/lit/ - Literature

>>18100046
>time
Busted

>>18100046
Aside from the fact that ontological arguments are always sophistry, words games and beg the question, your version has no logical connection between steps 3 and 4

>>18100046
1. A being, by definition, cannot not-be. (if she stops being she's no longer a being)
2. There is a being who can not-be; this is impossible.
3. Therefore, the contrary is true; there is no being who can not-be.
4. Therefore, there is a being who cannot not-be, this is, a necessary being.
5. There is a case in which the being who cannot not-be, is not; this is impossible.
6. Therefore, the contrary is true; this being who cannot not-be must be in every time, in every extension, in every knowledge, and in every mode.
7. My Waifu, the necessary being, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent exists. uwu

>>18100046
Define "to be"

>7. God, the necessary being, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent exists.
Doesn’t follow

Nope, gotta write it in autismo notation

Ǝb ∉ O

Go from here please

>>18100874
O

it's like whack-a-mole with these bozos. you keep smacking them and they just keep coming for more

>>18100046
That's kinda complicated bro, in my mind it's more like this
>everything exists
>if there is a God, then it was all created with a purpose
>if there is no God, then everything was randomly created but not randomly working or existing (eg. lungs are good for taking air, food exists and our stomachs exist for it, when you make a baby, everything fits, sperm goes directly to make a baby, the eyes exist solely for seeing)
If there is no God how did nature know how to do all of this? That's what stops me from becoming an atheist. I can't belive nature blindly wrote everything in existence, nor that the universe always existed, that is an even more absurd belief than beliving everything is a coincidence. It doesn't make sense for anything to ever exist except for a God.
I mean of course it would be possible, but then we're back to the concious design argument. I understand you are open to the posibility that there could be an eternal transcendent force that is omnipotent and always existed and created everything but is unconcious and did everything unconciously and for no reason, unlike God who has the same qualities except he is concious and created everything with a purpose. I mean seriously, look around you and think all of this coming from nothing or no intelligence at all. Also
>nothing can come out of nothing
>therefore we came from something eternal
>that eternal being created everything and is omnipotent
>nothing happens for no reason
>therefore that eternal being is a concious one who willed everything into existence with a purpose and not randomly since every single thing in existence contains information and has meaning and if that being wasn't concious, then every single thing's existent information written in it that makes it work was coincidentally and individually random, leading up to trillions of billions of coincidences just within a single thing
Meditate on what I wrote and you will cure your atheism

>>18100046
The universe always existing doesn't make sense because then we're not just talking about one thing always existing, but rather about every single thing in existence always existing, being laid down just perfect, doesn't the big bang prove everything had a beginning? It's one thing for the first cause to always exist rather than each and every single thing in our universe always existing, that means that the universe is without cause or without reason.

>>18100046
here is the correct, non judeo chrisitan non intellectual view
As he was sitting there, Ven. Rādha said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Rādha: When one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be 'a being [satta].'

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Rādha: When one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'"

— SN 23.2

>>18100917
>If there is no God how did nature know how to do all of this?
I don’t know, how did the first makers of tools make those without anyone showing them? Trial and error. Nature simply tries out every possible option, and keeps whatever works. Simple as that

>>18100917
You are right. Everything pullulates with intelligibility, with information and reason. Atheists will cope hard saying it is laws of physics and it somehow just is what it is, but then again they just end up affirming this precise point: that everything was set in a reasonable way. And yes, intelligibility cannot come out of nothing and refer to nothing other than Intellect.

>>18100972
How does it differentiate what works and what does not work? Why are these things not indistinct to it but knows what distinction is? Does it have a Will toward what works? Are you presupposing a biological teleology?

>>18100979
>Atheists will cope hard saying it is laws of physics and it somehow just is what it is, but then again they just end up affirming this precise point: that everything was set in a reasonable way.
Breathing and eating through the same hole is reasonable? Having something that can cause you to choke to death is smart?

>>18100972
>how did conscious and rational beings made tools?
>see it is just like nature but without any of that which enables one to keep trying and knowing what works or not!
You people are so dishonest desperation cries in everything you say.

>>18100990
>How does it differentiate what works and what does not work?
If it doesn’t work, it dies out
>Why are these things not indistinct to it but knows what distinction is?
It doesn’t know, nor does it need to know
>Does it have a Will toward what works?
Probably not, what work just remains intact
>Are you presupposing a biological teleology?
No, because none of this tells us what this is alive for, just that what’s better adapted tends to survive more often

>>18101009
>>see it is just like nature but without any of that which enables one to keep trying and knowing what works or not!
Do you know what death is? Are creationists all this retarded?

>>18100979
laws of physics are descriptive, not explanatory. the fact that nature is any particular way at all goes against pure reason. nature is in no way intelligible, only percieveable

>>18100994
>there is no particular intelligibility in the complex corporeal processes.
You are really retarded and if you lie even to yourself, how can we talk to you about it?

>>18101025
>incoherent jargon means I’m right
Lolno

>>18101010
>if one thing does not work, it tries another
>it does not know nor it ford it need to know anything about identity, sameness and difference
Try formulating something coherent before coming here.

>>18101032
>what challenged my world view (and my own intelligence) is incoherent
Now you are being coherent to your kind, at least.

1. A being, by definition, cannot not-be. (if he stops being he's no longer a being)
2. There is a being who can not-be; this is impossible.
3. Therefore, the contrary is true; there is no being who can not-be.
4. Therefore, there is a being who cannot not-be, this is, a necessary being.
5. There is a case in which the being who cannot not-be, is not; this is impossible.
6. Therefore, the contrary is true; this being who cannot not-be must be in every time.
7. A chair is a being.
8. Premises 1 to 6 must apply to every being, including chairs
9.A chair, a necessary being, eternal, omnipresent, exists.

>>18101039
>>it does not know nor it ford it need to know anything about identity, sameness and difference
It doesn’t. If it doesn’t work, it dies, simple as that

>>18100972
>nature tries literally every single option that exists until it gets the right one
I don't know but that just sounds like bullshit to me. You got any proof to back up your claim?

>>18101042
I don’t even know whether it did, because what you posted was meaningless gibberish

>>18101020
Any descriptive information refers to its own informational character, that is what makes it knowable.
>nature is not intelligible
>it is perceivable
Lmao I’m glad I won’t need to waste my time with you because you just showed how you have no idea about what you are talking and much less about what I am trying to tell you.

>>18101050
>You got any proof to back up your claim?
Yes, 99 percent of all life that ever lived that’s now extinct. When they die, they occasionally leave fossils behind, and we never find modern species within ancient layers

>>18101046
What dies? Nature?

>>18101062
No, lifeforms and species

>>18101051
So you admit you reject what you don’t even understand. As I said you people are desperate.

>>18101064
And how does their death affect nature? Is nature aware of what dies?

>>18101060
Not what I asked you, I asked for proof specifically for that force that chaotically tries to create life left and right until it got everything right in order to create life. The force or law or whatever you call it that created those 99% of dead species, I want you to show me proof that it exists, not just that it's the most logical explanation

>>18101075
>And how does their death affect nature?
That depends on what you mean by nature. If you mean life itself, then the effect of death is highly plasticity to the environment that life finds itself in
>Is nature aware of what dies?
Considering we have nothing indicating any conscious will behind this, probably not

>>18101071
>So you admit you reject what you don’t even understand.
No, I have nothing to reject, because what you wrote in that post in unintelligible horseshit

>>18101078
>I asked for proof specifically for that force that chaotically tries to create life left and right until it got everything right in order to create life.
That’s just the result of the laws of physics interacting with each other, to produce evolution by means of natural selection. I guess the biggest driving force would be time

>>18101093
>if you mean life itself, then the effect of death is highly plasticity to...
So it affects and makes nature change to a different action/pattern.

>nature is probably not aware of what affects it to change its pattern of action

Can you now explain how you reconcile both things you said?

>>18101043
>>18100502
No! NO! NOOOOOOOO! Don't you understand?! This ONLY applies to God! Everything else is unnecessary! You HAVE to get your cockhead cut off! This PROVES that the Bible is true! You can't use this for anything other than God!

>>18101097
Wait, wait. You are literally saying that you understand how nature operates but that there is no intelligibility in it at all but what I told you, which you did not understand, is unintelligible?
Woah

>>18101104
>So it affects and makes nature change to a different action/pattern.
No, it makes lifeforms change, not nature. This is why you should define what you mean by ‘nature’, because that could also involve the laws of physics, which as far as we know don’t change

>>18101102
What are these laws? Since you said laws in the plural, I see there are different laws. What made these laws to be different before their operation in the world’s constitution?

>>18101108
But if lifeforms die what makes them change? You told us above that it is nature that tries things out. So when I say that it is nature that changes its action I’m not saying that nature changes itself.

>>18101107
>You are literally saying that you understand how nature operates
I have literally never stated this anywhere, feel free to quote me if I did
>but that there is no intelligibility in it at all
In the process of evolution, intelligence is indeed completely unnecessary
>but what I told you, which you did not understand, is unintelligible?
Yes, because that’s your post I was referring to, not the subject I was discussing. How do creationists always manage to be smug and retarded at the same time? You’re talking about two completely different things here, namely the subject we’re discussing, and your completely incoherent ramblings that mean jackshit. Those are unintelligible, as I told you. Is that so hard to understand?

>>18101113
Not the guy, but are you retarded?
He just said
>the laws of physics

>>18101113
>What are these laws?
The laws of physics
>What made these laws to be different before their operation in the world’s constitution?
They don’t differ, they simply interact with one another, such as gravity with time, which makes an object fall. I really don’t see how this is supposed to be hard

>>18101123
>But if lifeforms die what makes them change?
Entropy, or the passage of time. You can observe any clock to see this

>>18101150
>>18101150
>Entropy, or the passage of time.
so 2 mental construct made up by atheists?

>>18101102
How do immaterial laws influence matter?

>>18101132
>quote me
Here: >>18100972, “Nature simply [does what you said]” and that it is “simples as that”.
>there is no intelligibility in a process
I think you don’t know what either of these words mean.

You are telling me that there is a difference between intelligibility and unintelligibility. The former applies to what you are saying in this thread (otherwise you wouldn’t be even writing about it) and the latter to what I am saying (that is basically that there is intelligibility in the processes you are saying are devoid of intelligibility).
Should I even keep going or it is already obvious how insane you are?

>>18101150
Ok entropy. Is entropy nature or a process of nature? Or is entropy separated from nature? Is it a law that makes nature change its behavior to another attempt?

>>18101141
>>18101140
So laws of physics are laws of physics. The different laws that interact with each other (for if they were the same there would be no interaction at all because this is what the term implies INTER (between, mutual) + action - I recommend checking the term in a dictionary too!) are not different.
Brilliant!

>>18100046
I love how you managed to make the argument even worse by adding even more non-sequiturs (why would necessity imply omnipresence and omnipotence?)

>>18101197
Are you asking how necessary existence implies omnipresence?

>>18101210
Yes. Let me guess, it's due to some definition?

>>18101210
>chairs are omnipresent
Hm... Interesting argument...

>>18101339
I love how he added the "omnipresent" part (and also "omniscient" and "omnipotent") just to avoid che chair objection, but he still did not bother to justify why necessity would entail it. What a sloppy metaphysician!

>>18100046
This is so tiresome and already resolved, ontological argument is flawed and clinging onto it is just a cope. It's not a proof of God's existence, it's a proof of God's necessary existence IF God existed; read carefully 3rd and 4th line, and also notice how the 4th line doesn't prove the existence of a necessary being, it just proves that IF something is, THEN it necessarily is (rather than isn't, because a being cannot not-be). This is not the same as somethhing being a "necessary being", in fact this is just Parmenides' position on being and non-being (being is and non-being isn't - being is necessarily being [present continuous, as in, continuing to be, and continuing to be something, but this doesn't mean that everything that is, is like that necessarily].

Existence is not a predicate.

>>18101339
>chairs are necessary

>>18101329
It is in the very term you question its implications.

>>18101368
But it does not presupposes God, it presupposes what God is which coincides with what the argument shows.
Indeed not all things are what it is but precisely because they are not what that being is essentially.

>>18101431
It is of all other things that are not what being is itself.

>>18100502
So you changed the word “God” to “waifu” while keeping the properties of “God”. This is a meaningless change and argument

>>18101442
>>chairs are necessary
Yes, since they are a being (otherwise there would be no chairs; but we know that there are chairs), and according to P1 a being cannot not-be. Of course this conclusion is evidently false, which is why your argument does not work.
>It is in the very term you question its implications.
Omnipotence is not entailed by the predicate "necessary being", nor is omniscience (or personality, if that matters). For something to be a necessary being means only that that something cannot not-be. Other ontological arguments can account for this inference through the concept of contingency, which is suppressed by then P1 of your argument.

>>18101522
Chairs are not being itself. Try thinking about a being in what being is in itself. It is universal and not particular. Chairs are beings in dependence to what is always being.

The argument does not try to show omnipotence but omnipresence.

>>18101577
You have not talked about "being in itself", you've talked about "a being". At that point you get a whole new set of problems anyway, namely that being-in-itself is a completely indeterminate concept, and as such you cannot attribute personality to it without turning it into a determinate being: omniscience and omnipotence would be out of the picture (and omnibenevolence too!), leaving you with completeley indeterminate omnipresence only.
Basically, 7) would turn into "Being, the necessary being, eternal and omnipresent, exists".
Also it is not true that the argument in the OP aimed to establish omnipresence only: check it again.

Moreover P1 is extremely dubious too. Sure, a being cannot not-be, but is it really so obvious that it cannot stop being? When something has stopped being we don't have to claim that a being is not-being: we're negating the being altogether, we are not predicting anything of it (in other terms, there is no being left that could not-be).

>>18101431
If it is not a predicate in the case of Being itself then the existence of Being itself (and all it is) is already manifest. Either you accept the argument in OP or you reject it for it is superfluous.

>>18101662
A being is a being, it is not a chair. Being is not indeterminate, it is universal.
The argument does not try to show its omniscience, omnipotence or personality, just its omnipresence. But you think getting the part for the whole is a refutation of any kind.
Finally you are trying to cope with ''what if a being could at some point not be'' that is exactly what Being and the argument in OP refutes.
Try again.

>>18101733
>A being is a being, it is not a chair. Being is not indeterminate, it is universal
I guess you missed 2000 years of metaphysics. The concept of being-in-itself has to be an empty (or indeterminate) concept, otherwise it would be a determinate being (and as such, not being-in-itself).
>The argument does not try to show its omniscience, omnipotence or personality, just its omnipresence
Literally reread 6) and 7).
>But you think getting the part for the whole is a refutation of any kind
It is a refutation, since without those predicates you have individuated only abstract being, and not God.
>Finally you are trying to cope with ''what if a being could at some point not be'' that is exactly what Being and the argument in OP refutes.
Nope, this is what OP merely asserts. As I have pointed out he offered no justification for that premise.

>>18101102
You do realise that you're saying it's trying universally everything, right? It literally creates organs and not only that but 2 sexes, not only that, but then they can link their sexual organs and reproduce, you're saying there are just that many options that happen in order for this to happen, that is mad, where does that process even happen? Also, how was it able to create both the male and female at the right time if it's trying so many posibilities and getting so few right? Why would it even do anything in the first place, why doesn't that happen anymore?

>>18101806
You are confunsing being with matter. Being is universal and it is what it is. it cannot be what matter is like in Timaeus (empty, as you said).

>reread
Just did now what?

>without those predicates
but OP is just one proof of its basic property, that Being is and cannot not-be (that is, cannot stop being what it is and cannot be what other things are).

>this is what OP merely asserts
No that is what OP literally refutes.
>No justification
He did in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Who cares about arguments for or against God, lol.

>>18101837
>You are confunsing being with matter. Being is universal and it is what it is. it cannot be what matter is like in Timaeus (empty, as you said).
I don't think you know what indeterminate means. Also for Plato matter (the chora) has an existence that is independent from Being (which is an Idea, and not a principle as in OP's argument - which is why he does not fall for this mistake).
>Just did now what?
Are you illiterate or are you just trolling? "7. God, the necessary being, eternal, omnipresent, OMNISCIENT, and OMNIPOTENT exists."
>No that is what OP literally refutes.
Assertions are not refutations.

>>18100240
This

>>18101959
> matter (the chora) has an existence that is independent from Being (which is an Idea
lmao this is so wrong, nothing is independent from Being and Non-Being. read the Sophist

>"7. God, the necessary being, eternal, omnipresent, OMNISCIENT, and OMNIPOTENT exists.
of course this was not in the original argument from Anselm. anyhow the necessary being must be also omniscient and omnipotent for all depends on it. but the development of the arguments are not in what proves its OMNIPRESENCE.

>assertion
that is a syllogistic proof.

>>18102032
>lmao this is so wrong, nothing is independent from Being and Non-Being. read the Sophist
Reread Timaeus, the chora does not participate with any Form (this is a NECESSARY premise for the existence of a living cosmos, which is in turn a necessary premise for Plato's whole epistemology, especially his theory of reminiscence). What is said in Sophist only applies to what participates with the idea of Being (and other Ideas too) - while the living cosmos falls under this class, the chora does not. Also it is uncreated, eternal, it cannot be annihilated, it is capable of resisting the Demiurge's will, it is absolute (as in, it does not depend on anything else), etc. Using Plato as a baseline for your own ontological argument is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
>of course this was not in the original argument from Anselm. anyhow the necessary being must be also omniscient and omnipotent for all depends on it. but the development of the arguments are not in what proves its OMNIPRESENCE.
Wtf does Anselm have to do with OP's argument (and btw he does not make the same mistake as OP, since he does not take being in itself as a principle - Anselm's is not a metaphysics of Being, rather it is a metaphysics of Greathess, which is perfectly capable of accounting for contingency) The argument does not prove the omnipresence of God, it only proves the omnipresence of abstract Being, which is tautological (since every locus of presence must be). It also does not prove that it is eternal, since Being ceasing to be does not contradict P1.
>that is a syllogistic proof.
Lmao

>>18100502
Is God your waifu?

>>18100240
No. It's clear that there's a being. So if there's a being, it must be of the "cannot not-be" sort.

>>18100864
It follows. Better for you start praying.

>>18102397
Yes

>>18101043
You are ridiculous. A chair doesn't have those properties. embarrassing.

>>18101197
It has been proven in 5 and 6

>>18101890
I care. Atheists are irrational beasts.

>>18102441
Yeah, that's why OP's argument does not work.

>>18102543
"A being" doesn't mean "a chair". The chair, in order to be a being, must have been derived from this being, but that doesn't identify the chair with the being. Last time you changed "chair" for "matter", now the extended argument gives a set of properties that stem from necessity that matter doesn't have. You should leave these questions to those who know and find a thread where you can be more comfortable.

>>18101442
Indeed they are. You see a being, by definition, cannot not-be. (if he stops being he's no longer a being). There are beings who can not-be; this is impossible. Therefore, the contrary is true; there are no beings who can not-be.Therefore, there are beings who cannot not-be, these are necessary beings. There is a case in which the beings who cannot not-be, are not; this is impossible. Therefore, the contrary is true; the beings who cannot not-be must be in every time, in every extension, in every knowledge, and in every mode. Chairs, the necessary beings, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent exist.

>>18102608
I'm sorry anon, but chairs are defined as beings.

>>18102631
Chairs can stop being chairs in whatever moment. You have a serious misunderstanding of concepts.

this thread is the brainlet version of the philosophy thread

>>18102827
Ok then remain there.

>>18102833
but I am not there, I am here

>>18102839
True.

>>18102827
The ontological argument is the brainlet version of philosophy. Only the greatest sophists still cling to it/

>>18102766
No, they can't. Again, I'm sorry anon, but this is by simple definition. This thread is merely about the protological ontological argument for a necessary being, and a chair is, by definition, a necessary being. It's really that simple.

>>18102913
A chair isn't necessary by definition, a being is. This already has been addressed to you but you don't care; there's nothing in the definition of chair that makes it necessary. You confuse the eidetic being with the concrete being. Concrete beings can stop being what they are, they do it all the time, but they cannot stop being part of a being that is universal and comprehends everything.

>>18102766
Am I mistaken when I say there is a chair? If the chair is not-being (which is to say, nothing), how could there be a chair?
>>18102608
I changed it because you moved the goalpost, and now you've moved it again by claiming that P1 is specifically talking about being-in-itself (even though you actually talked about "a being" in P1, but if you're talking about being-in-itself talking about "a being" is meaningless, since there is only one such being).
So, to summarize the objections to your three revisions:
1) in the case "a being" means "a being", chairs are necessary
2) in the case "a being" means "something that is and cannot not-be", matter (or energy, or whatever is the simplest constituent of the universe) is necessary (or more in general, whatever is the physical substrate of change is necessary)
3) in the case "a being" is "being-in-itself", then you've just denoted abstract, indeterminate being, and you've just claimed that being is necessary (but in this case the argument is circular and tautological, since this is exactly what is asserted, with no justification, in P1).

Also regarding the matter bit, you say
>now the extended argument gives a set of properties that stem from necessity that matter doesn't have
You have actually not proved any of those predicates. You have just assumed and asserted that 1) the being you're talking about is eternal and therefore cannot stop being (which is not the same as having not-being as one of its predicates); 2) the being you're talking about is omnipotent; 3) the being you're talking about is omniscient. All you've proved is that abstract being is omnipresent, but, as I have pointed out, this is a tautology, since every locus of presence is entailed by Being.

>>18102992
The chair partakes of not-being as well, since it can stop being a chair. If I grab the chair and I pulverize it, there's no longer a chair. So it's forced that the chair partakes of not-being.
>I changed it because you moved the goalpost, and now you've moved it again by claiming that P1 is specifically talking about being-in-itself (even though you actually talked about "a being" in P1, but if you're talking about being-in-itself talking about "a being" is meaningless, since there is only one such being).
That's evident since we see beings that stop being such beings all the time. It's not that I'm talking about a specific form of being, is that such being is the true being and the rest will be beings in as much as they get closer to that being. But instead of attacking the logic of the argument, which is perfect, you try to change words that don't have the meaning suited for replacing the notion of God. The fact that chairs are not necessary should get you the sense that you're mistaken but whatever.
>You have actually not proved any of those predicates.
Yes, it's all predicated by 5 and 6. I'm sorry that you cannot understand it.

>>18102384
The chora is the instantiation of non being, it is pure difference just like in aristotle. It was not i who brought plato to the conversation and the argument in the OP does not need or refer to plato

I agree that that other argument on greatness and god is much better.

>>18100046
bump, thank me later

>>18103201
>The chair partakes of not-being as well, since it can stop being a chair. If I grab the chair and I pulverize it, there's no longer a chair. So it's forced that the chair partakes of not-being
The chair is still a being, and what you've described is deemed impossible by P1 (let alone that it is a mistake: if the chair stops to be, as I've pointed out, then it has no predicates, so it is wrong to say that it partakes with non-being).
>That's evident since we see beings that stop being such beings all the time.
Yes, and that either contradicts P1 (as in the chair example), or it makes your whole argument trivial (if you choose to talk about being-in-itself, which is abstract, indeterminate being).
>Yes, it's all predicated by 5 and 6. I'm sorry that you cannot understand it.
Which are all non-sequiturs, as I and other people here pointed out. If we substitute "a being" with "being-in-itself" (and btw, that was a cop out and you know it) all that is demonstrated by your argument is the tautological claim for which abstract being is omnipresent.
>>18103623
No it's not, since non-being/difference is another Form according to Plato, and the chora HAS to participate with NO form. Plato is very explicit about this point in Timaeus.
Also stop pretending that you're not OP.

>>18102488
There's nothing "rational" about arguing shitty semantics arguments for God.

I made two new ones. Absolutely irrefutable... St. Anselm guides me...
1) God is defined as a necessary being.
2) Being necessarily exists.
3) A necessary being exists.
4) God exists.

1) God is defined as a necessary being.
2) A necessary being exists by necessity.
3) Either God necessarily exists or God is not God.
4) God is God.
5) God necessarily exists.

define being

>>18106203
lmao

>>18100917
>nothing happens for no reason
False. Some things happen without reason. Reason is not necessary to existence of anything beyond perception.

>>18106414
>beyond perception
i dont think its even properly neccesitated within perception. whats the argument for it not being a habit again?