Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation

[Clara Tea]

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.

Physics attempts to understand the natural world and model it with math.

Yet, in the small world of quantum mechanics, things are not definite. In fact, they have to be completely random. This doesn't mean unpredictable. If random events were completely unpredictable (they would be called chaotic), then Las Vegas would lose money. But, the fact is, the house (casino) makes money on the average.

We know that matter exists, but every time we try to pinpoint where it is and how fast it is, we knudge it. Originally, subatomic particles were detected by beaming light (or other form of electromagnetic energy) at them. This changes their location and changes their momentum or energy. It would be like detecting the location of a ping pong ball by driving a huge truck into it. . . sure, it will make a sound when the ball hits the truck, but the impact will move the ball.

This leads to the famous Heisenburg Uncertainlty Principle: You can know the position precisely, but then you know nothing about the momentum. Or, you can know the momentum precisely, but then you know nothing about the location. This is because the act of measurement changes things.

Later, less powerful particles were used to locate other subatomic particless. This was a bit more accurate, but, still, there was a limit to the degree to which we could locate particles.

Solid particles of matter are really made of fields. (According to the website above). It shows that even empty space contains a lot of blobs of fields (that is, quantum vacuum fluxuations).

We must assume that all states are possible until we measure them. This leads to the famous Schroedinger's Cat argument, that poisoning a cat would cause it to die, but there is a probability that it is still alive, and we won't know for sure until we open the box and look in to see if the cat is dead (then it removes all doubt).

Even when we know how the laws work, we still see plenty of violations of those laws.

This all leads us to the same problems with the detection of God.

 

[Clara Tea]

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

Good point.

However, even those who make up rules eventually find difficult questions.

For example, a man named Atlas holds up the world. But who holds up Atlas? Easy. . . Atlas stands on a giant turtle. But who holds up the turtle? In Ad Finitum. Basically. . "what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." That is, when we start telling tall tales about Atlas, we have to come up with lie after lie after lie to explain why our previous lies were not lies.

We are given the choice to believe that there was a big bang that spontaneously occurred. Or we can believe that God made a Big Bang. Now we have to explain where God came from.

The stock answer is that God always existed. But why couldn't the ball of nuclear plasma (that made our universe) have always existed?

 

[Polymath257]

Here's another way to look at the ontological argument:

Suppose I define a magon as ' a dragon that exists'.

Then, by definition, a magon exists, right? Which means that dragons exist.

You can apply this to anything fictional that you wish.

If you can see through this argument, you can see through the ontological argument.

 

[firedragon]

Here's another way to look at the ontological argument:

Suppose I define a magon as ' a dragon that exists'.

Then, by definition, a magon exists, right? Which means that dragons exist.

You can apply this to anything fictional that you wish.

If you can see through this argument, you can see through the ontological argument.

The ontological argument does not prove the existence of God.

But you have not even grasped a straw of the argument. It shows with your so called example of an ontological argument. You will know only if you follow through with your argument.

 

[Link]

The ontological argument does not prove the existence of God.

But you have not even grasped a straw of the argument. It shows with your so called example of an ontological argument. You will know only if you follow through with your argument.

It can be said it's not even an argument. It's merely reminding of what we are looking at is not an idea but the real thing by virtue of it being necessary.

So it's more of a reminder that God is a proof for himself. As the first premise would prove God exists, it can be said circular in reasoning if an argument. It can be, so it's more of a reminder of God's Necessary trait, and when we are reminded of it, we see it can't but exist.

 

[firedragon]

It can be said it's not even an argument. It's merely reminding of what we are looking at is not an idea but the real thing by virtue of it being necessary.

So it's more of a reminder that God is a proof for himself. As the first premise would prove God exists, it can be said circular in reasoning if an argument. It can be, so it's more of a reminder of God's Necessary trait, and when we are reminded of it, we see it can't but exist.

Brother. It's an argument. I am just using the language we use in discussion.

It is not circular in reasoning. It is an "ontological argument". So calling it circular is like saying a ball is round. I understand what you say, but we just don't do that. Okay my brother. Don't do that in the future.

The ontological argument defines God more than prove of an existence of God. Also brother, God being necessary is not a trait. Samadh is not a trait, it is the ontology. Some may call it an Asma, name, or a trait but it is not. Especially if one is Muslim, he should know that immediately after Samadh, it says lam yakullahoo kufuwan ahadhun. I am not arguing with you, but only sharing with you. Hokkay?

Imagine someone who has never understood the ontological argument akin it to a mythical creature. I'm sorry but it's silly. Completely misunderstood. Just saying.

Peace.

 

[Polymath257]

The ontological argument does not prove the existence of God.

But you have not even grasped a straw of the argument. It shows with your so called example of an ontological argument. You will know only if you follow through with your argument.

Please elucidate. What further can you add to the argument?

 

[firedragon]

Please elucidate. What further can you add to the argument?

Add to your argument about a dragon. Add, and see if that is the same as the ontological argument. You have not understood the ontological argument Poly.

 

[Polymath257]

Add to your argument about a dragon. Add, and see if that is the same as the ontological argument. You have not understood the ontological argument Poly.

Then please elucidate the differences. I don't see much to add in my argument about dragons. And I do see it as being the same, in essence, to the ontological argument.

 

[Link]

Salam

It's argument, but not in the sense that anything outside of God proves himself. In that sense, it's better to say it reminds of God's existence.

Some people say it's proof by definition, but this was a mistake by the original authors. It's not a concept. In reality, it should be said this way.

God is a living being. He can be witnessed. Some people doubt what they are seeing and say it exists in imagination as a concept (God). Others believe they see the real thing.

The ontological argument, says, when you recall God being Necessary, then you know aside from witnessing him directly, that he a stronger existence then just existing, he can't but exist.

Believers already see God, so this is just adds to their vision, that nothing can beside God and know that he is absolute and will increase in vision in certainty of him as the sky points to him with infinite pointers and the light emanates from him and back to him.

But for the atheist, he will say this too good to be true. This is like cheating. This is only because to him, God can't be proven and he holds on to irrational doubt. But if we look at God, he would see him living, existing, connected to him, and this would also add on top of that, that he can't be seen not to exist.

@firedragon Samad includes the ontology of Necessary but it's more then that, it includes the mystical reality that all things get their reality from God and somehow are found in God in perfect oneness, that God has every blessing, every glory, every beauty, every greatness possible that can descend to creation.

Samad is such a perfect word in Surah Ikhlaas, that itself is a miracle, as how it relates to Al-Hayu from point of existence and can be said to contain the ontological reminder or argument, it also has the "God is the light of the heavens and earth" truth contained in it, it also has the fact that God can't be repeated, and that he doesn't beget nor is begotten by virtue of being filled to the absolute endless degree.

It also because everything is found in God but not to God reality extent, shows everything get's it creation from God, is created in truth, and returns to God as it originates from the source and this happens at the same time.

It's such a perfect word, that I'm going to talk about in the signs of eloquence thread. Samad the most perfect word picked, so calculated, so beautiful, so encompassing, no word can substitute in a better way here.

And "Ahad" is better the "Wahid" in this state, since the ending would've been repetitive if "Wahad", we see the single use of "Ahad", one time only in Quran with respect to God, the best placement as well. Ahad is emphasizing God's singular simplicity, that he is not formed of parts or components.

Surah Ikhlas is a miracle for philosophers who believe in God for sure.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

It's argument, but not in the sense that anything outside of God proves himself. In that sense, it's better to say it reminds of God's existence.

Some people say it's proof by definition, but this was a mistake by the original authors. It's not a concept. In reality, it should be said this way.

God is a living being. He can be witnessed. Some people doubt what they are seeing and say it exists in imagination as a concept (God). Others believe they see the real thing.

The ontological argument, says, when you recall God being Necessary, then you know aside from witnessing him directly, that he a stronger existence then just existing, he can't but exist.

Believers already see God, so this is just adds to their vision, that nothing can beside God and know that he is absolute and will increase in vision in certainty of him as the sky points to him with infinite pointers and the light emanates from him and back to him.

But for the atheist, he will say this too good to be true. This is like cheating. This is only because to him, God can't be proven and he holds on to irrational doubt. But if we look at God, he would see him living, existing, connected to him, and this would also add on top of that, that he can't be seen not to exist.

@firedragon Samad includes the ontology of Necessary but it's more then that, it includes the mystical reality that all things get their reality from God and somehow are found in God in perfect oneness, that God has every blessing, every glory, every beauty, every greatness possible that can descend to creation.

Samad is such a perfect word in Surah Ikhlaas, that itself is a miracle, as how it relates to Al-Hayu from point of existence and can be said to contain the ontological reminder or argument, it also has the "God is the light of the heavens and earth" truth contained in it, it also has the fact that God can't be repeated, and that he doesn't beget nor is begotten by virtue of being filled to the absolute endless degree.

It also because everything is found in God but not to God reality extent, shows everything get's it creation from God, is created in truth, and returns to God as it originates from the source and this happens at the same time.

It's such a perfect word, that I'm going to talk about in the signs of eloquence thread. Samad the most perfect word picked, so calculated, so beautiful, so encompassing, no word can substitute in a better way here.

And "Ahad" is better the "Wahid" in this state, since the ending would've been repetitive if "Wahad", we see the single use of "Ahad", one time only in Quran with respect to God, the best placement as well. Ahad is emphasizing God's singular simplicity, that he is not formed of parts or components.

Surah Ikhlas is a miracle for philosophers who believe in God for sure.

What do you mean brother Wahad would've been repetitive?

 

[Link]

What do you mean brother Wahad would've been repetitive?

Salam

The last two verses imply it, especially the last one. That God is One/Unique (nothing is on par with him). So Ahad is a different fact, then the ending. It's about God's Sheer Essence reality being undivided single essence.

 

[Link]

Wahid in Quran is used to say there is no God but God (one God). But Ahad is used here I'm saying in a sense that is different then the fact "Nor is there anyone that is his par".

This shows how calculated words of Quran are.

It can be said the verses before "Samad" and after are all proven by the fact God is Samad. Samad also is used to prove God is a Single undivided essence or he would be formed of non-ultimate components or aspects and so this is about denying him attributes. In reality, God attributes are all one and the same thing in his essence, single, undivided.

It can be said while God is simple undivided reality, creation is the opposite. We are made of various "traits" that descend from God, and so to us, it's not the same.

But all this used to create his name to manifest himself. So we ultimately see wisdom of the choice of Adam and humans in manifesting God as well.

 

[Alien826]

Then please elucidate the differences. I don't see much to add in my argument about dragons. And I do see it as being the same, in essence, to the ontological argument.

Please reply to his question @firedragon. I ask because I feel you may have something substantive to offer. It seems to me that the Ontological argument is intended to apply only to "god", not Mickey Mouse, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or the like. That doesn't mean I disagree with @Polymath257 in general, but that I have a feeling @firedragon may have something interesting to add.

 

[Link]

Please reply to his question @firedragon. I ask because I feel you may have something substantive to offer. It seems to me that the Ontological argument is intended to apply only to "god", not Mickey Mouse, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or the like. That doesn't mean I disagree with @Polymath257 in general, but that I have a feeling @firedragon may have something interesting to add.

You are on to something. Yes, and I've made threads to show "God" -> "Necessary being" and "Necessary being" -> "God".

That the only candidate for Necessary existence is God. And that God by implication when we see what he is, is a Necessary being.

So you don't even have to start to prove why God is Necessary being.

In a thread. I start with the notion either a Necessary being is impossible or possible. But then rationalized why it has to be the Absolute Living Existence.

So the direction the ontological argument is "God" -> "Necessary being", but you can forget the notion of God and just start with what a Necessary being would be.

If a Necessary being lacked life to any degree, it would be possible that possible lives or even gods exist outside of it. Then that being doesn't exist in all possible worlds, and hence is not Necessary.

If it lacked a single blessing, then a blessing can exist without him, in some possible world.

If it lacked power to any degree, then in some possible world, a being can imagined to have all his power + that power, so would not be the necessary being.

So you can start with the necessary being.

The problem is a perfect Island would not be more perfect if necessary but in fact, it can't be by definition necessary.

Same with Spagheti Monster, etc.

So you can even start "If a Necessary being is possible, it exists" (what it possibly necessarily, is necessarily proven in model logic)

Then see if it is possible. Then see how it can be possible. The only way it's possible, is if God is the Necessary being.

And the only reason it's possible is because God is the Necessary being and Exists. It's impossible for to be possible, and not exist. This is what people have a hard time wrapping their heads around.

God can be seen to be necessary same way you can see a straight line is shortest distance between two lines as well. It doesn't have to be that much reasoned for because it's actually an obvious fact about him.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

The last two verses imply it, especially the last one. That God is One/Unique (nothing is on par with him). So Ahad is a different fact, then the ending. It's about God's Sheer Essence reality being undivided single essence.

Bro. The true meaning of Ahadhun is to say that God is singular. Wahid means one. But they can be used in exchange. Wahid can mean one only. As in "Only God". Or "God alone". Ahadhum means God is singular in all ways.

So you are right. But there is nothing about Wahid being repetitive.

 

[Link]

Bro. The true meaning of Ahadhun is to say that God is singular. Wahid means one. But they can be used in exchange. Wahid can mean one only. As in "Only God". Or "God alone". Ahadhum means God is singular in all ways.

So you are right. But there is nothing about Wahid being repetitive.

You are correct, but since the usage of Wahid through out Quran was about "no God but God", then a synonym that is different then the implication of the last verse, or last two verses, it can be said "Ahad" is better used here.

We would assume "Wahid" (even though can be about oneness of God's essence too) is about the same fact "there is nothing on par with him" (uniqueness in terms of divinity).

So Ahad appearing here uniquely, speaks volumes of wisdom. Something else is meant and it's as we agree, singular in all ways.

 

[Polymath257]

Please reply to his question @firedragon. I ask because I feel you may have something substantive to offer. It seems to me that the Ontological argument is intended to apply only to "god", not Mickey Mouse, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or the like. That doesn't mean I disagree with @Polymath257 in general, but that I have a feeling @firedragon may have something interesting to add.

Sure, it is usually used only to prove the existence of God. But if the argument is valid, it should apply to other things as well.

The fact that it does not shows that the argument itself is invalid.

 

[Link]

In other words, picking a different word even though synonymous makes so much sense here. Not only does is rhyme better, but we think about God's Singularity and Sheer oneness in essence. But if it used Wahed, we would assume it meant the same thing that word was used through out even though can have same meaning technically.

 

[Link]

Sure, it is usually used only to prove the existence of God. But if the argument is valid, it should apply to other things as well.

The fact that it does not shows that the argument itself is invalid.

Your posts show you never understood the OP or any of the ontological arguments really.

I addressed the predicate issue and explained this already. Why it applies to God uniquely, and done so in many threads.