Can't remember God without knowing he exists.

[Link]

You see parts of you. You conceive of a model of yourself; you don't conceive of yourself in your entirety.


If no one fully sees God, then the ontological argument fails. The argument relies on the premise that God - not part of God, not a model of God, but God himself in its entirety - not only can but does exist as a concept in human minds.

You misunderstand again. We can see God is compassionate, without fully seeing him. Likewise, we can see he is necessary existence without fully seeing him.

 

[Audie]

Nothing.

I wont call it proof but it is a sign that religionism doth
derange the senses and cloudeth the mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You misunderstand again. We can see God is compassionate, without fully seeing him. Likewise, we can see he is necessary existence without fully seeing him.

You're not talking about the ontological argument. Have you given up on it?

Edit:

The ontological argument goes something like this:

1. God embodies all perfection.
2. God exists in the mind.
3. Existence only in the mind would be an imperfection.
4. Therefore, God also exists in reality.

Premise 2 is not true unless God - not some aspect of God or an approximation of God, but God - exists in the mind.

 

[Link]

I question the assumption that any proposed god is implicitly necessary. You (and many others) are explicitly defining a god which is necessary. It is perfectly possible to conceive of an existence in which no god needs to exist for it to be internally consistent, therefore no god is automatically necessary.

I also see circular logic here. You are saying god is necessary if he exists but then god exists if he is necessary.

The rest is just unnecessary complexity. These two lines form the core of your claims. It doesn’t matter whether we (or anyone else) conceives of anything or not. The god you propose either exists or doesn’t.

As far as greatness goes, you can't be just compassionate but have to the best possible compassionate. Same with all his attributes like power, etc. So when it comes to existence, it has to the greatest type.

Of course, what you describe is a god, but not the God as in the one defined as not only the greatest but greatest possible.

If we can conceive of the greatest possible one, we can conceive the type of existence is not possible type, but necessary. And in fact, all arguments for oneness of God rely on this premise. That there can't be any god beside God relies that God is not just the actual greatest being, but greatest possible being. And further more, that his greatness encompasses existence to the extent nothing can exist with him. IF you can conceive of that, that means you have to conceive it's not the type that can exist or may not exist, it's the type no possible world can exist, but that he would be part of it, and it would not add to existence an iota of an amount of existence.

In fact another way to phrase the premise is to say, it's impossible if God exists, for anything to be independent of God. To prove this is simple. If any existence can exist without God, God would not be necessary. But if it's proven depends on God, not any possible existence in any possible world can exist without him, it's because he is necessary. And Necessary implies he is thus Samad and Al-Hayu and vice versa, which are two relate names in the Quran.

Oneness of God relies on the ontological argument.

 

[Link]

You're not talking about the ontological argument. Have you given up on it?

You haven't read original. To understand the argument, you have understand God's traits are one with him to the extent they are describing ultimate reality which is a single non-diverse reality. So when we say God is compassionate, it means Ultimate reality is that compassion. There is no divergence in him.

So what type of existence is the highest or greatest type? It's the necessary type. This talk was emphasized so much by Descartes but skimmed over as if irrelevant. He went through grades of existence for a reason.

 

[Link]

You're not talking about the ontological argument. Have you given up on it?

Edit:

The ontological argument goes something like this:

1. God embodies all perfection.
2. God exists in the mind.
3. Existence only in the mind would be an imperfection.
4. Therefore, God also exists in reality.

Premise 2 is not true unless God - not some aspect of God or an approximation of God, but God - exists in the mind.

You are presenting a strawman version of it, not the actual thing if you read the two original arguments. Not necessarily your fault, as education doesn't do a good job at presenting it in it's proper context and real substance of what it says.

 

[viole]

The ontological argument proves that it's impossible to conceive of a Necessary Being without seeing it exists, and so if God's greatness or God's perfection includes the level of existence of necessary being, and you see that, it's impossible it be a mere idea, but has to be the real being, by definition, because it's impossible it doesn't exist by being necessary. The false version is saying apply "necessary" to some hypothetical imagination of God idea, and than that brings it to existence by definition, that's the one taught in University. But both Descartes and Anselm showed it's impossible, if the Necessary being exists, if you conceive of that being, you are looking at the real thing because by definition it has to exist. They also proved if God is the greatest being and necessity type existence and you see that conception of that Real being, you are looking a being that not only do you know exists but has to exist. These meditations were saying reason knows God exists merely by remembering him, but those ideas were a bit butchered with the strawman version of what they were saying!

I love these arguments. However, I have an epistemological question.

If you (meaning the set of philosophical minded Christians) have evidence that justifies your faith in Jesus, because of miracles and stuff, vs. a faith in Apollo or other possible Gods, why needing such arguments at all?

It is like me making an ontological, or cosmological, or teleological argument about the existence of the perfect uncaused car, when all I have to do is show my Audi.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Red-herring...

Which religion is true and to know the exact identity of who God is, is a different question that is unrelated to this.

 

[HonestJoe]

If we can conceive of the greatest possible one, we can conceive the type of existence is not possible type, but necessary.

Yes, it is possible to conceive of such a thing. You’re not really conceiving of it without context though. It’s “necessity” isn’t just a function of the being but a function of the existence that being would be part of. You’re not just imagining God, you’re imagining an entire possible existence in which there is a God which is necessary for that existence to be.

All of that is hypothetical though. The idea that by simply imaging such a thing automatically means it literally exists is totally unsupported by any stretch of logic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God's Greatness (perfection in case of Descartes) would include necessity if He exists.
Necessity implies existence.
It's impossible to therefore conceive of an idea of this being without the trait of it being necessary and hence exists.
Any conception of God without this trait is not God (the God who is greatest by definition is necessary).
It's impossible therefore to remember the true God without ability to recognize by this, it has to exist and thus does exist.
If God is seen as merely possibly existing, that's not the true God (only the necessary being is the true God).
God including the necessary trait, is conceived.

None of these premises are disputable really but the last one.

This is just crap.

What if I can conceive of a being who created God? This gets back to what it means to be "the greatest" or "perfect" which someone else already brought up. For example, humans can create implements that can fly, while humans themselves cannot fly. We can, in essence, "create flight." So, if we arbitrarily set "perfection" to mean "that which can fly," then humans can create perfection, while they themselves fall short of perfection. In this case, is the creator (a human) then "greater" than his creation ("flight")? The creator of flight can obviously be conceived, and if he can wield flight then perhaps he is "greater!" But this again leads us to the profoundly unanswerable question - what does it mean to be "greater?" In a general sense, without a "goal" or a qualification in mind, it means nothing. Nothing at all. Same with "perfection." Without a qualifier involved "perfection" means nothing. And here you are, wanting us to accept that God is "perfection" without providing a single qualifier toward assessing what that means.

So, if God is "perfection" without any qualifier to determine what that means, then the term "God" means nothing - just as perfection without qualification also means nothing.

 

[Koldo]

God's Greatness (perfection in case of Descartes) would include necessity if He exists.
Necessity implies existence.
It's impossible to therefore conceive of an idea of this being without the trait of it being necessary and hence exists.
Any conception of God without this trait is not God (the God who is greatest by definition is necessary).
It's impossible therefore to remember the true God without ability to recognize by this, it has to exist and thus does exist.
If God is seen as merely possibly existing, that's not the true God (only the necessary being is the true God).
God including the necessary trait, is conceived.

None of these premises are disputable really but the last one.

Replace the word 'God' with the words 'Joe The Unicorn' and voila. I have just proven that an unicorn exists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The ontological argument proves that it's impossible to conceive of a Necessary Being without seeing it exists, and so if God's greatness or God's perfection includes the level of existence of necessary being, and you see that, it's impossible it be a mere idea, but has to be the real being, by definition, because it's impossible it doesn't exist by being necessary. The false version is saying apply "necessary" to some hypothetical imagination of God idea, and than that brings it to existence by definition, that's the one taught in University. But both Descartes and Anselm showed it's impossible, if the Necessary being exists, if you conceive of that being, you are looking at the real thing because by definition it has to exist. They also proved if God is the greatest being and necessity type existence and you see that conception of that Real being, you are looking a being that not only do you know exists but has to exist. These meditations were saying reason knows God exists merely by remembering him, but those ideas were a bit butchered with the strawman version of what they were saying!

I'm still waiting for you to provide any sort of evidence that this god being you propose is in any way necessary. The universe that I exist in has absolutely no requirement for any god being whatsoever.

 

[Link]

Let me be clear. If you don't see God, you won't see him through this proof. If you see God, then know you see God and not an idea of him, but the living one connected through his living reminder, as it's impossible to see a mere idea of him, but rather if God is conceived as in the true God, that you would know it exists and not only that, that's impossible it doesn't exist and not only that possibility in this world, but in all possible worlds.

 

[Link]

I'm still waiting for you to provide any sort of evidence that this god being you propose is in any way necessary. The universe that I exist in has absolutely no requirement for any god being whatsoever.

You don't understand what I mean by necessary. I mean the type of existence that has to exist, we are not talking about has to exist for me to exist, we are talking it cannot but exist by default. It's impossible it doesn't exist. This would be true whether he created us or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

It sure looks like your claims are entirely aesthetical, @Link

You feel strongly that there should be a Creator God. That is fair enough, although hardly something that you should expect of anyone else - or even from yourself.

But an argument, it is not.

 

[Link]

If God can be conceived, it is known he does exist, if necessity of him can be perceived.

People disbelieving and believing, this is going to happen.

No one can force a person to acknowledge they see God. But the ontological argument proves, you can't have an idea of the true God without knowing he exists. All ideas without knowing he exists are the lesser versions of God. If the necessary trait is realized and it must be, there is no doubt at that point to whether he exists or not.

The question people should ask themselves, is whether they do see God or not. That is all. But this I see God but I don't know if it's real what I'm seeing has to die off, if God is necessary, then you seeing him is seeing the real thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

If God can be conceived, it is known he does exist, if necessity of him can be perceived.

No. We can conceive of flying pigs. That does not make them either necessary nor real.

People disbelieving and believing, this is going to happen.

No one can force a person to acknowledge they see God.

Why would anyone want to?

Besides, people can hardly acknowledge what does not happen.

But the ontological argument proves, you can't have an idea of the true God without knowing he exists. All ideas without knowing he exists are the lesser versions of God. If the necessary trait is realized and it must be, there is no doubt at that point to whether he exists or not.

Nonsense.

The question people should ask themselves, is whether they do see God or not.

That is really of next to no importance whatsoever, but I do not.

That is all. But this I see God but I don't know if it's real what I'm seeing has to die off, if God is necessary, then you seeing him is seeing the real thing.

?

 

[QuestioningMind]

You don't understand what I mean by necessary. I mean the type of existence that has to exist, we are not talking about has to exist for me to exist, we are talking it cannot but exist by default. It's impossible it doesn't exist. This would be true whether he created us or not.

I don't understand what you mean by necessary because you have yet to explain what you mean by necessary. I'm ALSO waiting for you provide any evidence that it's IMPOSSIBLE for your god being to NOT exist. As I said before, there is no necessity for any god being in the universe that I live in, thus it's easy for me to conclude that there's no necessity for a god being in the universe that you live in as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If God can be conceived, it is known he does exist, if necessity of him can be perceived.

But you've already admitted that you can't truly perceive God.

So no God exists, because such a being cannot properly be conceived or perceived of.

 

[HonestJoe]

If God can be conceived, it is known he does exist, if necessity of him can be perceived.

Yes, you just keep repeating the same thing in different words. You’re not adding anything in response to our questions. The core claim you’re making is that God must exist if God is necessary. So, the question moves on to is God necessary? If you don’t address that, your point remains entirely hypothetical.