Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation

[Polymath257]

But morality and goodness is not linked to seeing or not seeing an invisible dragon unlike it's relation to God who is the light of all light and who is seen through vision from light.

And that is your claim: that a 'light of all light' even exists. Your argument for that existence is identical to the one I gave for dragons.

We *all* see through vision from light. Light is an electromagnetic wave that affects the molecules in the retinas of our eyes and that information gets sent to our brains resulting in vision.

 

[Polymath257]

Only God is candidate for Necessary Being.

Why? because God is *defined* to be a necessary being. But you still need to show that such a being exists.

The Necessary Being is seen to exist by virtue of being necessary.

Just like the magon exists by virtue of its definition: an existing dragon.

See the reason that claim fails?

The first premise shows why this doesn't apply to other things or beings.
The second premise is an obvious fact, if seen. The only question is there a Necessary being.

And Anselm's argument fails to show that such a being exists.

Anselm argues when the greatest being is conceived, it's seen to be great to the extent of being necessary (level). So when you recall that it's greatness is at the necessary level and no other being has this quality, then it's known it exists.

yes, that is his argument. And this is precisely where it fails. if it exists, it is the greatest. But if it does not exist, the notion of greatness doesn't apply at all. So it is NOT greater if it exists than if it does not. The word greatness simply doesn't apply at all for non-existent things.

So Anselm is assuming the existence to prove the existence.

You can only imagine beings less great then it not existing, but if you understood necessary and it's greatness, you can't see God not existing. It's virtually impossible if you grasp both these aspects. But it has more implications.

You cannot define something into existence. I don't see that a necessary being actually exists. In fact, I find the notion of 'necessary being' to be incoherent.

Not only is God known to exist, but that it alone is eternal. Not only is it alone eternal, but it can't be repeated, and so can't beget nor is begotten. The reason being is that vastness implies it exists in all possible worlds while things come to be by definition as not necessary.

And there is only One necessary being possible and so there is nothing on par with it.

And, of course, none of those follow from mere necessity: there is no reason given why there can't be 17 necessary beings and no argument given why it isn't possible for a necessary being to be finite in extent. You make claims, but give no reason to believe those claims other than 'it is seen'. Well a great many people don't 'see' and think that seeing like this is a form of self-delusion.

of course, since the notion of 'necessary being' is incoherent, there is nothing else to say about it.

 

[Link]

And that is your claim: that a 'light of all light' even exists. Your argument for that existence is identical to the one I gave for dragons.

We *all* see through vision from light. Light is an electromagnetic wave that affects the molecules in the retinas of our eyes and that information gets sent to our brains resulting in vision.

You are being obtuse. I'm saying our actions and direction in life, has a lot to do with if we are going to see God or not. If we desire the life of this world, he will hide himself and let us chase chaotic winds that lead no where but more thirst. If we desire God, he will show himself and guide us to himself.

Simple. @Polymath257 be honest, do you want to sacrifice this world for next and offer God this exchange? Or is time to precious in limited time and your bets are on let's enjoy life, and God will probably be merciful if he exists anyways?

This the other side of "the deceptions". Ahlulbayt (a) have said the deceptions meant in Surah Fatir regarding God, is that the human tells himself even if I sin and go away from God, he will be merciful to me. They feel safe from God's wrath due to emphasis that he will be merciful and nice and kind no matter what.

Most people bet on this life and say if "next world, I will return to something better, God is not the ******* believers make him out to be", and they mock believers for choosing next world among their friends and people, they belittle their path, and mock fearing God.

This is reality.

 

[Link]

Why? because God is *defined* to be a necessary being.

We are talking why only God can be the necessary being and nothing else. This has to do with how he is defined, but only one being can be defined to be that, and no other thing. You can assert other things are, but you can't grasp it. If you understood it, you would also understand all beings other then God can't be necessary beings. And this where you fail. You think the argument is about the label and assertion. It's not. It's about grasping the necessary trait. If that is grasped with respect to God, he is known to exist.

 

[Link]

Also, Ibn Sina does the ontological argument as well. People usually confused if it's about contingency or ontological or combined, but really, Ibn Sina does this:
(1) Why existence is Necessary.
(2) Shows why the Necessary existence is God.
(3) Shows why everything else other then God is possible and not necessary.
(4) Shows why through Necessary being, everything else is contingent on him.

It's the same argument, but he starts with Existence, proves it to be necessary, and then proves to be God.

He has his own style and way of proving all traits of the Necessary Being being the traits of God, and so it's a very much more elaborate proof, but he does it.

I will make a thread about Ibn Sina version one day.

 

[Link]

Also, Ibn Sina it starts with the ontology of "existence" and moves to "necessary" (proving it to be that) and then talks about God is necessary, everything in contrast to God is contingent and shows details.

This is less "circular" and more in traditional argumentative way. I like Anselm version better, because it just reminds of God and boom we know he exists. But I will show Ibn Sina version one day inshallah.

 

[Link]

Anselm version I believe is closer to Quran style, Quran says "God is Al-Hayu", but almost never says the other way "Al-Hayu is Allah". There is one aya though that has it inversed which:

"He is the Al-Hayu (The living), there is no God but him..."

So both ways is important, but Ayatul Kursi and other verses (such as Surah Auli-Imran), usually, Allah is stated first.

You can derive they are double implications. That is Al-Hayu can't be other then Allah (swt), and Allah (swt) can't be other then Al-Hayu, Allah is Al-Hayu and Al-Hayu is Allah (swt)

And we read in Du'a Jawthan Al-Kabir:

يَا حَيّاً قَبْلَ كُلِّ حَيٍّ
O Living, preceding every living,
ya hay-yan qab-la kul-li hay

يَّا حَيّاً بَعْدَ كُلِّ حَيٍّ
O Living, after every living,
ya hay-yam ba`a-da kul-li hay

يَّا حَيُّ الَّذِي لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ حَيٌّ
O living, like unto Whom there is no like a living,
ya hay-yul-ladhe laysa kamith-lihi hay

يَّا حَيُّ الَّذِي لا يُشَارِكُهُ حَيٌّ
O living who associates no living
ya hay-yul-ladhe la yusha-rikuhu hay

يَّا حَيُّ الَّذِي لا يَحْتَاجُ إِلَى حَيٍّ
O living who needs no living
ya hay-yul-ladhe la yah-taju ila hay

يَّا حَيُّ الَّذِي يُمِيتُ كُلَّ حَيٍّ
O living, Who causes every living to die,
ya hay-yul-ladhe yumetu kul-la hay

يَّا حَيُّ الَّذِي يَرْزُقُ كُلَّ حَيٍّ
O living, Who provides sustenance to every living,
ya hay-yul-ladhe yarzuqu kul-la hay

يَّا حَيّاً لَّمْ يَرِثِ الْحَيَاةَ مِنْ حَيٍّ
O living, Who has not inherited life from any living,
ya hay-yal-lam yarithil-hayata min hay

يَّا حَيُّ الَّذِي يُحْيِي الْمَوْتَى
O living who gives life to the dead
ya hay-yul-ladhe yuh-ye al-maw-ta

يَا حَيُّ يَا قَيُّومُ، لا تَأْخُذُهُ سِنَةً وَّلا نَوْمٌ
O Living, O Standing, Neither takes him slumber, nor sleep.
ya hay-yu ya qay-yumu la ta-khudhuhu sinatuw-wa-la naw-m

 

[Link]

Oh I see. Some lecturers don't have the capacity to take a neutral approach. This is a plight of students. But you have taken the right path though.

Mind you, in some instances some lecturers try to teach religion in a language class. that is also bad.

Nevertheless, very few anti religious lecturers take pride in teaching something like the ontological argument as philosophy. Actually there are many.

Salam

I know the context of "right path" here means as far this issue goes. But in a broader sense, as much as my mind knows truth, my heart is rebellious and dark. I wish I applied my knowledge and indeed knowledge when not applied is not beneficial.

Pray for me brother, that my heart submits to God and that I defeat my darkness. That I apply the knowledge I've been given and that my knowledge benefits me.

 

[Polymath257]

You are being obtuse. I'm saying our actions and direction in life, has a lot to do with if we are going to see God or not. If we desire the life of this world, he will hide himself and let us chase chaotic winds that lead no where but more thirst. If we desire God, he will show himself and guide us to himself.

Yes, that is *your* belief system. It is not mine. Desiring God does not imply that you will see God.

Simple. @Polymath257 be honest, do you want to sacrifice this world for next and offer God this exchange? Or is time to precious in limited time and your bets are on let's enjoy life, and God will probably be merciful if he exists anyways?

I don't think there *is* a 'next world'. I have seen no evidence that it exists at all. i also don't believe there is a God that is in control of the universe, or even of human affairs. So your questions are irrelevant to my world view.

This the other side of "the deceptions". Ahlulbayt (a) have said the deceptions meant in Surah Fatir regarding God, is that the human tells himself even if I sin and go away from God, he will be merciful to me. They feel safe from God's wrath due to emphasis that he will be merciful and nice and kind no matter what.

You seem to have difficulties believing that there are people who really don't believe there is a God. It isn't that we deny something we know exists. It isn't that we are angry and want to distance ourselves. It isn't that we want to do things that are forbidden. It is simply that we don't see any evidence for a supreme being. We really see God as another myth that is in many ways similar to elves, dragons, and other mythical beings.

I no more think about whether a God will forgive me than I think about how to introduce myself to Sherlock Holmes. As far as I can see, they are both fictional characters.

Most people bet on this life and say if "next world, I will return to something better, God is not the ******* believers make him out to be", and they mock believers for choosing next world among their friends and people, they belittle their path, and mock fearing God.

This is reality.

And *why* do they bet on this life? Because we *know* this life exists and we do NOT know that anything exists after death. And, in fact, all the evidence points to saying that when we die, we *no longer exist*.

Why would anyone bet on a likely fiction?

 

[Polymath257]

We are talking why only God can be the necessary being and nothing else. This has to do with how he is defined, but only one being can be defined to be that, and no other thing. You can assert other things are, but you can't grasp it.

I find it quite easy to 'grasp', in fact. I just don't believe it. But then, I don't believe there is a necessary being.

If you understood it, you would also understand all beings other then God can't be necessary beings. And this where you fail. You think the argument is about the label and assertion. It's not. It's about grasping the necessary trait. If that is grasped with respect to God, he is known to exist.

OK, then elucidate this 'necessary trait'. Precisely what does it mean? Be specific.

 

[Link]

OK, then elucidate this 'necessary trait'. Precisely what does it mean? Be specific.

Salam

I explained this another thread but it pertains to pigeon hole principle it terms of absoluteness implying he exists (which is another way to say necessary being, too big to not exist):

We can see the sun, it's real, doesn't mean we understand everything about it or encompass it completely or even grasps it's full size. In fact, before scientific advance, we had no real estimate of it's size.

Same with the moon.

Doesn't mean we don't know the sun provides heat and light and doesn't mean we don't make use of it's light.

So we see God from a distance as I already explained, we never reach him, but we can see he is endless and absolute in terms of greatness and life amount. Both of these imply he is the necessary being if you realize what necessary means in terms of possible worlds and existence.

For those who don't understand the pigeon hole principle let me draw it for you.

(God's size in terms of existence, absolute infinite )
<-------------------------------------->
<--| | | -----------> (infinite possible worlds)
---p p p (possible worlds)
---|
--- actual world (our world is one of possible worlds)

Now it's true I can't see infinity, but I understand God is Absolute. I can understand infinite possible worlds, and can understand if God is absolute, his existence amount is such that nothing would exist without him.

This doesn't mean we see God completely.

God is seen to be absolute from a distance, be we never get there.

The Sign of God is such that it's a limited circle with infinite points pointing outward towards God. So through his light, though we grasp in in a limited way, we see infinite attributes of perfect and infinite glories of his face, through his face and name is limited, the pointed to is not. Horizontally God has mapped infinite perfections through descent in a created sign from him, through a funnel circle. We perceive both the united glories and lights into the utmost created version which is the holiest light in creation, and we also can perceive that all lights are found in this light.

Yet the light is such that is points to the absolute and returns to it.

Now there is two sides of glorifying God really (can be more, but for sake of what I'm saying):

His Personality
His Size

Sometimes we may say things that attack his personality and hence belittle him in this sense.

But size wise, we can know he can't have an equal or beget or be begotten.

Same reason size wise - we can make use of it, with "possible existence", and know because no possible existence can exist without him by his absolute amount, then by pigeon hole principle he exists.

 

[Polymath257]

Salam

I explained this another thread but it pertains to pigeon hole principle it terms of absoluteness implying he exists (which is another way to say necessary being, too big to not exist):

We can see the sun, it's real, doesn't mean we understand everything about it or encompass it completely or even grasps it's full size. In fact, before scientific advance, we had no real estimate of it's size.

Same with the moon.

Doesn't mean we don't know the sun provides heat and light and doesn't mean we don't make use of it's light.

Good. I agree so far.

So we see God from a distance as I already explained, we never reach him, but we can see he is endless and absolute in terms of greatness and life amount. Both of these imply he is the necessary being if you realize what necessary means in terms of possible worlds and existence.

No, 'we' do not see God. I don't see any God at all. Not from a distance, not up close. NOT AT ALL.

Also, you *claim* to see God. But how certain are you of this? At least as certain as that you see a table in your room? I would sincerely doubt it. How do you know that what you see is endless? Do you have endless vision?

How do you know that what you see is not a hallucination? That would be my default take on it.

How do you compare 'life amounts'? What does it even mean to have more or less 'life amount'?

And, once again, what does 'necessary' mean in terms of possible worlds and existence? I know about the philosophical notion of a possible world (an internally consistent collection of statements). How does this apply here? How can you determine whether an imagined world is possible or not?

For those who don't understand the pigeon hole principle let me draw it for you.

(God's size in terms of existence, absolute infinite )
<-------------------------------------->
<--| | | -----------> (infinite possible worlds)
---p p p (possible worlds)
---|
--- actual world (our world is one of possible worlds)

Maybe your formatting is off, but this makes no sense to me. And it certainly has no relationship to the Pigeonhole Principle.

Now it's true I can't see infinity, but I understand God is Absolute.

And how do you understand that?

I can understand infinite possible worlds, and can understand if God is absolute, his existence amount is such that nothing would exist without him.

That word 'if' is a big one here. Remember that the whole question is whether that hypothesis is correct or not.

This doesn't mean we see God completely.

God is seen to be absolute from a distance, be we never get there.

And again, many of us don't see a God at all.

The Sign of God is such that it's a limited circle with infinite points pointing outward towards God. So through his light, though we grasp in in a limited way, we see infinite attributes of perfect and infinite glories of his face, through his face and name is limited, the pointed to is not. Horizontally God has mapped infinite perfections through descent in a created sign from him, through a funnel circle. We perceive both the united glories and lights into the utmost created version which is the holiest light in creation, and we also can perceive that all lights are found in this light.

Sorry, I cannot parse any of this. it appears to be a number of claims, but I can't make out what you are trying to say here. But, it is simply a bunch of claims, NOT a proof. An analogy, at best.

Yet the light is such that is points to the absolute and returns to it.

Now there is two sides of glorifying God really (can be more, but for sake of what I'm saying):

His Personality
His Size

Sometimes we may say things that attack his personality and hence belittle him in this sense.

But size wise, we can know he can't have an equal or beget or be begotten.

Same reason size wise - we can make use of it, with "possible existence", and know because no possible existence can exist without him by his absolute amount, then by pigeon hole principle he exists.

It is clear to me that you have no idea what the Pigeonhole Principle actually says (it is actually a mathematical principle concerning cardinality).

In any case, when you say 'Same reason size wise - we can make use of it, with "possible existence", and know because no possible existence can exist without him by his absolute amount', you are making a claim that no possible existence can exist without something. That claim is not supported. It is a bare claim. And, no, I do not 'know' that. if anything, i find it to be quite unlikely.

So, you don't have a proof. You have a number of claims. And those claims seem to me to be false in almost every case.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

I know the context of "right path" here means as far this issue goes. But in a broader sense, as much as my mind knows truth, my heart is rebellious and dark. I wish I applied my knowledge and indeed knowledge when not applied is not beneficial.

Pray for me brother, that my heart submits to God and that I defeat my darkness. That I apply the knowledge I've been given and that my knowledge benefits me.

Amin.