God cannot be defined into existence.

[Link]

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

Do you understand sets? There is no existence in any possible world that can exist without it. The reason because highest magnitude would contain all finite existence (since someone brought up the paradox, I will use "finite" even though I think "infinite" is fine just that God can't contain equals to himself).

 

[sayak83]

Do you understand sets? There is no existence in any possible world that can exist without it. The reason because highest magnitude would contain all finite existence (since someone brought up the paradox, I will use "finite" even though I think "infinite" is fine just that God can't contain equals to himself).

Nonsense. Number theory is not the real world.
The statement "highest magnitude would contain all finite existence" is an entirely meaningless sentence. Nothing contains anything. We create artificial boundaries and create artificial containers. Its an useful mental creations only.

 

[Link]

Nonsense. Number theory is not the real world.
The statement "highest magnitude would contain all finite existence" is an entirely meaningless sentence. Nothing contains anything. We create artificial boundaries and create artificial containers. Its an useful mental creations only.

It's not a meaningless sentence. It's also the only way to prove God does not have equals. So the oneness argument for God is contingent on it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The whole argument relies that God's existence is of the highest greatest largest type.

Which is all in your imagination. You have not justified its existence.

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)

Translation: "if my assertion is true, then my assertion is true".

Highest magnitude means it would be the necessary being.

Baseless assertion - and (logically and mathematically) there is no such thing as the highest magnitude.

 

[Link]

Baseless assertion - and (logically and mathematically) there is no such thing as the highest magnitude.

Okay before I address this, do you agree my argument is in valid form? And tell me if you have a problem with any other premise.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you understand sets?

If you understood sets, you'd understand why the following is nonsense:

The reason because highest magnitude would contain all finite existence (since someone brought up the paradox, I will use "finite" even though I think "infinite" is fine just that God can't contain equals to himself).

Apart from the fact that the mere magnitude does not guarantee what something contains, show me a set of any magnitude (cardinality), finite or infinite, and I can show you one that is of a greater cardinality.

Straying into mathematics and sets is just making things worse for you.

 

[Link]

If you understood sets, you'd understand why the following is nonsense:


Apart from the fact that the mere magnitude does not guarantee what something contains, show me a set of any magnitude (cardinality), finite or infinite, and I can show you one that is of a greater cardinality.

Straying into mathematics and sets is just making things worse for you.

I will go to a mathematician professor, and get his explained to me. But the creator of set theory believed in God is the ultimate infinity higher then all potential infinities.

 

[Link]

I can show you one that is of a greater cardinality.

I would say you can only show a greater container of God if creation existed separately from God or things didn't all emanate and return to him.

God's Existence = God's existence + creation amount.

Creation amount < God's existence.

Possible amount of existence not containing God < God's existence

 

[ratiocinator]

Okay before I address this, do you agree my argument is in valid form? And tell me if you have a problem with any other premise.

The whole thing is nonsense. "Absolute Magnitude" is meaningless, and "necessary" (in the absolute sense) is also logically incoherent. You seem to be trying to do some mash-up of the argument from contingency and the ontological argument without understanding symbolic logic or syllogism.

First, you need to decide if you're trying a categorical syllogism or truth-functional logic. Then you need premises that actually make sense. After that, you can attempt the argument, but it looks like you need to learn a lot more about logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say you can only show a greater container of God if creation existed separately from God or things didn't all emanate and return to him.

You do know that existince is not logic. It belongs to metaphysics, ontology and epistemology.

 

[Link]

The whole thing is nonsense. "Absolute Magnitude" is meaningless, and "necessary" (in the absolute sense) is also logically incoherent. You seem to be trying to do some mash-up of the argument from contingency and the ontological argument without understanding symbolic logic or syllogism.

First, you need to decide if you're trying a categorical syllogism or truth-functional logic. Then you need premises that actually make sense. After that, you can attempt the argument, but it looks like you need to learn a lot more about logic.

I'm talking about the validity form first. If the form is valid. So you are saying necessary is an incoherent concept?

 

[ratiocinator]

I would say you can only show a greater container of God if creation existed separately from God or things didn't all emanate and return to him.

You seemed to want to use mathematical concepts. Greater magnitude does not imply containment. You have yet to show that 'God' refers to anything real at all. Mathematically, the cardinality of the set of all subsets of a set always has greater cardinality than the set itself, even if it is infinite.

I'm talking about the validity form first. If the form is valid.

I didn't see a valid deduction, no. Looked like you were just trying to symbolise your assertions.

So you are saying necessary is an incoherent concept?

I've yet to see anybody explain logically how anything can be necessary in the sense of "couldn't have failed to exist or be different".

 

[Link]

I didn't see a valid deduction, no. Looked like you were just trying to symbolise your assertions.

Do you know difference between valid and sound? I know you don't see it as sound, but I'm asking if it's valid form. If not, show where it's invalid.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you know difference between valid and sound?

Yes. I saw no deductive process.

Everything before the 'therefore' seemed to be a premiss. I'd normally expect an arrow to be a conditional (if .. then ..). Your 'conclusion' was meaningless. I assume it was supposed to refer to god, but it didn't say that, and God appeared to be a premiss itself.

I don't see what you thought the point of just trying to symbolise all your assertions/beliefs was for, if it didn't involve any actual deductions.

As I said before, all it amounted to was "if what I believe is true, then it's true".

Added: Doesn't help that your assumptions are so confused. It's quite difficult to distinguish what you think is a premiss from what you think is a deduction. For example, do you think "A -> N" is something you deduced or is it a premiss?

 

[Link]

For example, do you think "A -> N" is something you deduced or is it a premiss?

It's a premise.

 

[Link]

The deductions all have "therefore".

 

[ratiocinator]

It's a premise.

Since A is definitely meaningless and N probably is, then you have a problem.

The deductions all have "therefore".

Indeed, but "only seen to exist" is not a meaningful conclusion, because it doesn't say what is only seen to exist. We can see that you mean God from everything else you said before, but the only point of using symbols is to be more precise about what you mean, not less.

The problem extends to the entire argument, as you don't seem to understand the symbols (or are using some non-standard language of your own). It looks a bit like you're trying to use categorical arguments and truth-functional symbology.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems people still don't understand it even after all these years of me emphasizing on it in different forms.

To the best of my understanding, you are simply taking certain premises for granted, and it turns out that they are not well accepted outside of Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

You say that it is impossible; I do not doubt that you sincerely believe that it is impossible... but there is no argument there, no sustentation for you claims.

They are just truisms. Dogma.

 

[McBell]

This would be true only if there are no objective morals.

Please present an objective moral.