, but not only that, exactly how we know it is necessary (by vastness of it's life/existence) is shown.

So while everything else can be conceived to not exist, this is not true of God. You can keep believing, you imagine a world without it, but you don't know coherently that a world can exist without it.

And if logic, morality, beauty, is all linked back to God and is contingent on Him, than, what is so odd to see God as an absolute reality, when logic for example is necessarily consistent in all possible worlds.

There is nothing weird about it. Two points - the shortest distance between them is a straight line. You know this to be self-evident and it can be proven mathematically, but you don't need all that. You know it.

Triangles, okay, you need a bit more conceptually to see properties that are true of all triangles.

God - okay, so you thought it may or may not exist, what is the evidence for it. But now that you know by reality of what it is it's pure existence immense existence that no possible world can have existence independent of it by the fact of how full and great his existence is, that is equivalent to being Necessary in terms of existence. This is unique about God, because everything else is limited in terms of life. Actually if unlimited infinities - they would not be Necessary except the universal ultimate set of infinity which is God himself in terms of existence.

You keep using the same argument and presenting it as though it is fact, despite the fact that you aren't actually addressing my claims against it.

You are just stating things as fact and not providing any support for those claims. And you have not addressed the flaws I have pointed out in the ontological argument. Like I said, you haven't produced anything that I haven't already seen and found flawed.