Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation

[Polymath257]

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.

Once again, please define what you mean by the term 'possible world'.

For example, why is a world that has only a piece of cheese not possible?

So if the ontology of him being necessary proves he exists, it's also proven no possible world can exist without him.

And if the ontology of a magon proves such exist, then no possible world can exist without magons.

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.

Yes, you *believe* this. But you have not offered a proof for these beliefs. You reject them for no reason other than your previous assumptions, which you have not justified.

 

[Polymath257]

It fails to some, benefits others. Just as his holy books.

In other words, confirmation bias. Not a proof or even an argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It fails to some, benefits others. Just as his holy books.

IOW, regardless of whether a person presumes that it's true or false, this creates no congitive dissonance in their worldview that they need to resolve. This is the mark of a claim that has no bearing on the real world.

What you describe here doesn't fit with something that's objectively, demonstrably true.

 

[Link]

In other words, confirmation bias. Not a proof or even an argument.

I would say it's so direct, it can't even be said to be a proof or argument. It's more of a direct reminder. It's explaining why we can't imagine God not existing by virtue of what he is. But if God doesn't exist, this is impossible to see and conceive of. Therefore a believer will only believe in God's Oneness by looking at him, while everyone else, will continue when reminded of his oneness to flee and not accept it.

 

[firedragon]

No, you did not. You have mentioned 'mathematical fact' in three posts:

Lol. Read the post. I gave an example. After that I gave another example.

No problem. Ill type them out again.

1. Humans are mortal. Poly is human. Poly is mortal
2. 3+5=8

Enough?

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.

Read up. A little. Shed your self worship. A tad bit of humility is super.

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.

Oh your super highness. Today I shall not obey thy command.

 

[Polymath257]

I would say it's so direct, it can't even be said to be a proof or argument. It's more of a direct reminder. It's explaining why we can't imagine God not existing by virtue of what he is. But if God doesn't exist, this is impossible to see and conceive of. Therefore a believer will only believe in God's Oneness by looking at him, while everyone else, will continue when reminded of his oneness to flee and not accept it.

I'm not 'fleeing'. I simply don't see anything when I look.

 

[Link]

IOW, regardless of whether a person presumes that it's true or false, this creates no congitive dissonance in their worldview that they need to resolve. This is the mark of a claim that has no bearing on the real world.

What you describe here doesn't fit with something that's objectively, demonstrably true.

God is not going to be agreed upon. That's the nature of good and evil. Evil runs from God, good runs towards God.

It is what it is, you can call it "not objective" etc, but it's never going to happen, unless the Qaim rises and succeeds, that all intellectuals are going to agree upon God.

 

[Link]

I'm not 'fleeing'. I simply don't see anything when I look.

Look behind you then, maybe. It's about direction after all, if we direct ourselves to the sky and God, we will see him.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol. Read the post. I gave an example. After that I gave another example.

No problem. Ill type them out again.

1. Humans are mortal. Poly is human. Poly is mortal
2. 3+5=8

Enough?

The first is not a mathematical fact. At best, it is a logical argument.

The second might be a mathematical fact in some axiom system, but you need to state what system you are using.

No, it isn't even close to being 'enough'. I asked for a definition and you gave one irrelevant example and one that is unsupported.

Read up. A little. Shed your self worship. A tad bit of humility is super.

I have read a great deal. And I am currently in conversation with you. So what is the definition *you* use? At least then we can talk about the same thing.

Oh your super highness. Today I shall not obey thy command.

No command. Just a request so we can actually have a meaningful conversation.

But I may be mistaken that you want such.

 

[Polymath257]

Look behind you then, maybe. It's about direction after all, if we direct ourselves to the sky and God, we will see him.

Really? What I see are stars, planets, the sun, a blue sky, maybe clouds.

No deities seen there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is not going to be agreed upon. That's the nature of good and evil. Evil runs from God, good runs towards God.

"Why do people disagree with me? It can't be because my arguments are junk; they must just be evil people."

It is what it is, you can call it "not objective" etc, but it's never going to happen, unless the Qaim rises and succeeds, that all intellectuals are going to agree upon God.

Is there anything else in the world - other than a subjective preference or claims that absolutely no implications for our lives - where two people can have completely opposite opinions that work equally well?

 

[Link]

Really? What I see are stars, planets, the sun, a blue sky, maybe clouds.

No deities seen there.

By sky, I mean heaven. By heaven, I don't mean paradise.

 

[firedragon]

The first is not a mathematical fact. At best, it is a logical argument.

Mathematical fact, is a philosophical term. Not mathematics. So a logical argument like that is the definition of a mathematical fact. It's called a universal truth which means it's true anywhere.

I have read a great deal.

Read a bit more.

No command. Just a request so we can actually have a meaningful conversation.

Done already.

To have a meaningful conversation, people need to find a little bit of humility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look behind you then, maybe. It's about direction after all, if we direct ourselves to the sky and God, we will see him.

You may see those things, but this isn't universal.

Sounds like you're just so unquestioningly deep into your particular brand of theism that you can't even relate to other viewpoints.

 

[Link]

Is there anything else in the world

There is so much more, and the sky is filled with lights that when gazed upon, that is the household of the reminder visited by Angels and believers, and they lead to God in the unseen journey in ways you can't imagine and appreciate till you go on that journey.

The leader of our time is a connection between heaven and earth but he can't force it, if he forces it while your soul is averse, there will be consequences and guidance will become almost if not impossible.

 

[Link]

You may see those things, but this isn't universal.

Sounds like you're just so unquestioningly deep into your particular brand of theism that you can't even relate to other viewpoints.

When truth is seen, it should be held to, because leaving it would mean leaving knowledge for falsehood. The deeper you go, the harder it is to relate to falsehood and illusionary world. I don't enjoy video games even anymore, not movies, and food is meh too me as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is so much more, and the sky is filled with lights that when gazed upon, that is the household of the reminder visited by Angels and believers, and they lead to God in the unseen journey in ways you can't imagine and appreciate till you go on that journey.

The leader of our time is a connection between heaven and earth but he can't force it, if he forces it while your soul is averse, there will be consequences and guidance will become almost if not impossible.

Please don't do that.

Chopping off someone's quote mid-sentence to change its meaning is dishonest.

 

[Polymath257]

Mathematical fact, is a philosophical term. Not mathematics. So a logical argument like that is the definition of a mathematical fact. It's called a universal truth which means it's true anywhere.

So every statement that is true everywhere is a mathematical truth? That seems to be your definition.

So, are physical laws examples of mathematical facts? They hold everywhere.

Read a bit more.

So you don't want to support your claims? OK, I guess they can be ignored.

Done already.

To have a meaningful conversation, people need to find a little bit of humility.

And how much have you shown? You have stated I don't understand without showing what my error is. You have stated that I am wrong without showing how. I have asked you to provide definitions and you have not done so. I have asked you what you think I misunderstand and you have refused to say.

Maybe you need to exhibit some humility as well?

 

[Polymath257]

By sky, I mean heaven. By heaven, I don't mean paradise.

OK, in which direction is heaven? Can you point to it? Because I have NO idea which direction it would be.

 

[firedragon]

So every statement that is true everywhere is a mathematical truth?

No. What you just did is called affirming the consequent. Logically fallacious.

So you don't want to support your claims? OK, I guess they can be ignored.

Sure thy highness.

And how much have you shown? You have stated I don't understand without showing what my error is. You have stated that I am wrong without showing how. I have asked you to provide definitions and you have not done so. I have asked you what you think I misunderstand and you have refused to say.

Maybe you need to exhibit some humility as well?

Read the simple explanation with a little bit of humility and you will surely understand.