The ontological argument (not debating just showing a understanding of it)

[Link]

If every possible world or possible life amount, however you want to look at it, was a point on a line. The ontological argument is saying the possibility of the necessary being, just merely recalling it, you would see that no point can be not included in it. Now this world is a possible world, it's an actual world, it exists, but it's life amount would be nothing compared to the Necessary being. The Necessary being is one such that nothing he can miss in absence, no possible life can exist anywhere without it.

Understand this is Oneness of God argument as well, not that there just aren't any gods beside God, but there can't be any, it's impossible.

So draw an infinite line, but there is degrees of infinity write. So then make all degrees of infinity except the absolute highest, just points on that line, and the line would go on forever. And if that infinity is not big enough, make that a point, and it would go on forever.

The absolute being when you recall it math wise, seeing he is full (Samad), then not only do you know it exists because it's so big it comes to this world by pigeon hole principle, you know nothing can exist with it or without it and that no possible world can exist without God.

It's seems like cheating too good to be true, that just recalling the math size of God's greatness proves it exists, but it's the case.

And this goes well with Theism, because, we believe we are looking at the real being and connected to it, and that God is not a mere concept.

But this proof would prove God cannot exist just in concept and not reality. So either he is impossible and incoherent concept or exists definitely without doubt.

He isn't like other things, which can be conceptually conceived (a bike), then particular attributes (a red small bike - mountain bike, not street bike, etc) in which you make in a particular instance from the abstract concept.

Many type of humans for example. But the Necessary being is identical in this case with hard instance, and there is no difference.

And so it's matter of faith, you can believe you are looking at the real thing or that is impossible incoherent concept, but this is what the ontological argument proves.

So if you see this size as a rational possibility (we aren't talking about contradictory attributes or anything, just the size), then ontological argument, shows the possibility is a necessity, and is proven to exist by whether you recall it by possibility or necessity. If you do by possibility, by size, you see it is necessary. If by necessity (attributing that), you know it exists already, but more than that, it cannot but exist.

This math proof is magical. But a funny thing about math, is that, if we apply to human value, no one would be selfish and people would care others since value wise, we aren't more important then others.

Math tends to side with love in this sense mystically and show selfishness is irrational and math wise a wrong equation.

Math proving mystical things is no big deal for me, since, I know of Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio is how we measure our lust type attraction to beauty as well.

I bet there is some kind of math code to the sounding of how something sounds beautiful. Or even eloquence will have some sort of code and parables and their usage, all some sort of math code to it.

I bet even virtues and personality has some kind of math equation we measure by and balance plays a huge role.

 

[AlexanderG]

Your post needs a TLDR summary. I couldn't really get through it. In almost every sentence, I wasn't sure how you were using certain ambiguous words.

The condensed version of the ontological argument is, "I can conceptually imagine something, and then I can conceptually define this thing as necessarily existent (as well as having some other arbitrary properties which typically describe the god that person believes in). Therefore that thing exists in actual reality." The reasonable objections should be immediately clear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If every possible world or possible life amount, however you want to look at it, was a point on a line. The ontological argument is saying the possibility of the necessary being, just merely recalling it, you would see that no point can be not included in it. Now this world is a possible world, it's an actual world, it exists, but it's life amount would be nothing compared to the Necessary being. The Necessary being is one such that nothing he can miss in absence, no possible life can exist anywhere without it.

Understand this is Oneness of God argument as well, not that there just aren't any gods beside God, but there can't be any, it's impossible.

So draw an infinite line, but there is degrees of infinity write. So then make all degrees of infinity except the absolute highest, just points on that line, and the line would go on forever. And if that infinity is not big enough, make that a point, and it would go on forever.

The absolute being when you recall it math wise, seeing he is full (Samad), then not only do you know it exists because it's so big it comes to this world by pigeon hole principle, you know nothing can exist with it or without it and that no possible world can exist without God.

It's seems like cheating too good to be true, that just recalling the math size of God's greatness proves it exists, but it's the case.

And this goes well with Theism, because, we believe we are looking at the real being and connected to it, and that God is not a mere concept.

But this proof would prove God cannot exist just in concept and not reality. So either he is impossible and incoherent concept or exists definitely without doubt.

He isn't like other things, which can be conceptually conceived (a bike), then particular attributes (a red small bike - mountain bike, not street bike, etc) in which you make in a particular instance from the abstract concept.

Many type of humans for example. But the Necessary being is identical in this case with hard instance, and there is no difference.

And so it's matter of faith, you can believe you are looking at the real thing or that is impossible incoherent concept, but this is what the ontological argument proves.

So if you see this size as a rational possibility (we aren't talking about contradictory attributes or anything, just the size), then ontological argument, shows the possibility is a necessity, and is proven to exist by whether you recall it by possibility or necessity. If you do by possibility, by size, you see it is necessary. If by necessity (attributing that), you know it exists already, but more than that, it cannot but exist.

This math proof is magical. But a funny thing about math, is that, if we apply to human value, no one would be selfish and people would care others since value wise, we aren't more important then others.

Math tends to side with love in this sense mystically and show selfishness is irrational and math wise a wrong equation.

Math proving mystical things is no big deal for me, since, I know of Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio is how we measure our lust type attraction to beauty as well.

I bet there is some kind of math code to the sounding of how something sounds beautiful. Or even eloquence will have some sort of code and parables and their usage, all some sort of math code to it.

I bet even virtues and personality has some kind of math equation we measure by and balance plays a huge role.

I'm not sure how you get from "God either exists or is impossible" to "God exists."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If every possible world or possible life amount, however you want to look at it, was a point on a line. The ontological argument is saying the possibility of the necessary being, just merely recalling it, you would see that no point can be not included in it. Now this world is a possible world, it's an actual world, it exists, but it's life amount would be nothing compared to the Necessary being. The Necessary being is one such that nothing he can miss in absence, no possible life can exist anywhere without it.

Understand this is Oneness of God argument as well, not that there just aren't any gods beside God, but there can't be any, it's impossible.

So draw an infinite line, but there is degrees of infinity write. So then make all degrees of infinity except the absolute highest, just points on that line, and the line would go on forever. And if that infinity is not big enough, make that a point, and it would go on forever.

The absolute being when you recall it math wise, seeing he is full (Samad), then not only do you know it exists because it's so big it comes to this world by pigeon hole principle, you know nothing can exist with it or without it and that no possible world can exist without God.

It's seems like cheating too good to be true, that just recalling the math size of God's greatness proves it exists, but it's the case.

And this goes well with Theism, because, we believe we are looking at the real being and connected to it, and that God is not a mere concept.

But this proof would prove God cannot exist just in concept and not reality. So either he is impossible and incoherent concept or exists definitely without doubt.

He isn't like other things, which can be conceptually conceived (a bike), then particular attributes (a red small bike - mountain bike, not street bike, etc) in which you make in a particular instance from the abstract concept.

Many type of humans for example. But the Necessary being is identical in this case with hard instance, and there is no difference.

And so it's matter of faith, you can believe you are looking at the real thing or that is impossible incoherent concept, but this is what the ontological argument proves.

So if you see this size as a rational possibility (we aren't talking about contradictory attributes or anything, just the size), then ontological argument, shows the possibility is a necessity, and is proven to exist by whether you recall it by possibility or necessity. If you do by possibility, by size, you see it is necessary. If by necessity (attributing that), you know it exists already, but more than that, it cannot but exist.

This math proof is magical. But a funny thing about math, is that, if we apply to human value, no one would be selfish and people would care others since value wise, we aren't more important then others.

Math tends to side with love in this sense mystically and show selfishness is irrational and math wise a wrong equation.

Math proving mystical things is no big deal for me, since, I know of Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio is how we measure our lust type attraction to beauty as well.

I bet there is some kind of math code to the sounding of how something sounds beautiful. Or even eloquence will have some sort of code and parables and their usage, all some sort of math code to it.

I bet even virtues and personality has some kind of math equation we measure by and balance plays a huge role.

Tried reading it several times, but sorry, can't make much sense out of it.

The underlying point of the ontological argument is that you must first make a case for a "necessary being." This, Anselm never managed, nor do I think you have.

The problem Anselm faced (and didn't resolve) was that he could not establish that "existence" itself is a property ("predicate" as Kant would have it). And if existence is not a property, something that an entity can "have," then existence can not make a thing "greater" than the same thing which doesn't, somehow, "possess" it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But this proof would prove God cannot exist just in concept and not reality. So either he is impossible and incoherent concept or exists definitely without doubt.

He isn't like other things, which can be conceptually conceived (a bike), then particular attributes (a red small bike - mountain bike, not street bike, etc) in which you make in a particular instance from the abstract concept.

Why wouldn't God be a particular example of an abstract concept? God (with a capital G) is a particular god. How is this different from a particular bike?

 

[Link]

Why wouldn't God be a particular example of an abstract concept? God (with a capital G) is a particular god. How is this different from a particular bike?

Yes as far as "gods" abstraction goes, or hypothetical Creators, however, the context is about from the viewpoint of his absolute size and necessary trait. The Necessary Being cannot have more then one instance. The abstract Necessary being is the Necessary being (hard instance). There is no difference. There can't be versions of this.

The reason is because it lacks no life, lacks nothing, has everything in absolute degree. There can be mathematically only one. For example, say this necessary being didn't exist, we can assume this type of Creator, these type of gods, etc, but when we realize the greatness of the Necessary being, then God is only one by definition, then there is no longer an abstract gods even possible with recalling it.

So then when recalling it God becomes the only instance of God, because it's necessary and absoluteness, makes it impossible to be more then one or to be different (as it lacks nothings but is full).

 

[Link]

Tried reading it several times, but sorry, can't make much sense out of it.

The underlying point of the ontological argument is that you must first make a case for a "necessary being." This, Anselm never managed, nor do I think you have.

The problem Anselm faced (and didn't resolve) was that he could not establish that "existence" itself is a property ("predicate" as Kant would have it). And if existence is not a property, something that an entity can "have," then existence can not make a thing "greater" than the same thing which doesn't, somehow, "possess" it.

The predicate thing is a red herring and does a lot of conjecture about nothing really and doesn't address the actual argument.

 

[Link]

Your post needs a TLDR summary. I couldn't really get through it. In almost every sentence, I wasn't sure how you were using certain ambiguous words.

The condensed version of the ontological argument is, "I can conceptually imagine something, and then I can conceptually define this thing as necessarily existent (as well as having some other arbitrary properties which typically describe the god that person believes in). Therefore that thing exists in actual reality." The reasonable objections should be immediately clear.

Like all arguments for God, the ontological arguments is strawman by Academia and not properly understood. Just like the cosmological argument which get's the application of parts to whole fallacy yet is not doing that but is rather inductive reasoning, nothing is taught right with respect to God in Western Secular Education.

It happens to be all things are impossible that they be necessary existences except God. This is because you have to understand it's at the level of absolute in terms of size (my argument), or greatness (the more well known version argument by Anselm) or perfection (Descartes version).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The predicate thing is a red herring and does a lot of conjecture about nothing really and doesn't address the actual argument.

Not true. The ontological argument, at its very core, says that something which exists is "greater" than something that doesn't.

This is, for anyone who looks carefully, nonsense. Something which does not exist is NOT "something" at all. It is nothing.

 

[Link]

Not true. The ontological argument, at its very core, says that something which exists is "greater" than something that doesn't.

This is, for anyone who looks carefully, nonsense. Something which does not exist is NOT "something" at all. It is nothing.

Read the original.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Read the original.

My Latin isn't quite up to that (although, because I'm very old and actually studied Latin, I'll bet it's better than most posters here.) So the original is beyond my competence. But I know what the argument is -- I think I've proved that in my few recent posts.

(Note: Meum Latinum huc usque non est (quamvis, quia vetustissimus sum et actualiter Latinus studui, hoc melius quam hic plerique posterius). Sed scio quid sit argumentum, quod in paucis nuperis postibus me probatum puto.)

 

[Link]

My Latin isn't quite up to that (although, because I'm very old and actually studied Latin, I'll bet it's better than most posters here.) So the original is beyond my competence. But I know what the argument is -- I think I've proved that in my few recent posts.

(Note: Meum Latinum huc usque non est (quamvis, quia vetustissimus sum et actualiter Latinus studui, hoc melius quam hic plerique posterius). Sed scio quid sit argumentum, quod in paucis nuperis postibus me probatum puto.)

He says it's by virtue of it being necessary would make it greater, hence, if you imagine it not existing, it would be less great then the existing necessary one. If a being is a necessary, by definition it has to exist. Therefore if you imagine a being that doesn't exist, put all traits of God, but lacks being necessary, it's less great then the existing one which is the necessary being. He explained this and full detail, talked about in great detail, yet Academia misconstrues it, and the red herring of predicate and all that stuff, is none sense that if true, doesn't do anything to the argument but far worse, is just conjecture and sophistry with no reality. He is basically showing necessary being is synonymous when recalling the greatest being, and you can't divorce existence from it (as it would be less great).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

He says it's by virtue of it being necessary would make it greater, hence, if you imagine it not existing, it would be less great then the existing necessary one. If a being is a necessary, by definition it has to exist. Therefore if you imagine a being that doesn't exist, put all traits of God, but lacks being necessary, it's less great then the existing one which is the necessary being. He explained this and full detail, talked about in great detail, yet Academia misconstrues it, and the red herring of predicate and all that stuff, is none sense that if true, doesn't do anything to the argument but far worse, is just conjecture and sophistry with no reality. He is basically showing necessary being is synonymous when recalling the greatest being, and you can't divorce existence from it (as it would be less great).

Once again, you are trying to turn something that really is not a predicate (in isolation) -- being "necessary." Being necessary is always dependent -- as in "necessary for what?"

Insulin may be necessary to keep diabetics healthy, but it's not necessary for anybody else.

There is nothing that "necessitates" existence -- except, of course, your belief. In fact, it is my belief that it is impossible that nothing should exist -- because then existence would have no meaning whatever.

You say "if you imagine a being that doesn't exist, put all traits of God, but lacks being necessary, it's less great then the existing one which is the necessary being." But look what you've done:

You said "the existing one," which means you have posited its existence before establishing its existence -- that always makes thing true, but is a totally false argument, which always appears to result in a win. (I have a Christian friend who likes to argue, "in order to prove the existence of angels, first you must posit their existence." Well of course! But totally silly.

 

[AlexanderG]

It happens to be all things are impossible that they be necessary existences except God. This is because you have to understand it's at the level of absolute in terms of size (my argument), or greatness (the more well known version argument by Anselm) or perfection (Descartes version).

I simply can't accept this. It is a completely baseless assertion, based on you defining something you believe as necessarily true, and nothing more. Greatness, size, and perfection are all subjective, arbitrary concepts that are simply matters of personal opinion. And you are of the personal opinion that the god you believe in is the most perfectly big great thing, and I am not.

You can't justify any of your "great making properties" including the property of existence, beyond appealing to the intuitions of people who have similar opinions. So we're at an impasse.

I think once you step back from apologetic ambitions to understand the structure of the ontological argument, this becomes clear.

 

[F1fan]

Yes as far as "gods" abstraction goes, or hypothetical Creators, however, the context is about from the viewpoint of his absolute size and necessary trait. The Necessary Being cannot have more then one instance. The abstract Necessary being is the Necessary being (hard instance). There is no difference. There can't be versions of this.

The reason is because it lacks no life, lacks nothing, has everything in absolute degree. There can be mathematically only one. For example, say this necessary being didn't exist, we can assume this type of Creator, these type of gods, etc, but when we realize the greatness of the Necessary being, then God is only one by definition, then there is no longer an abstract gods even possible with recalling it.

Who says? How do you know? Couldn't God be female?

So then when recalling it God becomes the only instance of God, because it's necessary and absoluteness, makes it impossible to be more then one or to be different (as it lacks nothings but is full).

But what if there are two Gods?

 

[F1fan]

Not true. The ontological argument, at its very core, says that something which exists is "greater" than something that doesn't.

This is, for anyone who looks carefully, nonsense. Something which does not exist is NOT "something" at all. It is nothing.

God is labeled the "Necessary Being" for a reason, and that is to avoid having to demonstrate it exists by declaring "it's necessary". It becomes a premise without being factual, and also proves itself true by the conclusion (which doesn't actually happen).

 

[Link]

God is labeled the "Necessary Being" for a reason, and that is to avoid having to demonstrate it exists by declaring "it's necessary". It becomes a premise without being factual, and also proves itself true by the conclusion (which doesn't actually happen).

It's saying you can't recall God and divorce existence from it, the reason is because of it's necessary reality. And this can be seen by perfection (Descartes), by greatness (Anselm), or my version which is my sheer size in terms of life amount (math wise by pigeon hole principle it has to exist).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes as far as "gods" abstraction goes, or hypothetical Creators, however, the context is about from the viewpoint of his absolute size and necessary trait. The Necessary Being cannot have more then one instance. The abstract Necessary being is the Necessary being (hard instance). There is no difference. There can't be versions of this.

The reason is because it lacks no life, lacks nothing, has everything in absolute degree. There can be mathematically only one. For example, say this necessary being didn't exist, we can assume this type of Creator, these type of gods, etc, but when we realize the greatness of the Necessary being, then God is only one by definition, then there is no longer an abstract gods even possible with recalling it.

So then when recalling it God becomes the only instance of God, because it's necessary and absoluteness, makes it impossible to be more then one or to be different (as it lacks nothings but is full).

You're trying to sneak your conclusion in through the back door.

If you want to say that God must exist, make your argument for it. You don't just get to assume it as a premise.

 

[F1fan]

It's saying you can't recall God and divorce existence from it, the reason is because of it's necessary reality.

And it is a "necessary being" because theists assert it is necessary. This phrase is built in to the argument as a necessary element. It's not being presented as necessary materially or in science.

And this can be seen by perfection (Descartes), by greatness (Anselm), or my version which is my sheer size in terms of life amount (math wise by pigeon hole principle it has to exist).

No number of words can force a God into existence. It all might feel great but the terms of an argument have to meet logical criteria. This just doesn't do it.

 

[Link]

You're trying to sneak your conclusion in through the back door.

If you want to say that God must exist, make your argument for it. You don't just get to assume it as a premise.

The premise has an explanation, long and short ones, but the shortest version is conceptually you can't divorce necessity and hence existence from the concept. It's not about sneaking, if God is the Necessary being which he is and only he is, then that attribute/description proves he exists.

What makes us know God is the Necessary being, this has been already shown, the ontological arguments of the past due it by greatest and perfection, and I do it, by sheer size.