Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation

[Link]

The Ontological Argument is irrational crap.

Do you seriously believe that God can exist as a concept? How puny must your God be if a full conception of him can fit in a human mind.

I see the sun but from far. It appears "less" bright, from far. God can be seen from a distance, doesn't mean we ever get to God fully. Some people God is very bright and are near him, but even this nearness is infinitely "far" from the perspective, that the journey to God never ends and journey is forever.

I'm saying God is not a concept, but is seen to exist. The real thing is what we called "imagined idea", you can't imagine God, he is there, living, existing, and connected to all things.

The reason we can see God is absolute even without fully encompassing, it can be said the sky reality (the light of God) has infinite pointers to to the source even though limited, it has infinite pointers to the unseen treasures and blessings of God and his traits, but also keep in mind God is One (all his traits are one single pure simple essence in highest reality, but descends from it is infinite treasures different from one another as they descend).

Therefore the pointers of God, the highest signs of God are travelling to the absolute and points to the absolute.

Everything else that has aspects but not full out complete blessings found in them and not complete pointers to God, have an attribute they find in the greatest sign of God, and return to God by their own reality that God's reality creates in truth.

 

[Link]

morality relies on the assertion of unproven axioms.

You are right about this. But what you mean by unproven, is actually, can't be argued for.

There are things that are obvious and can be witnessed to be true. A straight line being the shortest distance between two points for example - you can perhaps prove, but no need to, you can see it axiomatically to be true.

 

[Polymath257]

If it's size is so big that it leaves no life to be independent of it, it covers all room of possible existence.

Are you assuming there is only finitely much space? Why would you assume there is something so big that nothing else could fit?

That seems very counter to the universe as we see it.

That means, this possible existing world (with all existence in it), can't exist without God as well.

Once again, you are assuming God exists to get some properties to show that God exists.

So it proves it definitely exists, and has to, since no life can exist without it by it's sheer size.

If it doesn't exist, then it has no size and so there is room for other things to exist.

 

[Link]

@Polymath257 when we recall God, we see that he is ONE, nothing, including an equal can be beside it, and so this makes it definitely exist.

If it was not the case, we would not be able to see God must be ONE, and then we would be talking about "lesser gods", and "creators" and if we are to know one God, it would be merely by counting that there is one Creator, but no logical proof for it. Such a Creator can have an equal or rival.

Those things are not necessarily, by definition, they can be imagined not to exist.

I'm doing a contrast to show so you understand.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257 when we recall God, we see that he is ONE, nothing, including an equal can be beside it, and so this makes it definitely exist.

Can you give an example of anyone 'recalling' God? As opposed to merely saying they had a feeling of God? Just to let you know, I have *never* recalled God. For me, God is a concept that has very little meaning. It is ultimately an incoherent idea as far as I can see.

And, why would something being ONE mean it must exist? Why must the elimination of even a equal mean it *must* exist?

You ping from a state of mind to the actual existence of something external to the mind.

If it was not the case, we would not be able to see God must be ONE,

What would prevent us from imagining that (I don't think anyone 'sees' it)?

and then we would be talking about "lesser gods", and "creators" and if we are to know one God, it would be merely by counting that there is one Creator, but no logical proof for it. Such a Creator can have an equal or rival.

So that shows that anything lesser can't be God. That still doesn't prove the existence of God.

Those things are not necessarily, by definition, they can be imagined not to exist.

Yes, and I can imagine that nothing at all exists, which means there is nothing that *must* exist. I can also imagine that only one thing exists and it is a piece of cheese. That is clearly NOT a necessary being, so it is possible to imagine scenarios where no necessary being exists, even though something does.

I'm doing a contrast to show so you understand.

And I am saying you are conflating different notions of 'necessity'. One has to do with not being caused (so, necessity as the opposite of contingent). Another has to do with existing in every possible world (which clearly nothing satisfies this). Another has to do with maximal 'greatness', but the logic of partial orders shows that there need not be a greatest.

 

[Link]

It's possible to assert there is scenarios that a necessary being doesn't exist.
Assertion doesn't mean it's actually possible.

 

[Polymath257]

It's possible to assert there is scenarios that a necessary being doesn't exist.
Assertion doesn't mean it's actually possible.

I am imagining such, so such must be possible right?

What determines 'actual possibility'?

 

[Link]

@Polymath257 this sort of reminds of pre-knowledge of future decisions and free-will. The threads go in circles, and it's constantly repeated by one "there is no reason to assume knowing the future before decision happens means there is no free-will and no choice".

The other says "well because future is known, it can't be otherwise, hence there was no possible choice".

One is right, the other wrong, but they repeat paraphrasing it differently and even setting examples of videos or what not, and there is a disconnect.

I believe personally future is unknown (some of it is unknown) and that free-will is not possible if God knows we will perform them before it happens. Few believers in God take this view if hardly any at all.

But I'm using this as analogous, I try to show why God must exist and does through analyzing what he is. Then you ask how does that prove he exist or assert it doesn't.

And there is a similar disconnect as the on going forever arguments about knowledge of future and freewill.

As such, I think it's better to tap out. Somethings are either seen or not seen. You either see it or don't. I can't make you perceive God's Oneness if you run away from it and don't want to see God existing (it's awe experience realizing it actually) when reminded.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've realized how people phrase this argument changes everything.

We know we exist, we witness and experience ourselves existing. We aren't God, but can we witness God existing. If God exists, why not, he is the living being, and so why is impossible to witness him existing.

You begin this great long argument, and no matter what you are trying to "prove," right from the start, you introduce stuff you hope will be accepted as axiomatic -- but sorry, is not.

"We know we exist, we witness and experience ourselves existing." That's basically Blaise Pascal: "je pense, donc je suis." If there's thinking, it's obvious there's a thinker.

And then you move immediately to something you cannot demonstrate, no matter how hard you try: "we can witness God existing." I can't witness that. I've looked everywhere, not a sign, not a hint, not a whiff of orange smoke or whatever it is that God uses to demonstrate to me that he exists. Quite literally -- nothing. Whatever it is that you think you are "witnessing," I'm afraid you don't say what it is. You just assert that you "witness."

Answer this question: "WHAT DO YOU 'WITNESS' THAT SHOWS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?"

Until you do that, the entire rest of your post falls apart.

 

[John53]

The reason is because what is necessary (if possibly conceived) definitely exists. And this seems to be true, if the Necessary being doesn't exist, we would not be able to conceive of the notion of a necessary being.

Sure, hypothetic Creator, you can imagine existing or not. But when you recall the Necessary trait, it can't not exist. It has to. And so the contra positive, is if a necessary being does not exist, you would not be able to talk about the notion of it. You wouldn't be able to conceive of it at all, you might conceive of a Creator but not the notion of necessary trait. The Necessary trait if conceived proves it exists. So yes another way to phrase is we would not be able to conceive of the necessary aspect of God if it does not exist.

This is because you are not only seeing it exists (as you see yourself and many mystics directly witness of God and unseen entities) but that there is no possibility of it not existing.

Does this apply to the 1,000s of Gods throughout history or just your particular version of God?

 

[blü 2]

I've realized how people phrase this argument changes everything.

We know we exist, we witness and experience ourselves existing. We aren't God, but can we witness God existing. If God exists, why not, he is the living being, and so why is impossible to witness him existing.

The difficulty is that Iblis and his forces will tell us, the God you are pointed to and see, that light and high reality, you see from far but can't grasp, is merely an idea.

This is why miracles, signs of God in unseen, and connecting to God through constant Salah and remembering where as we increase in spiritual sustenance and power and light while God is not fed, but we are fed, is all important.

Light upon light from following his path, this can be all helpful in seeing God is not merely an idea.

Putting all that on hold, is it possible to see God exists in a different way? The ontological argument seeks a feature about God's greatness, perfection or by pigeon hole principle as if I've shown before by size and life hugeness, that God cannot but exist by virtue of being necessary being.

Absolute in life, means, no life can exist without it. He is One such that he misses nothing and nothing is absent from him even possibly. No possible life can even be imagined to exist without him.

The issue is you can say this is a mere concept, and doesn't prove the being exists. But is this true? Or does it prove that it's impossible to see God as a concept? That seeing God as mere concept is impossible. That we all see the real being and when analyze this feature we know not only are we witnessing the living light and are connected to this great being, but that it's impossible it doesn't exist.

The issue is saying existence is not a feature, is true of all things, everything can exist in concept and reality. However, the ontological argument is showing that the predicate thing is not true about God. So to refute the ontological argument by the predicate thing, is circular reasoning. It uses a feature true of all things other then God and applies to God as well. But the whole point of the ontological argument was to show, that, God can't exist as a mere concept but only seen to exist, that he has to exist.

So it means it's trying to bypass all the argument of it, all the reasoning, and just asserts it's a predicate. Assume it's true, predicate thing kind of makes sense, existence is a different type of feature. However, this argument then would prove God's existence is not a predicate and that he transcends the predicate duality of all things potential existing in idea or reality.

So it's not really a refutation but is by passing the argument. It's not dealing with the argument at all.

The fallacy with the ontological argument is that it goes from "being able to imagine something" to "therefore the thing imagined must be real".

My own response to that is, "Phooey."

Otherwise the lanes would be clogged with Donald Ducks, Fountains of Youth, Supermans, Perfect Spouses, Green Lanterns, Time Machines, Draculas, People returned from the dead, Sherlock Holmeses, Three Little Pigses, Ultimate weapons, Immovable Objects, Worthy Republicans, on and on and on.

 

[firedragon]

I've realized how people phrase this argument changes everything.

We know we exist, we witness and experience ourselves existing. We aren't God, but can we witness God existing. If God exists, why not, he is the living being, and so why is impossible to witness him existing.

The difficulty is that Iblis and his forces will tell us, the God you are pointed to and see, that light and high reality, you see from far but can't grasp, is merely an idea.

This is why miracles, signs of God in unseen, and connecting to God through constant Salah and remembering where as we increase in spiritual sustenance and power and light while God is not fed, but we are fed, is all important.

Light upon light from following his path, this can be all helpful in seeing God is not merely an idea.

Putting all that on hold, is it possible to see God exists in a different way? The ontological argument seeks a feature about God's greatness, perfection or by pigeon hole principle as if I've shown before by size and life hugeness, that God cannot but exist by virtue of being necessary being.

Absolute in life, means, no life can exist without it. He is One such that he misses nothing and nothing is absent from him even possibly. No possible life can even be imagined to exist without him.

The issue is you can say this is a mere concept, and doesn't prove the being exists. But is this true? Or does it prove that it's impossible to see God as a concept? That seeing God as mere concept is impossible. That we all see the real being and when analyze this feature we know not only are we witnessing the living light and are connected to this great being, but that it's impossible it doesn't exist.

The issue is saying existence is not a feature, is true of all things, everything can exist in concept and reality. However, the ontological argument is showing that the predicate thing is not true about God. So to refute the ontological argument by the predicate thing, is circular reasoning. It uses a feature true of all things other then God and applies to God as well. But the whole point of the ontological argument was to show, that, God can't exist as a mere concept but only seen to exist, that he has to exist.

So it means it's trying to bypass all the argument of it, all the reasoning, and just asserts it's a predicate. Assume it's true, predicate thing kind of makes sense, existence is a different type of feature. However, this argument then would prove God's existence is not a predicate and that he transcends the predicate duality of all things potential existing in idea or reality.

So it's not really a refutation but is by passing the argument. It's not dealing with the argument at all.

You probably see most if not all doing exactly what you said. Passing the argument, not dealing with it at all.

 

[firedragon]

Which leads to the Raven Paradox, which is my favorite paradox.

Here's the issue with the OP, though

According to traditional theists, we can't conceive of God, because he's ineffable. So, given that this hypothesis is tentatively falsifiable (if there is no God, then we cannot conceive of one) we have just disproven the existence of God using the same argument thanks to the contrapositive.

I think that's a bit ironic.

Ella. Your argument is actually a strawman. The OP's argument is not addressed. The Irony is that the creator of the OP has predicted this would happen. That's magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I read apologetics OPs like this, which is about three times a week now on RF, I'm amazed by the energy the apologist expends with these arguments. It's got to be exhausting.

• "When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense・- Edward Abbey

For me, this describes the ontological argument for God quite well, which is one of the strangest of arguments. It basically claims as you just did that if we can conceive of a god, one must exist. Of course, that not true of anything else, but somehow, God gets special dispensation such that if you can think of Him, he must exist. Why? Because. Because of what? Just because.

As best I can tell, that's the argument. Can you give your reason for believing that if there were no god, you wouldn't be able to conceive the idea. Isn't that the corollary of claiming that if one can conceive of God, He must exist - that if He doesn't exist, we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea?

Sounds reasonable to be. I am now imagining that I have a few million dollars to spare. Do you think that the bank will accept my claim that it has to exist by ontology?

 

[John53]

Sounds reasonable to be. I am now imagining that I have a few million dollars to spare. Do you think that the bank will accept my claim that it has to exist by ontology?

Even if you assume it only happens with Gods then every version of the thousands of Gods throughout the history of man is real. Must be kind of crowded in godland.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if you assume it only happens with Gods then every version of the thousands of Gods throughout the history of man is real. Must be kind of crowded in godland.

Hah!! Not if I imagine that other Gods do not exist.. (Seriously some theists seem to actually believe that).

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily. Proven in model logic.

So if a necessary being is possible, it is necessarily.

This means if it doesn't exist, it's only because a Necessary being is impossible to exist.

Simply sticking the word necessary in front of another word doesn't suddenly make it actually necessary. Just because I say necessary magical pixies exist doesn't suddenly make magical pixies real because I defined them as necessary.

 

[John53]

Hah!! Not if I imagine that other Gods do not exist.. (Seriously some theists seem to actually believe that).

It's all too easy when you're the one making up the rules of the game.

 

[rational experiences]

The human man question how can I know understand the flat pressurised earth as human sciences only position my thesis god mass. Planet mass.

My earth human only thesis?

Humans brain mind skull pressure now says by causes the flat earth.

Brain mind changed by loss of upper atmospheric light pressures. Gases

Replaced by nuclear earth sin K holes history. Man's physical numbers X maths human calculus only. My maths by minus eventuates maths equals a Hole. Is exact calculus.

On earth as it will be in heavens.

The hole then I cause flat plane theist as filled in above. By his star mass caused asteroid Speeding star gained on.... Slow moving travelling earth.

That he already calculated in a constant fixed space position space constant as space body. Space itself as space doesn't matter what space....only slow moving O earth as a year.

O circular. Cycle. Circular.

Water spin change causes flat plane fakery by tilt of spin as water is changed by earths fission science. Mind defected reality.

Then says a disc is a flat plane earth travel. Yet above below space pressure O a hole is an exact circle.

Mass above a solid replaces earths light above human mind brain balance.

Proving we are being squashed into exploding.

So why a UFO accumulates now in heated gas holes cooled by gas heaven as cloud cooling position. By scientist man choice is now becoming our end.

Accumulating flattening mass ready to put God as rock above us.

Thanks brother who said earth rock is a flat Rock plane lying.

His technology signals across a flat plane you try to instill as taught is by his caused triangulated affected satellite. Signals speed by country...use our waters cooling so affects his mind state.

False information.

Technology interfered with human brain awareness. Known. Aware. Learnt. Last warnings.

Every introduced position the human designer destroyer caused it all.
Says natural mind.

Only barely surviving reality as natural.

 

[rational experiences]

O sun expanding says his science study.

Asteroids seen entering increasing the suns mass.

It's fuel returning. It Shouldn't. It already ejected mass to be the sun body mass men theory about as age relevant. A sun.

Asks can I cause the sun to throw out too much heat? Is it expanding for mass ejection.

As asteroids are also seen hitting other sun cycling planets too. Heating flat plane. Space.

Is the cosmic model heating to change earths DNA life by man's causes. I invent create by my machine.

Machines position in nature on earth is exact. No nature on earth itself as equals position.

Seeing he should ask WTF he thinks he's doing thinking outside earths heavens support of biology?

When his machine is owned by earth not a sun.