/lit/ - Literature

If one would analyze and properly define the terms we come to deal with in every day life, one can prove the existence of God deductively, as a necessary conclusion from the inherent truth that results as an interplay of the terms. If the definitions are correct then the apparent consequences should follow.
Existence - Substantiality, which is simply a continuous and pure presence. Existing is an action, state and attribute. Existence is the underlying substratum to all phenomena. If there were something more basic than existence or it were not the most basic form of itself, then you could rewrite the rules of existence and have something becoming nothing or nothing becoming something.
Reality - The entirety and totality of all existence. Reality is one, as in it is singular and there is only this reality. Reality is whole, as in all of existence is integrated together with itself.
Phenomena - An individuated thing or a separate aspect of reality. Phenomena can be actions, places, or objects. Every possible conception is of either one or many phenomena.
Idea - The pure form, informational constitution or design itself of phenomena. The function of ideas is that they are applicable. Ideas can apply to singular phenomena, or groups of phenomena. Ideas can apply to one another forming complex patterns of ideas.

>>11543690
Awkward

Existence is the most fundamental truth of reality. All other truths are dependent upon this truth. Existence itself must have it's own truth. What is the manner in which existence exists? It must have a design, which means it must be based upon an idea. The truth of existence is that it must be its own material idea of itself.
The idea of existence as it functions in relation to itself is very simple. The idea of existence applies to itself, and is given it's form by itself. This would imply an eternal causal chain of infinite ideas of existence. Then because reality is whole, each idea of existence applies to every idea of existence and this application would naturally go both ways. All the ideas of existence are within every idea of existence and contain every idea of existence.
Then because reality is a singular unity composed of existence, the idea of the whole thing applies to itself. Reality knows itself. The process reiterates, except this time the whole is informed of its informative process. Reality knows that it knows, or in other words is given Awareness and subsequently Bliss(the harmony of self-knowing).
Now, because the awareness knows all of itself and is everywhere within itself, this awareness spreads throughout the whole, with a new measure of this awareness arising at each point of its previous state of awareness. The unity has multiplied itself by itself in addition to its original self. The process continues, with a new measure of awareness arising at each point of awareness at its preceding state of expansion. The process continues infinitely producing an eternal and infinite expansion of infinite existence-awareness-bliss

>>11543690
wow, i can tell people i was there when it happened. thanks anon, you truly outsmarted every philosopher in the history of all time

Your welcome.
I am disappointed /lit/. From my perspective the concepts add up magnificently. It is unfortunate that there is no one to share in the brilliance with.

can I get a tldr?

>mfw I don't have to prove the existence of god because I have faith

>>11543829
Essentially pic related

>>11543829
If you consider the composition of existence as an idea within itself, then this leads to existence possessing an awareness of itself, which becomes infinitely exponential.

>>11543824
don’t be disappointed—it’s not the board that’s shit, it’s this argument. you essentially establish a recursive relationship between existence and existence, and then imply that since one existence becomes aware, the others follow suit in a domino-like fashion. I’m not sure about that.
Also, the idea that existence must have a design, so it must be based upon an idea, is unfounded, as far as I can tell from the post

>muh antropocentric phenomenology
This post sounds like and probably was made by a high schooler. Sage

>>11543833
even if you believe there is a higher power responsible for creating all there is, what makes you think he's good? what makes you think he's all forgiving? what makes you believe he actually cares about you and will let you live eternal bliss after you die?

>>11543887
You can either have faith in this God or faith in an indifferent God. If you have to choose one, why not pick the one most beneficial to you?

>>11543903
how do you just choose to believe something?

>>11543907
Faith retard

>>11543903
wouldn't picking the most beneficial mean you can be selfish as fuck during your lifetime and count on His endless mercy?

>>11543907
Because the alternative is even harder to believe

>>11543917
Yeah, but “living selfish” usually has negative consequences, so any sane person wouldn’t want that lifestyle regardless.

>>11543916
no i genuinely dont get it at all, whta i believe is conditioned by what makes sense to me, usually in conflict with what i would like to be real, but i am compulsively obsessive about rooting out that part of me

>>11543852
>it’s not the board that’s shit, it’s this argument
Its both.

>>11543926
What makes sense to you is completely subjective. You have to have faith to believe any objective reality exists because our perceptions of the universe are flawed thus we cannot experience objective truth.

>>11543930
u right

>>11543946
>You have to have faith to believe any objective reality exists
i know im in a state of constant panic about this, i switch back and forth between this kind of empirical mindset, and a very mystic mindset, like 30 times a day

>>11543692
>existing is an action, state and attribute
explicate the meaningful difference of these three claimed variants of existence's-description

>existence is the underlying substratum to all phenomenon
don't call it a substratum. Russell did (re: Leibniz) and was flat wrong.

>reality is one
reconcile this for me with your prior claim of a plurality of substances. How are there more than one substance if the reality of a substance is one, undifferentiable from the next substance's? How does this allow for any differences between substances if each's reality is the one reality?

>individuated thing or separate aspect of reality
how is it separated. how are we now making exceptions for separate and individuated things in contrast to the one reality which it's claimed to come from?

>phenomena can be actions
>existing is an action
>existing is therefore a phenomenon
is this a conclusion you're really intending to give in your clumsy language?

>every possible conception
what kind of conception? mathematical? imaginary? is there a difference?

>the design itself of phenomena
why are you privileging phenomena so much? Doesn't the "pure form" designate the action/state/attribute of substances? Which arises in a phenomenon? Maybe you aren't reaching this conclusion because you're so obviously without a grip on your own terminology.

garbage philosophy, quality shitpost 10/10 bait

>>11543699
>existence itself must have it's own truth.
justify this claim. you're claiming ai priori knowledge has ontological existence. explain this instead of running ahead the rest of the post on such an erroneous claim.

>>11543690

>>11543690
what if I tell you that my belief in no god is an existence in and of itself? check m8 fagot

>>11544072
>implying that evil to humans is evil to God
>implying that atheists wouldn’t still doubt God’s omnipotence if only good existed

>>11544086
what use would it be to believe in a deity with a sense of morality different from our own?

>>11543852
It is not that one bit of existence is becoming aware and then subsequently others do, it is that reality as a whole comes to know itself which is based upon the informative process or the pattern of the application of ideas.

Well, if you think about it, if it does have a design then there is an idea behind it, which the same could be said of anything. If there is an idea behind existence, then what would that be and how would it function? For there to be a logic(interior coherence) of an idea of existence, it must function as a material idea.

>>11544102
>>11544102
God may recognize that we can experience evil, but God does not have the have same desires as humans. We desire to exist, and in such a way that promises our future existence. God is doing the same, and the existence of both good and evil are fulfilling his creative nature. If he were only able to create a world in which organisms never experienced evil, he wouldn’t be omnipotent. Maybe there are infinite variations of worlds out there, but either way, you cannot question God’s power by observing this world alone. I believe in this God because I want to embolden its existence. Not only is my existence furthering God’s will of being, but also my acknowledgement of his being. The long path of self-understanding ends at me, and my existence after this life will no longer be in chains, while all who disbelieve will remain in this world, until they are finally forced to become aware of God.

>>11544052
The distinction is irrelevant. but action -> doing something(I am!), state -> condition of something(his existence was flooded with sorrow), attribute -> quality of something(the existence of quarks was questioned)

Why shouldn't it be considered a substratum? How else do phenomena interact with one another?

Reality has different forms, but they are one and the same reality. The Logos is the Divine Idea of God. Because God is everything, the Logos is also God.

Existing is an aspect of a complex reality.


It is difficult to describe pure form without a relation to something. The idea of an idea.

>>11544072
*snap*

Ontological proofs for god are only valid as a thought experiment. If you are clever enough with your words you can twist meaning to make anything true. To do so for your own vanity is only a form of intellectual masturbation. What you can ontologically prove and what observably is are not one in the same. To say orherwise is intellectually dishonest or wishful at best, and deceptive at worst.
Fuck you.

>>11544072
>Evil exists
"no"

>>11544408

>>11544408
So the room right next to you doesn't exist because you aren't observing it? How about the entire thought process in which you considered the question of ontological proof and came up with a response?

>existence thinks, therefore it am
>and so am everything else too
Genius.

>>11543690

No you haven't.