I've explained in many times, but you repeat the same questions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
I've explained in many times, but you repeat the same questions.
No, you have not explained at all. You merely rearranged meaningless words in a different way. So I ask the question again to explain precisely what you mean.
In particular, the questions I asked in my post have never been answered.
What do you mean by the term 'possible world'?
What makes you think there is a mind in every possible world?
What makes you think there is life in every possible world?
Why is a world with only a single piece of cheese NOT a possible world?
Answer these without assuming your conclusion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Just question with humility.
Mathematical fact is a philosophical term, not a mathematical term. So you don't know about it. That's fine. But rather than making such large posts with irrelevant things, just clarify. You will never lose anything. Anyway, Ill give you an example. absolutely simple. No big mathematical problem.
All humans are mortal, Polymath is human. Thus Polymath is mortal.
Well, then, please define what philosophers mean by the term 'mathematical fact'.
Please also give references showing your definition is accepted among philosophers.
That you consider my posts to be irrelevant simply shows you haven't thought about anything in modern math.
If a necessary being is impossible - you can say there are possible worlds without God. If God exists, then no possible world can exist without him.
So if the ontology of him being necessary proves he exists, it's also proven no possible world can exist without him.
And this should be easy for people of who are of Abrahamic faiths to believe. We don't believe it just happens to be there is One God. If there were possible worlds without God, there can exist gods aside from God.
But we believe his existence doesn't allow that. It's not just that gods don't exist aside from God, it's that it's impossible. The same arguments for one God are actually rephrasing the ontological argument with respect to gods existing. But with thought of with respect to existence, it shows he exists definitely and is the Necessary truth by which all truths including moral and logical truths are found upon.
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you should speak for your self.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe a person has to conceive of God to experience Him otherwise one just chalks it up to indigestion as Scrooge states in The Christmas Carol.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Last edited:
As for the first premise, God has to see there are no possible worlds without him or else, there is no way to know.
But we don't only make use of his witnessing vision to know he is God and One, we also make use of it for logical truths, and moral truths and even for beauty (which has math equations that tell you things objectively about it).
But we don't only make use of his witnessing vision to know he is God and One, we also make use of it for logical truths, and moral truths and even for beauty (which has math equations that tell you things objectively about it).
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe when I was young God existed as a concept, now He exists as reality.
I believe God may not be known fully but He can be known sufficiently.
The Ontological Argument requires that God can be known fully.
God is a witness to himself being One, and we witness then through himself, as do God's Angels and those possessing knowledge (Prophets and Imams and holy chosen ladies), and so the way to know him is to make use of his light that emanates from him about himself.
We can't see beyond God's Name which is his greatest title which is his living world of light, but it happens to be sky light reality has infinite pointers traveling and pointing back to the source, and receiving constantly infinite beauties and glories and lights from the source.
Now let me explain how that has to do with us knowing he is necessary aside from just knowing like know God is good, beautiful, great, from making use of God's light and looking the source from a distance.
God's greatest sign and sky has no holes from horizontal side of God's absoluteness, we can see no "holes" and so perfectly manifests infinite attributes. Horizontally, it's proven there is nothing God lacks. The highest sky (7th heaven), also, all infinite attributes that appear descending and differently within the lower heavens and earths, are also somehow at singular funnel point, a center point, this point also points to God, that point shows God is absolute Size as well and is returning to it. Without God as the Absolute Being, there is no direction towards God, no ascending of light, no descending of blessings, thus God's sustenance and in the sky is what we are promised, proves he is the absolute being.
So I'm saying, the ontological argument should not be an end. It should make people want to see God's sky and sustenance and lights of his face, and see him beyond just attributes we give to him (all good, all wise, etc).
There lies the highest signs which bring the highest certainty. God's sustenance is also higher and better, and is the main reward of the next world.
If you're trying to relate this back to the Ontological Argument, then you're begging the question.
If you start with the assumption that God exists, then you can't demonstrate that God exists.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I can think of a possible world where God doesn't exist. So, how is God necessary?
The ontological argument is not really a traditional way of arguing. Usually, an argument has premises leading to conclusion. In the case of ontological arguments, it's more of a reminder.
This is because the first premise the conclusion is asserted (hiddenly) and all the argument does it explains why witnessing that attribute proves he exists. Yet if you witness it, it's real, and proves he exists.
So what are we to do. If God is a proof for himself and emanates light that he is the light of all, and he is the light of all light, we can't make without him.
Even knowing he is necessary, is not making use of anything but his light. He is a proof also of what things are. You and I, are defined with respect to his judgment, his judgment is light, the light is not other then him.
No, you did not. You have mentioned 'mathematical fact' in three posts:
post #66, you expressed surprise that I didn't know what a mathematical fact is.
post #69, you expressed surprise that I don't know what a mathematical fact is.
post #84, where you state that the term 'mathematical fact' is a philosophical term and not a mathematical one.
In NONE of these did you define the term 'mathematical fact'.
That is, at best an *example* of a mathematical fact, and not the *definition* of the term.
But let's probe into this a bit more. You have not defined your terms: 3,5,8,+,=. Those terms only make sense inside of an axiom system. Which axiom system are you choosing to even be able to state that as a fact in that system? Do you even know their definitions?
Again, your 'kindergarten philosophy' (your term) needs to be updated.
Again, at best and example, but not a definition. But I would bet that you cannot prove this statement even if you get to choose your axioms. I would even suspect that you don't know the axioms required to prove it.
Seems like this is a roundabout way to agree that the Ontological Argument fails.
Word salad.
It fails to some, benefits others. Just as his holy books.