God cannot be defined into existence.

[Link]

Problem is, Allah (or other mainstream versions of Ibrahim's God) can not be logically demonstrated.

What evidence there is indicates not that it exists, but rather that if it did it would be a rather odd entity with no religious value or legitimate role.

If the logic is purely mathematical in nature, then it is inherently futile; it is not possible to show anything about the real world with purely mathematical proofs. A mathematical line or plane can have infinite points, and does. A real world line or plane will not.

Mathematics is inspired by the real world and applied to it. But it has no means, no ability and no responsibility to demonstrate that anything exists in the real world that would conform to its own constructs.




We do not recall god. That is not the proper verb to use here.

We only know of gods because we are told of them by theists and others that propose their existences.

We have nothing to recall; we can only respond to claims made by theists about entities that we have neither need for nor awareness of.




Not sure what you mean to say here.

Perhaps that the signs of Allah's existence can be perceived by disbelievers, but they will not interpret them correctly?




Omnipresence is an idea. It indeed proves nothing.

Just because we can imagine omnipresent entities it does not follow that they exist - or even that they could logically somehow come to exist.

If anything, we might perhaps examine the implications and conclude that they can not exist.




I think you mean modal logic here.

That, sorry, makes no logical sense whatsoever. It amounts to saying that you can imagine god as a real entity and therefore it must exist.

It is as unworkable as an argument as Aquinas' Five Ways. As discussed in this link, it is a confusion of metaphysical speculation as if it were an epistemological finding.

Possibly Necessary

DTWW discusses using modal logic to prove that God exists. In the modal system S5, if something is possibly necessary then it logically fo...

www.philosophyetc.net

Let's think of this way.

Say God existed. You can look at it right? In this case, a believer believes rightly it exists. A disbeliever, might look at it, and say it's just imagination.

I'm saying one way to know it's not imagination aside from unseen journey, signs, miracles, Quran, etc, none of that, ignore all that, it's simply one thing: it's property of necessary. But you might say this is too close to saying it exists, since it existing is implicit in the "the necessary". Yet forget that for one second, if greatness in terms of amount of life is so much and so big, would it not be necessary being?

But when we recall God, it is that huge, so it is necessary, and so it exists.

 

[ratiocinator]

Here is one: The System S5.

That's a notation explainer page. It doesn't even attempt to prove anything.

 

[Link]

There is no easy solution which is why Kant had to talk about predicate stuff. He realized it was such sound argument, so he to say existence is not a property. Yet exist amount can be a property even if say Kant is right about predicate. So we can think about not it terms of simply existence, but life amount, and by overflow of all possible worlds to the real one, it's the necessary being.

 

[ratiocinator]

if greatness in terms of amount of life is so much and so big, would it not be necessary being?

No. 'Greatness' is subjective. No idea what "amount of life" would mean in this context.

 

[Link]

That's a notation explainer page. It doesn't even attempt to prove anything.

Brother, you can research, but if you understand, logic, what is logically necessarily true in one possible world, is true in all possible worlds including the real world. For example, 1+1 = 2 is a type of fact like this. It's true in this world, in all worlds. But we can't say in some possible world, it's a necessary truth, and not be a truth in all possible worlds. It's almost trivial, but it's useful for reducing statements. However, I don't think the people talking about these rules even thought about in terms of God. It does prove God as well.

 

[Link]

No. 'Greatness' is subjective. No idea what "amount of life" would mean in this context.

You should read Kant. If anyone refutes the ontological argument, it's him. But I believe it's really does not do a difference the whole predicate thing.

 

[metis]

If your position is to "just leave it at that", why did you say scientific physical evidence as your epistemology in addressing the God question? That's a fallacious position. Contradictory.

No, it's not contradictory or fallacious-- it's common sense if one studies first.

I'm an anthropologist who has studied and taught the gist of a great many of the world's religions, plus I stated that I drift towards Spinoza's concept. Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", so was he also "fallacious" and "contradictory" as well?

There's more to this but I'll stop here.

 

[metis]

Causation requires time. Time is part of space-time. Space-time is part of the universe. How can it have a cause?

Everything seems to have causation, which is why we use the scientific method. Now, I'm not claiming any kind of "first cause" or that there even was such a thing. "Space time" is flexible, that doesn't mean nor imply that cause & effect don't exist.

 

[metis]

Yeah, but that God can be outside this universe/multiverse and thus not a part of what science can know.

Correct, which is what the latter part of my statement implies. Spinoza and Einstein never claimed they knew God as a physical entity or that they were even certain of such an entity.

 

[ratiocinator]

Brother, you can research, but if you understand, logic, what is logically necessarily true in one possible world, is true in all possible worlds including the real world. For example, 1+1 = 2 is a type of fact like this. It's true in this world, in all worlds. But we can't say in some possible world, it's a necessary truth, and not be a truth in all possible worlds. It's almost trivial, but it's useful for reducing statements. However, I don't think the people talking about these rules even thought about in terms of God. It does prove God as well.

Hand-waving waffle. You have not shown that God is remotely like arithmetic. In fact, since there are endless versions of God, to claim it's like arithmetic is nonsensical.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's think of this way.

Say God existed. You can look at it right?

Can I?

I could well be impressed by a vision, but how would I truly know what it was?

In this case, a believer believes rightly it exists. A disbeliever, might look at it, and say it's just imagination.

We have not resolved the premise of what would that god even be, and we are taking for granted that it exists.

I'm saying one way to know it's not imagination aside from unseen journey, signs, miracles, Quran, etc, none of that, ignore all that, it's simply one thing: it's property of necessary.

Doesn't work. It is not a necessary entity. You are not even claiming that it is necessary; rather, you are claiming that you can conceive it as a necessary entity.

But you might say this is too close to saying it exists, since it existing is implicit in the "the necessary".

Actually, I don't. I say instead that the necessity is undemonstrated and even unclaimed. That entity is conceivable and apparently conceived; it is not necessary.

Yet forget that for one second, if greatness in terms of amount of life is so much and so big, would it not be necessary being?

No, it would not.

You seem to be using a variation of Aquinas' claims. Those, too, were aesthetical and had no epistemological significance.

But when we recall God, it is that huge, so it is necessary, and so it exists.

Why? Why would it be necessary?

 

[Link]

Why? Why would it be necessary?

The life amount is such that no possible life can exist apart from it (but rather whatever "life amount" others have would have to be derived from it). When we recall God, we recall what. If just Creator, yes, this argument doesn't work. However, if we trying to recall what would be the greatest being, then it's seen to exist, by it's nature of it being necessary which is implied by the greatness level we are recalling.

 

[Link]

You are not even claiming that it is necessary; rather, you are claiming that you can conceive it as a necessary entity.

Yes, the conception implies it's a real being though. Since if you can conceive of a necessary being, it would imply you know it exists.

 

[firedragon]

No, it's not contradictory or fallacious-- it's common sense if one studies first.

I'm an anthropologist who has studied and taught the gist of a great many of the world's religions, plus I stated that I drift towards Spinoza's concept. Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", so was he also "fallacious" and "contradictory" as well?

There's more to this but I'll stop here.

Please do read up on the scientific method, its axioms, and especially on methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

 

[LuisDantas]

The life amount is such that no possible life can exist apart from it (but rather whatever "life amount" others have would have to be derived from it). When we recall God, we recall what. If just Creator, yes, this argument doesn't work. However, if we trying to recall what would be the greatest being, then it's seen to exist, by it's nature of it being necessary which is implied by the greatness level we are recalling.

That is just a dogmatic truism. It has no argumentative value, and definitely no epistemologic value.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, the conception implies it's a real being though. Since if you can conceive of a necessary being, it would imply you know it exists.

That is very Aquinas-like thought.

I don't understand why some people claim that Aquinas was arguing for the existence of (a version of the Christian) God either; he was just describing how he conceived it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Since if you can conceive of a necessary being, it would imply you know it exists.

A 'necessary being' appears to be logically incoherent. How can anything be such that it cannot not exist? It makes no sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

A 'necessary being' appears to be logically incoherent. How can anything be such that it cannot not exist? It makes no sense.

I don't understand that either.

Maybe the reasoning is that it would be impossible to conceive such absolutes if they did not exist as expressions of a supreme being?

Quite unconvincing to me, but I can't see anything better in there.

 

[Link]

That is very Aquinas-like thought.

I don't understand why some people claim that Aquinas was arguing for the existence of (a version of the Christian) God either; he was just describing how he conceived it.

Aquinas and Descartes both were correct. They just explained things a bit less optimal, hence, my title and OP correct somethings.

 

[Link]

I don't understand that either.

I think you guys just don't understand it. And you are proving my point.