God cannot be defined into existence.

[Link]

But you haven't ruled them out, you just keep making empty, unargued assertions, like this:


I have observed no such thing. You have provided no logic and no evidence to support this. Saying something is "due to observation", without actually referencing anything that can actually be observed, is rather silly.

It's mathematical. Do you know about set theory? Put all possible existence in a set, and God contains all that, so there can't be any existence outside of it. He misses nothing and nothing is absent from him. That magnitude by pigeon hole principle means God exists in the actual world as well. The size too big.

We can't but observe this when we think of "the greatest being". Therefore God can't be perceived as an idea, only be seen to exist.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's mathematical. Do you know about set theory?

Yes.

Put all possible existence in a set...

But it looks like you don't. Russell's paradox.

...and God contains all that, so there can't be any existence outside of it.

Baseless assertion.

We can't but observe this when we think of "the greatest being".

As I said before, "greatest" is subjective, and regardless of how you define it, it doesn't mean that the "greatest being" you can imagine is something that exists.

You need to understand that people don't accept the ontological arguments because it's not logically sound, and it relies on subjectivity.

Therefore God can't be perceived as an idea, only be seen to exist.

False. It is really, really easy to 'perceive' what you've claimed as an idea only.

 

[Link]

Russell's paradox.

This actually shows God doesn't contain "many Gods" or "equals". It doesn't disprove his existence is comprehensive.

 

[sayak83]

It's easy to believe that and assert it, but if you recall the magnitude of the greatest (potential) being, it's impossible. You cannot imagine such a being not existing and understanding it's magnitude. It's the same magnitude that proves there are no gods beside God. The magnitude would be such that it does prove it exists as well as there being no gods beside it. What I am also saying, if the greatness of God doesn't prove God exists, it does not prove there are no gods beside God either. If you can recall the size to the extent of necessary level magnitude, you observe it cannot but exist.

Apparently everyone other than you can imagine it. And I am no atheist. What you are saying is just plain absurd.

 

[Link]

everyone other than you can imagine it. And I am no atheist. What you are saying is just plain absurd.

Asserting that it can be imagination, is attacking the conclusion. Can you show how it's possible it doesn't exist? I've already offered why I believe it's the Necessary level and it has to exist.

Believing you can imagine it not existing is different to actually imagining the magnitude of a necessary being and thinking with that realization of it not existing.

 

[ratiocinator]

This actually shows God doesn't contain "many Gods" or "equals".

It shows the problem with trying to have a set of "all possible existence".

It doesn't disprove his existence is comprehensive.

That doesn't need disproving, since you've given us no rational reason at all to think this God of yours is real in the first place.

 

[Link]

It shows the problem with trying to have a set of "all possible existence".

It doesn't really, it shows the problem of containing equal magnitudes in the highest set. So God can't be a set of equal gods to himself. I can go through the paradox and explain why. Or you can re-read it and figure out why.

 

[ratiocinator]

I've already offered why I believe it's the Necessary level and it has to exist.

All you've offered is blind faith and baseless assertion.

 

[sayak83]

Asserting that it can be imagination, is attacking the conclusion. Can you show how it's possible it doesn't exist? I've already offered why I believe it's the Necessary level and it has to exist.

Believing you can imagine it not existing is different to actually imagining the magnitude of a necessary being and thinking with that realization of it not existing.

You have not shown anywhere in your post why God is a Necessary being at all. You think you have posted an argument, but I did not see it anywhere. All I saw were faith assertions.
In fact there can't be a philosophically necessary being, entity or truth at all. All logical necessary statements are of the form IF X Then Y is necessary. The X stuff are contingent axioms, hence Y also is contingent. Also, why would be necessary that existence should follow logic? What makes an Alice in Wonderland world impossible? The entire argument of necessary being etc is just nonsense.

 

[Link]

You have not shown anywhere in your post why God is a Necessary being at all.

It has to do with size of his existence. It's so big that no existence can exist independently of it since he contains it all.

 

[ratiocinator]

It doesn't really, it shows the problem of containing equals in the highest set.

That's not the paradox. It's about unrestricted sets that contain everything with a certain property. I could go into more detail, but it's irrelevant anyway (my bad for mentioning, really) because the whole of the rest of your 'argument' is so hopeless that the set paradox becomes trivial.

 

[sayak83]

It has to do with size of his existence. It's so big that no existence can exist independently of it since he contains it all.

First show He must necessarily exist without assuming this nonsense of existence size. Existence has size? How many metres?

 

[Link]

That's not the paradox. It's about unrestricted sets that contain everything with a certain property. I could go into more detail, but it's irrelevant anyway (my bad for mentioning, really) because the whole of the rest of your 'argument' is so hopeless that the set paradox becomes trivial.

That's the paradox if applied to God. Because a set of finite things will not cause this paradox. Only if you get into equals to God or other infinities (I don't even think it's the latter, just equals).

 

[ratiocinator]

It has to do with size of his existence. It's so big that no existence can exist independently of it since he contains it all.

This is all just your imagination and assertion. You have given no reason at all to think something like this exists.

Do you really not get the difference between assertion, faith and logic?

 

[ratiocinator]

That's the paradox if applied to God. Because a set of finite things will not cause this paradox.

It's got nothing to do with God or infinity. It's irrelevant anyway. Even if we could have the set you wanted, your God is still just an assertion on your part, that you've provided no hint of a reason to accept.

 

[sayak83]

It has to do with size of his existence. It's so big that no existence can exist independently of it since he contains it all.

See your problem is this. The way you are trying this is as follows:-
1) IF God exists, THEN the nature of God would imply He must Necessarily Exist.
2) God exists.
3) Hence He exists Necessarily.

I object to assertion 1 also. But your main problem is you have not justified assertion 2 at all in any way.

 

[wellwisher]

In the start I say: God can be 3 things, idea only, idea + existence in reality, exist in reality and only seen to exist. I'm showing by what we observe about "God", that it's no an idea nor idea + existence, but rather only seen to exist. The reason is due to due to his magnitude in terms of existence.
So it's like if you ask about "yourself", are you an idea, idea + existence, or just seen to exist. I would say we are category two. Our idea of own self is there + we exist. Our idea of ourselves can be wrong so that our real existence is something else then we imagine ourselves tot be + it's possible we didn't exist (if our parents didn't meet). We aren't necessary being, but we can rule out that we are a mere idea. So we are category two. However, I'm saying what we observe about God (which can be three categories from all we know perspective) we rule out 1 and 2, and see he is type 3. This is due to observation that his magnitude is at the level of being necessary.

If you look at statistical assumptions, such as black box, margin of error and the probability of occurring, these assumption are an ideas of the potential existence of something. However, being so dark and fuzzy, the goal, does and does not exist, at the same time, until it happens; win the lottery, and then it exists by observation. In the black box, you don't exactly get idea-existence, idea-fluttering existence and then firm existence after the experiments. The middle one is not too different from the idea and existence of God. Both are not fully rational or firm; flutter, but have faith it will firm out in some way, someday.

For example, we have never found life on any planet but the earth. From a science POV, that statement includes all the hard data since the start of civilization. However, there is also the idea in science that life exists in other planets, even without any hard data. Science can accept that. In this case, one does not need to see or have hard data to believe. What we think we know of biology, in the light of dice and cards, suggest life has to be in other places. But this is still stuck at an idea, that engages one's deeper feeling of faith in existence, all without proof of existence.

I would be hard pressed to make the, life on other planets people, follow the rules of science and data, and not just use faith in a fuzzy dice extrapolation of biology that start evolution in the middle. But it is that faith in an idea of fluttering existence that pushes people forward to where new things are learned, even if we never reach the main goal. It is outside the box of hard data, but still has value.

 

[Link]

First show He must necessarily exist without assuming this nonsense of existence size. Existence has size? How many metres?

The whole argument relies that God's existence is of the highest greatest largest type. To make a syllogism:

is Necessary (N)
Seen to exist (S)
Seen as an idea (I)
observing God (G)
Absolute Magnitude (A)


G -> (S and I) or (only I) or (only S)
G -> A
A -> N
N -> not (S and I) and not (only I)
G
Therefore (only S)

Observing God we can say God either is seen to exist and seen as an idea, or only an idea or only seen to exist.
Observing God as in the greatest possible being - we see that it's magnitude would have to be of the absolute type.
Highest magnitude means it would be the necessary being.
If it's the Necessary being it can't exist as mere idea nor exist and be potentially just an idea as well.
We observe God (whether a mere idea or reality or necessary being, this is not to be confused with asserting God exists)
Therefore God is only seen to exist.

The last conclusion follows from:

G therefore A. Since (G-> A)
Therefore N. Since (A-> N)
Therefore Not (S and I) and not (only i)
Therefore only S since we rule out those two possibilities in the first premise.

 

[sayak83]

The whole argument relies that God's existence is of the highest greatest largest type. To make a syllogism:

is Necessary (N)
Seen to exist (S)
Seen as an idea (I)
observing God (G)
Absolute Magnitude (A)


G -> (S and I) or (only I) or (only S)
G -> A
A -> N
N -> not (S and I) and not (only I)
G
Therefore (only S)

Observing God we can say God either is seen to exist and seen as an idea, or only an idea or only seen to exist.
Observing God as in the greatest possible being - we see that it's magnitude would have to be of the absolute type.
Highest magnitude means it would be the necessary being.
If it's the Necessary being it can't exist as mere idea nor exist and be potentially an idea as well.
We observe God (whether a mere idea or reality or necessary being, this is not to be confused with asserting God exists)
Therefore God is only seen to exist.

The last conclusion follows from:

G therefore A. Since (G-> A)
Therefore N. Since (A-> N)
Therefore Not (S and I) and not (only i)
Therefore only S since we rule out those two possibilities in the first premise.

What is the relationship between highest magnitude and necessity of its existence?

 

[Link]

See your problem is this. The way you are trying this is as follows:-
1) IF God exists, THEN the nature of God would imply He must Necessarily Exist.
2) God exists.
3) Hence He exists Necessarily.

I object to assertion 1 also. But your main problem is you have not justified assertion 2 at all in any way.

See the form I presented in #38.