"If god exist in the mind as an idea then god must exist in the real world"

[Anonymous No.16778840]

What did he mean by that

[Anonymous No.16778844]

The real world is a projection of mind

[Anonymous No.16778848]

>>16778844
no

[Anonymous No.16778849]

>>16778848
yeah

[Anonymous No.16778859]

The meaning behind statements like this is that the idea infinity is incapable of arising naturally in the minds of finite beings, so some infinite being (i.e. God) must have placed the idea of infinity there.

[Anonymous No.16778879]

>>16778859
could you direct me somewhere to read about this further? at first glance that doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.16778911]

>>16778879
Variations of the ontological argument have a long history. It's best to start here and then study in depth the formulations most interesting to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

[Anonymous No.16778928]

>>16778859
Is that really the whole basis for the ontological argument? What a fraud philosophy trickery

[Anonymous No.16778942]

>>16778928
It's not. It's the gist, but if something as important as this could be summed up in a sentence like that, philosophy would be a lot easier.

[Anonymous No.16779000]

>>16778942
But that gist is something that appeal only to those with certain prior beliefs. Doesn't seem like a good argument.

[Anonymous No.16779011]

>>16778840
The Ontological argument is just the argument that if you were able to understand Gods essence, that which God is you'd immediately understand that God must exist. Aquinas argues against it because it's impossible to understand Gods essence.

[Anonymous No.16779016]

>>16778840
imagine having this shallow of an understanding of the ontological argument

[Anonymous No.16779045]

>>16779000
Not who you're replying to, but it looks to me like this argument only takes the assumption that the idea of a greatest possible being is innate in us. You're lying if, when you were little, you never declared something like, "My dad is the biggest and the strongest". It's the same principle.

[Anonymous No.16779079]

>>16779045
> the assumption that the idea of a greatest possible being is innate in us

A very controversial assumption especially when it lead to the conclusion that god "must exist"

[Anonymous No.16779219]

>>16779079
All I'm saying is it's not hard to imagine

[Anonymous No.16779241]

>>16779079
It wasn't controversial in the least until some fedora tippers in the 18th Century got together and decided to craft a new historical mythos depicting man breaking free of superstition through use of reason alone through the positive sciences.

[Anonymous No.16779246]

>>16778840
It means you have daddy issues nigga

[Anonymous No.16779279]

>>16778840
That's not all what he said, OP. You're simplifying things too much.

[Anonymous No.16779293]

>>16778840
ideas exist in the real world because they are a part of your body
ideas are a part of your eye and sense of sight

[Anonymous No.16779306]

>>16779241
Kant eternally btfo'd both theists and atheists in his CPR.

[Anonymous No.16779331]

>>16778844
this

What you create in your mind is as good as what's real so long as you actually believe it because life is nothing but experience, and the world is as mind stuff anyway. No one percieves reality "correctly" either, so the one who believes in gods and stuff is not perceiving anymore of a false reality than you are, you just don't realize your perceptions are false

[Anonymous No.16779353]

>>16779306
No he didn't. He completely failed at his stated goal of "denying reason to make room for faith" because atheists didn't see any need to accept his CPR and happily took his denial of metaphysics and used it to justify their program of cold materialistic rationality. Kant gave the enemy a gun and they shot what he was trying to save with it.

[Anonymous No.16780124]

Why possibility entail necessary existence? That's where the ontological argument fail.

[Anonymous No.16780138]

>>16780124
Because of the implication

[Anonymous No.16780147]

>>16778840
If my video games exist in my mind as an idea then they must exist in the real world

[Anonymous No.16780158]

>>16778840
I prefer an ornithological argunent

[Anonymous No.16780177]

>>16779241
It was contraversial though a lot of christian apologists thought it was bullshit

[Jesus No.16780200]

>>16778844
so, what happens if mind dies? world dies also? have you ever been beaten for spitting bullshit?

[Anonymous No.16780208]

>>16778840
I don't understand ontological argument.
If God is the greatest thing possible then by definition he must'nt exist because everything that does exist fucking sucks.
The pursuit of happiness is greater than the attainment of happiness. Happiness is only fleeting, but the chase is infinite. The chase is defined by what it is not, not what it is.
The same is true of God.

[Anonymous No.16780259]

>>16780208
The Ontological Argument is valid, but it's hard to understand and very easily misrepresented which makes it not very useful for apologetics. The thrust is that if you understand what God IS then you know He exists necessarily since the definition of God includes the fact he exists necessarily. It sounds circular but it's not much different than saying that a wheel is circular because the concept wheel includes the property of circularity. If you can conceptualize a wheel you know it's circular and if you can conceptualize God then you know God exists.

The question is whether it's possible to conceptualize God and that's what Aquinas takes issue with.

[Anonymous No.16780321]

>>16780259
Just an addendum this is usually where people get mixed up with the Ontological argument since they say something like:

1. I can conceptualize a perfect sandwich in my fridge

2. The sandwich would be even more perfect if it was really in my fridge rather than just possibly in my fridge

3. Therefore a perfect sandwich exists in my fridge.

The issue is that there's nothing within the concept of "sandwich" that says a sandwich must exist. All sandwiches are by their nature contingent, they might exist they might not. Why the argument works specifically for God is because God is not contingent, He is necessary by definition.

[Anonymous No.16780338]

>>16780200
>so, what happens if mind dies? world dies also?
yes.
>have you ever been beaten for spitting bullshit?
yes. it tends to happen to great minds. look at einstein.

[Anonymous No.16780343]

>>16779079
try to imagine something that doesn't exist that isn't just some mix of existing things

[Anonymous No.16780354]

>>16780147
>the mind exists in the world
>things within the mind don't
wat

[Anonymous No.16780381]

>>16780321
Best post, most cohesive.

[Anonymous No.16780402]

>>16780321
>He is necessary by definition
Do you mind explaining this?

[Anonymous No.16780448]

>>16780402
God is defined as the first cause. If God was contingent then Gods existence would depend on something else. God must be necessary since to be the first cause God hust Himself be uncaused and exist because existence is intrinsic to His essence (or identical to it)

[Anonymous No.16780518]

>>16780448
So the ontological argument is just a fancy cosmological argument?

[Anonymous No.16780579]

>>16780448
If nothing we know is the cause of itself, how do we know God?

[Anonymous No.16780603]

>>16780448>>16780321
>>16780259
>>16780208
>>16779011

mental gymnastics should be outlawed

[Anonymous No.16780607]

>>16780518
No. The ontological argument presumes that God is necessary while the cosmological argument attempts to show there is a first cause.

>>16780579
The fact that God is the cause of Himself is a consequence of the fact we know nothing else is the cause of itself. You need to get into the right frame of mind with these questions and the ancient way of thinking about these things was "What are the implications if this is true?"

[Anonymous No.16781014]

>>16778879
Could an ant figure out what human life is about? They can't. Humans are beyond the ant imagination. But what if an ant suddenly had a revelation and came to know human history and the human perspective of the world? How else would the ant know about humanity other than somehow having communicated with it?

The scientists stand by. They gave the ant special droplets of neurological enhancers and have been able to communicate with it through smell patterns. Only through human interaction / experimentation could the ant know about humanity.

Only through an interaction with the divine could human beings conceive of divine existence.

[Anonymous No.16782330]

>>16778840
God is you Ego, whether he is real or not your Ego is real.
Your Ego would invent a friend when you are on an island by yourself.

>>16780200
Well no, there are many minds and your mind connects with them.
You can infect other minds with your idea and therefore it lives on.
Just because you don't get it doesnt mean there isnt a God.

[Anonymous No.16782340]

>>16778840
Platonic theory that the purest form of anything and is the idea itself

As example you can draw a circle, you can manipulate matter into a ring or circle but none of it will be a perfect circle, not like the idea of it in your mind

There’s obviously more to it than that but this is what your comment reminded me of

[Anonymous No.16782342]

>>16778859
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...

[Anonymous No.16782344]

>>16782340
The theory of ideas

[Anonymous No.16782356]

>>16778859
If you divide matter into its smallest unit you will eventually reach the end, it won’t divide forever, infinitely, for 1x0 still equals 0

This is where the theory of the atom (Ancient Greek for indivisible) originated 3000+ years ago

[Anonymous No.16782370]

>>16781014
Ants have the instinct to survive, should you try to kill one it will win out and try to escape, I’ve not read anything on this just something I notice and makes me wonder about instincts and what they really are

[Anonymous No.16782376]

>>16782330
do you believe in jungs Ego or sigmunds?

[Anonymous No.16782393]

>>16782370
A fly in a spider web attempts to escape, instinct is so small, so minuscule it exists in insects as small as ants, do cells exhibit similar trait? Idk, how small can you go before instinct vanishes, and what is it?

[Anonymous No.16782394]

>>16782376
I am talking about scientific Ego.
The one that triggers hallucinations to cope with extreme experiences.

[Anonymous No.16782404]

>>16782394
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

Or

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

I was wondering if the two psychoanalysist which one you adhere

[Anonymous No.16782407]

>>16780321
Proponents of the ontological arguments would, correctly, deny that perfect finite entities entail the perfection of existence. Nothing tells me a priori that the idea of "a perfect sandwich in my frige" becomes contradictory when I assume that it does not exist. On the other hand, the "infinite entities which has all perfections" cannot fail to exist without becoming contradictory.

Kant objected to this very last point, by denying that existence is a predicate. If it is not a predicate, it is not a perfection either (since it does not add any positive determination to the concept x, rather it just tells us the modality of x: but wether x exists or not, the concept of x remains the same, and if it didn't, then what exists would be different than x).

[Anonymous No.16782443]

>>16781014
I always use the analogy of ants and Mozart. There is no way an ant could ever understand Mozart. An ant will never, as far as we can tell, have the capacity to interpret the sound waves in the way a human does, even though they are objectively capable of perceiving the movements of the air. They are at least one order of magnitude diminished from us. That said, they can objectively know—as much as anything can be known—that the atmosphere is being disturbed. If God exists in any capacity, he is by necessity an entity separated from us by at least an order of magnitude in the same way that we are removed from ants. If God exists, his machinations must by necessity be as arcane and unknowable to us as are Mozart's to an ant. If we perceive any of it, God's intent must be indistinguishable from nature, otherwise we would understand it. If God exists, his intentions will be forever inscrutable to us.

[Anonymous No.16782487]

>>16782404
Why would i listen to hacks?

[Anonymous No.16782493]

>>16782443
Not that anon, but I have some doubts about this argument of yours.
Unlike God, I am not omnipotent. In my current state I cannot communicate high-level concepts to, let's say, dogs. That said, I could concieve that given enough technological prowess (which is a human analogous to God's power) I could a) improve the cognitive faculties of dogs enough to make communication of said concepts possible and b) devise methods to translate said concepts to those dogs. Given a) and b), even if dogs are still dumber than us, they would be able to have an inkling of understanding of our activity. Maybe they could not grasp it all, but they could still understand it well enough, so that it would be not inscrutable to them.
Now, while these technological wonders are certainly utopian for us, they should still be available to an omnipotent being. As such, I think, if God is omnipotent, then he has the power to make its essence and activity not inscrutable and completely alien to us. I'll add: He should be able to do so without recourse to Faith, as in: He should be able to make us capable of recognizing his essence and activity through purely rational means.

[Anonymous No.16782505]

>>16782487
Yeah, nobody could expect a world-leading expert like you, anonymous poster on 4chan, to have read hacks like Freud or Jung.

[Anonymous No.16782522]

>>16782505
imagine not thinking about concepts like this yourself and just accepting some random jews words for it

[Anonymous No.16783744]

>>16780448
it should be noted that this is also the answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing" because by all rights there should be nothing

[Anonymous No.16783751]

>>16782493
you're the dog and the human is god

[Anonymous No.16783759]

>>16783744
If there were truly nothing what would stop something from happening?

[Anonymous No.16783945]

>>16780354
It wasn't sarcastic

[Anonymous No.16785344]

>>16783759
if there's nothing eternal everything would have already long passed into oblivion

[Anonymous No.16785389]

>>16782487
Because one of them is who discovered/invented theory of ego?

[Anonymous No.16785419]

>>16779079
>god "must exist"
Now I'm uncomfortable. Is there something higher than existence?

[Anonymous No.16785441]

I seem to have identified the crux of most atheist thought today
>have a extremely shallow understanding of an argument
>purposefully reduce it to the most ridiculous, stupid level possible so as to not give yourself any sort of intellectual challenge
>when refuted, say "there is no proof God exists"
have I got this right?

[Anonymous No.16785458]

>>16780603
this and "world salad" basically means "im too dumb to understand philosophy"

[Anonymous No.16785479]

>>16778942
>>16779016
philosophy fags are beyond saving. 90% of philosophy is people writing long obscure papers to justify their beliefs, and when someone criticizes the papers main points, they say that they're over simplifying. They say that their ideas can't be discussed in a few sentences, and you need to read 20 other papers to really understand the argument. why does the taxpayer fund these frauds?

[Anonymous No.16785494]

>>16785479
nice philosophical stance

[Anonymous No.16785527]

>>16785441
I seem to have identified the crux of most theist thought today
>create a worthless justification for my belief that cant be falsified.
>purposefully inflate the complexity of it so that anyone who wishes to refute it must read dozens of obscure, self-referential texts made by me and my friends, and untangle 100s of paragraphs of broken logic
>when someone manages to find and criticize the core of my argument, claim they're oversimplfying and accuse them of not arguing in good faith
have I got this right?

[Anonymous No.16785538]

>>16785344
That's a logical rule though. Unless logic doesn't exist you can't use logic to reason about a state where nothing exists.

Really there are far more problems with that reasoning than just that, but asking "why is there something rather than nothing" misunderstands what "nothing" entails and invites broken answers because of it.

[Anonymous No.16785574]

>>16785527
You literally cannot justify your own beleifs without copious philosophising. At least theists attempt to reason about why something exists rather than nothing, instead of defaulting to passively absorbed unfalsifiable claims about the validity of empiricism. This is the "logic" you midwits never shut up about. The rest of what you said is you admitting you are too lazy to read, so im not sure why the hell you are even on a literature board.

[Anonymous No.16785587]

ive still not seen atheists give an honest go at this one

[Anonymous No.16786104]

>>16785587
The cosmological argument is valid, Ontological is trash.

[Anonymous No.16786255]

that if illusion works it's not an illusion

[Anonymous No.16786578]

>>16785419
The point is that God is the very essence of existence

[Anonymous No.16786943]

After reading this whole thread i'm convinced the ontological argument is trash

[Anonymous No.16787260]

>>16785527
Fuck dude. If you think cosmological arguments are complex you're really not going to like reading Kant or Hegel. Philosophy is hard and if you want to understand it you need to put the effort in. I can't just say "Hegel was an obscurantist retard therefore he's wrong", I need to articulate exactly why I think he's wrong and that means engaging with his actual arguments in a substantial way. If you don't like doing that then you shouldn't be debating theism or atheism because your position is "gee I like pop sci a lot and philosophy is too hard to read"

[Anonymous No.16787267]

>>16786578
> I can draw a circle around a circle therefore my diagram is "true"

[Anonymous No.16787950]

>>16785587
WTF I love Jainism now

[Anonymous No.16788029]

>>16785587
Both matter and energy are eternal

[Anonymous No.16788037]

>>16781014
Do you really think you understand the idea of God?

[Anonymous No.16788468]

>>16780448
Quantum physics has firmly extablished that cause and effect need not happen in that order. It is entirely possible, and in fact quite likely, that the First Cause is yet to happen.

[Anonymous No.16788831]

>>16785538
logic is a property inherent in things. there is no way things can come out of the absence of things. so either the void has the proto-elements of things (and thus their logic) or the void is fundamentally seperate from things, e.g. no-thing. but nothing can't produce something

[Anonymous No.16788850]

>>16785419
read plato's parmenides

[Anonymous No.16788857]

>>16785587
>the set of all temporally extinguishable cannot be itself eternal unless it in itself has an additional property that things do not have
not sure what this poster means by this, as thermodynamically, things (energy) are eternal, they are not extinguished, they simply change form

[Anonymous No.16788955]

>>16788857
>>16788029
eternal here means "has existed for eternity" which nobody says is true of energy since entropy is a thing. if energy existed into eternity there is no reason entropy would have happened an infinite number of times

[Anonymous No.16788959]

>>16788955
>which nobody says is true of energy since entropy is a thing
What exactly do you think entropy is?

[Anonymous No.16789403]

a summary of the ontological argument for those defending or refuting it without understanding it:
>the idea of god is an infinitely great being
>its greater to be real than to be an idea
>god is real

i think we can see which step the stupid happens at

[Anonymous No.16789418]

>>16788468
That's only the efficient cause. What about the other causes? Material, Formal and Final?

[Anonymous No.16789425]

>>16789403
That's not the Ontological argument and you don't understand it. See >>16780259 and >>16780321

[Anonymous No.16789428]

>>16787260
hegel and kants texts and obscurity arent justifiable though. philosophy isnt hard. its made hard so the plagirism and lack of value doesnt show. they live off of ppl like u who think just cuz its hard its true or profound. both of their ontological conclusions were reached in mere sentences by islamic philosophers hundreds of years before them.
>>16785574
>trying to justify beliefs as a valid starting point

[Anonymous No.16789433]

>>16789428
Yes I think I'm going to take the word of someone who says "they live off of ppl like u who think just cuz its hard" like they're a fucking 12 year old texting their crush when it comes to issues of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16789440]

>>16789425
>>16780321 is litteraly what i said.

[Anonymous No.16789447]

>my face when I realize that no one had invented the concept of "mind independent reality" before Kant

[Anonymous No.16789448]

>>16789433
highlights exactly what you value. image over truth. thats why you take shit like kant or hegel seriously. bcuz of their status 1!!1!!!11

[Anonymous No.16789450]

>>16789448
If you want to be taken seriously speak like you have an IQ over 70.

[Anonymous No.16789453]

>>16789448
oh yeah? But why did they get status in the first place then? Kant was just a no-name rationalist geek before he wrote the critique. Explain that.

[Anonymous No.16789492]

>>16789453
bcuz he upped the obscurity on that one and ppl ate it up and are still eating it up even tho he said some obvious stuff that gazali and fuzuli said and he added his own stuff that either wasnt necessary or completely unfounded
>>16789450
ure a smart boy. u get what i say. why do you need pretentious mannerisms to take someone seriously? might it be your continental diet?

[Anonymous No.16789499]

>>16789450
>Some anon calls you out on valuing an argument not for the content of its ideas, but the way in which it's presented
>You reply with "hurr durr I'm not gonna listen to what you say cause you type like a 12 year old"

How does it feel being made to look like a retard by someone who can't spell?

[Anonymous No.16789504]

>>16788955
Entropy doesn't affect massless particles, aka energy. Photons do not age.

[Anonymous No.16789510]

>>16789447
Matter does not give itself identity. Only a consciousness has identity, hence only minds truly exists, everything else is relative categories.

[Anonymous No.16789523]

>>16778840
Because anything else than an omnipotent being always existing is a retarded concept, it begs the question: it contains information so where did that information come from? It can't non sentinently make itself so a concious omnipotent being always was, because that is basically God and requires nothing, no creator. He meant that the thing that created the universe: always was, is a concious being like us, except omniscient, is omnipotent, is uncreated, therefore it has to be God, because these are the qualities which are obvious they exist, and they point to only what could be a God, so if we can think them and conceptualize them, and if it doesn't make sense for information to come out of thin air, then that means the statement is right, a concious omnipotent being always was, the creator was eternal, so that means it's God.

[Anonymous No.16789537]

>>16785527
You forgot not understanding basic semantics and taking think more literally than what you meant in the first place. And also "there are so many gods you can't be the right one" and "real god will be mad at me for worshipping your god so no thanks"

[Anonymous No.16789553]

>>16789428
>islamic philosophers hundreds of years before them.
Greek Philosophers thousands of years before them*
There's nothing original in Islamic philosophy

[Anonymous No.16789561]

>>16789553
What's all this nonsense about us 'owing it to islamic scholars that medieval europeans got ancient greek texts', I've seen this meme floated around even at high levels but it seems to me that most just came from the Byzantines.

[Anonymous No.16789601]

>>16789510
but what if there were no minds, would then, matter without identity exist? Surely an identity is not what something is, but rather a category to gain traction on it.

[Anonymous No.16789607]

>>16789492
who the fuck is gazali and fuzali!! explain gazali and fuzali to me, don't dumb it down, provide references

[Anonymous No.16789612]

>>16789492
if you can get famous and powerful and recognized by just saying obvious things obscurely, why don't you do it? I don't believe your explanation if you can't demonstrate it to me.

[Anonymous No.16789624]

>>16789561
The Islamic philosophers are called neoplatonic for a reason.
>>16789601
Unless matter is proto-mind.
Or you'd have to prove your definition of what being means is objective, otherwise it's just a belief about the word. But this immediately necessitates Plato's Forms/the mind of God. Because it's not in the world itself that it is true that "being is defined as X" is true.

[Anonymous No.16789665]

>>16789553
yes. i didnt say they were original. but they were laconic compared to kant and hegel.
>>16789612
>tfw youre born too late to become a continental hack selling metaphysical snake oil to the masses
i missed my shot :(

[Anonymous No.16789672]

>>16789665
>kant
>"things aren't what they appear to be, actually we just get knowledge from experience in the world, just because something seems like it follows, doesn't mean it does, we should be critical and responsible."
>snakeoil

[Anonymous No.16789704]

>>16789672
if he had said that, thered be no book to sell. thats where the snake oil comes in.

[Anonymous No.16789712]

>>16789672
>"things aren't what they appear to be, actually we just get knowledge from experience in the world, just because something seems like it follows, doesn't mean it does, we should be critical and responsible."
Woah, much profound a guy from Athens 2400 years didn't come to the same but deeper conclusion!

[Anonymous No.16789718]

>>16789712
and those athens guys stole it from cultures that were oral and didn't write things down whats your point

[Anonymous No.16789739]

>>16780607
We dont know if he exists, so cause to something they may not exist?

[Anonymous No.16789753]

>>16789712
Why the fuck do people still say things aren't the way we see them? How did technology cone to be then? Didn't the people who created phones know what things are and what things to put together in order to make them? Isn't gasoline you put in the car different than water? How can you say we don't know what things are yet we can understand them to an atomic level and use them aswell, so why the fuck do people still say "we give things meaning" when in reality we can literally find their meaning with science and distinguish them from other things rendering each thing different and as a "something". Anyone cares to explain how we actually don't know what things are I'll gladly listen

[Anonymous No.16789795]

>>16789753
None of those are objective categories. That interactions between "things" implies that there are discreet things is not an empirically verifiable fact. Interaction = 'has being'/identity, is an agreed upon belief. It's only true Intersubjectively.

[Anonymous No.16789815]

>>16789753
>Isn't gasoline you put in the car different than water
And every particle of that gasoline is distinct and different from every other gasoline particle, therefore I say that the gasoline as a single object is not real, there's only the different molecules. Oh the molecules make up a whole because they're similar? Well the water exists and the gasoline exist, now they are one and not two because they're the same on this level of distinction.
Sameness and difference is infinitely variable, everything is like and unlike on some level, there's no empirically objective way to decide how much sameness is enough to make a collective into a whole, or how much difference is necessary to divide a whole into two distinct beings.

[Anonymous No.16789821]

>>16789815
Philosophy is just a long story of trying to reconcile the One and the Many.

[Anonymous No.16789838]

>>16789821
Yes. Hence everything being a footnote to Plato.

[Anonymous No.16789876]

>>16789815
Every particle of gasoline is different, and yet less different than water particles. We can define a whole of all the 'gasoline-type' particles.

[Anonymous No.16789952]

>>16789876
Who decides what level of sameness and difference constitute a real categorical essence of identity? Why is the amount of similarity between the molecules enough to make them an real being? What about space? There's space between every gasoline molecule, how much space is too much distance until the beingness of this bundle of sticks becomes lonely sticks and not a bundle?

[Anonymous No.16789959]

>>16789838
Based beyond reason

[Anonymous No.16790002]

>>16778840
God is literally the only thing that does not exist in the mind
t. sophist (?)

[Anonymous No.16790201]

>>16788029

>athiests become pantheists when presented with solid and unanswerable arguments for theism

like clockwork

[Anonymous No.16790266]

>>16789815
t. Brainlet
>Can't understand Sorites paradox

[Anonymous No.16790896]

>>16790266
The point is you can't empirically categorize anything, only subjectively and inter-subjectively, but no category is a fact of the world, only a relational notion inbetween subjects who agree to its categorization... Unless you have the forms.