can God exist in imagination?

[Link]

Existence, like intelligence, is overrated. There is no point in assuming that we exist (a predicate), since we might not.

This was going to be my response to the predicate non-sense. We can see we exist. *smiles*

 

[Link]

Let me make a claim
There is no greatest possible being.
Please show this claim to be illogical.

Existence exists, whether we like it or not. We can say existence doesn't exist, won't make it go away. When we look at absolute existence, we see it exists as well and can't but exist.

 

[firedragon]

Why would you assume that God must be a necessary being?

What is your epistemology?

 

[sayak83]

Existence exists, whether we like it or not. We can say existence doesn't exist, won't make it go away. When we look at absolute existence, we see it exists as well and can't but exist.

I see nonexistence for every thing or being is conceivable. For any A, NOT (A) is a logical possibility. Thus absolute nonexistence is also possible, as NOT of All that Exists. Hence there is no necessity to existence.

 

[Link]

The ontological argument makes an exception to that though. It says existence and non-existence is conceivable for all but God. God is such that he can't be conceived to not exist by virtue of it being necessary.

 

[firedragon]

Anything can be imagined. I can dream of unicorns, leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster.

Ah. So you visit all three churches that worship these three deities!

You know what! Can you explain what a unicorn is?

 

[firedragon]

I see nonexistence for every thing or being is conceivable. For any A, NOT (A) is a logical possibility. Thus absolute nonexistence is also possible, as NOT of All that Exists. Hence there is no necessity to existence.

Non existence is of course possible.

But can you explain what is non existence?

 

[sayak83]

Non existence is of course possible.

But can you explain what is non existence?

I cannot even explain what is existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way Atheist philosophers reply is to say existence is a predicate and not an attribute.

... which is true.

Another way to put it is that the Ontological Argument begs the question: if you assume that God must exist, then you can conclude that he does exist.

That's not the only fatal flaw, but it is one of the most obvious.

But I think this is a red herring, it can be true or not (debatable too), but it's irrelevant. I am waiting for people to bring this up, but no one has.

It's not a red herring. Assuming your premises at the outset means that you haven't demonstrated them.

It's not an assumption, it's something we see as an aspect of it or description of it when we recall it. In terms of greatness, it's greater to be necessary then not. In terms of perfection, it's a perfection. In terms of life size, think set theory, it proves it being necessary too and hence exists when we think of it being the biggest being in terms of life amount.

Again: this is just begging the question. If your argument just boils down to "let's assume that God must exist; therefore God does exist," then you haven't proven anything.

But why would "perfection" imply "necessary"? I think this is quite a leap.

 

[Valjean]

I suggest reading Anselm works, and not the predicate non-sense people use to refute it. Read the refutation only after you've read the original.

There are levels of existence, the highest type is necessary in terms of existence. A necessary being when recalled simply by it's definition it is known to exist. This attribute of it proves it exists.

You're defining God into existence. You propose an unevidenced thing, define it, and use the existence of your definition as evidence the defined thing exists.
You put the cart before the horse. You beg the question. Your reasoning is circular.
Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't bother me if anyone accepts God or Jesus Christ. That is between them and God. I love you as a human being only would hope the best for you in your life

I feel exactly the same way about people accepting Baha'u'llah, that is between them and God, and what people believe has nothing to do with whether they are my friends of not. I wish everyone the best.
I try to live by what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Through each and every one of the verses which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed, the doors of love and unity have been unlocked and flung open to the face of men. We have erewhile declared—and Our Word is the truth—: “Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished. From the heaven of God’s Will, and for the purpose of ennobling the world of being and of elevating the minds and souls of men, hath been sent down that which is the most effective instrument for the education of the whole human race.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 95

 

[Link]

Another way to put it is that the Ontological Argument begs the question: if you assume that God must exist, then you can conclude that he does exist.

This is what it makes difficult. It's how you phrase it. If God exists and is a necessary being, then he would be a proof for himself existing. The ontological argument is saying, when we think of God we can't divorce necessary attribute from him, and so we can't imagine him not to exist.

It may seem circular but it simply an observation. And we are emphasizing by that observation of that characteristic of God that we know he exists.

 

[firedragon]

Is not imagining God the same as never imagining God?

We know that there are people that are raised in beliefs that do not believe in God. Those people may just consider God does not exist in the same way that most people don't think about the existence of giant, purple, flying ping pong balls roaming the skies.

It could also be that a person exists that has never heard of the concepts of God or gods.

Is imagining the non-existence of God the same as never imagining God at all?

Thats an oxymoron.

To imagine the non-existence of God, you have to be a theist first or objective reality is God exists. Only then you could imagine the non-existence of God. But imagining God is also from the same premise. God exists. Thus, it is not a logical possibility to imagine God exists, and at the same time imagine God doesnt exist.

Also, these flying things, ping pong balls, and all kinds of deities that Atheists bring in arguments are philosophically childish. Or should I say "unsophisticated"??

I think you have not understood this so called "Ontological Argument".

Tell me. in your mind how big is this "flying, Purple, Ping Pong ball"? I know its purple, which by itself is a contradiction to the argument, but you could tell me how big it is to see this though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thats an oxymoron.

To imagine the non-existence of God, you have to be a theist first or objective reality is God exists. Only then you could imagine the non-existence of God. But imagining God is also from the same premise. God exists. Thus, it is not a logical possibility to imagine God exists, and at the same time imagine God doesnt exist.

Also, these flying things, ping pong balls, and all kinds of deities that Atheists bring in arguments are philosophically childish. Or should I say "unsophisticated"??

I think you have not understood this so called "Ontological Argument".

Tell me. in your mind how big is this "flying, Purple, Ping Pong ball"? I know its purple, which by itself is a contradiction to the argument, but you could tell me how big it is to see this though.

Thank you for your post. It was kind of you to so delicately explain how I am a simpleton that doesn't understand things. I feel blessed that you even noticed me.

Please stop.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for your post. It was kind of you to so delicately explain how I am a simpleton that doesn't understand things. I feel blessed that you even noticed me.

Please stop.

Ah see there are some who understand an argument by nature and some who think what is said is about him or herself and that is also by nature. So what happens is personal feelings would interrupt engaging the argument.

So to your request the response is "no".

Cheers.

 

[Link]

The Oneness of God is not simply that no others gods exist with him and we counted and testifying he is one, is such that no possible gods can exist with him. The former is proven by the latter, and the reason is because his existence is so big nothing can exist with Him but must be created from him and be dependent on him. It happens to be the same thing that proves there are no gods beside God also proves he exists, since this world is life that can't be beside God but must be from God as well and his existence is so big, that it can't be imagined he doesn't exist since it includes all real existences.

This is why I don't understand Muslims who attack the ontological argument, it's Tawheed but phrased in a way to remind how we know God exists instead just simply how we know others gods besides God is impossible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah see there are some who understand an argument by nature and some who think what is said is about him or herself and that is also by nature. So what happens is personal feelings would interrupt engaging the argument.

So to your request the response is "no".

Cheers.

LOL

Cheers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is what it makes difficult. It's how you phrase it. If God exists and is a necessary being, then he would be a proof for himself existing. The ontological argument is saying, when we think of God we can't divorce necessary attribute from him, and so we can't imagine him not to exist.

It may seem circular but it simply an observation. And we are emphasizing by that observation of that characteristic of God that we know he exists.

Read your own posts: if you start your argument with "if God exists..." then whatever follows can't demonstrate God.

You're begging the question.

All you're doing is presenting a tautology with a bunch of irrelevant hand-waving to distract from the substance of your argument. "If God exists, then God exists"... well, bravo: that's technically a valid statement, but it's absolutely useless for telling us whether any gods actually exist.

 

[Link]

Read your own posts: if you start your argument with "if God exists..." then whatever follows can't demonstrate God.

You're begging the question.

All you're doing is presenting a tautology with a bunch of irrelevant hand-waving to distract from the substance of your argument. "If God exists, then God exists"... well, bravo: that's technically a valid statement, but it's absolutely useless for telling us whether any gods actually exist.

If God is necessary we would see him exist by what he is. The question is what do we observe when we recall God? To me it's clear, I see that it is the necessary being by virtue of his absolute bigness in terms of existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God is necessary we would see him exist by what he is.

What do you mean by "necessary"?

If it includes the idea that God must exist, then you're begging the question.

The question is what do we observe when we recall God? To me it's clear, I see that it is the necessary being by virtue of his absolute bigness in terms of existence.

This makes no sense at all.

What does size have to do with something being "necessary"?