CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

[Alexandre No.5319333]

Lets try the following:


1. It’s possible that a maximally great being (we call ‘’God’’) exists.

This is self evident, we may have no scientific evidence for God, but this does nothing to deny the fact that its after all possible that a being such as God, exhibiting maximum greatness in every way, is possible.

2. If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds.

This has to do with the concept of possible worlds, a possible world is a representation of how the world may have been, for instance, we can conceive of a possible world if which everyone has red hair or in which JFK was never shot and so and so... Granted that it is possible God exists then he must exist in at least some possible world.


3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds then it exists in every possible world.

By Gods attributes then this must be so, for if we can conceive of a being who would exist in certain worlds but not say in worlds where people only have red hair then the entity that could exist also in the world where people have red hair would be the maximally great being ''God'' we allowed in 1 the possibility of existence. So the entity who can exist in 75 possible world is greater than the en entity who can exist in 10 possible worlds and so is the entity that can exist in all possible worlds greater than the one who can exist in 75 possible worlds.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world

THis is so because strictly speaking the actual world belongs to the set of possible worlds because if it weren't possible it would not be actual!

5. Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.

7: therefore God exist.


And therefore CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

[Anonymous No.5319338]

It's also self evident that you're fucking retarded and homo. Checkmate, OP.

[Anonymous No.5319351]

tl;dr
I can conceive of god therefore he exists
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

[Erin !ccqXAQxUxI No.5319354]

>>5319333
>it's possible that a perfect giant spider exists in some worlds
>a truly perfect giant spider would exist in all worlds
>a perfect giant spider exists in this world

You think you're doing logic, but you're really not.

[Anonymous No.5319357]

Yes, God exists.

But which God? What does he want? Why does he or anything exist?

[Anonymous No.5319366]

>>5319333
there is a perfect giant penis in your mouth

[Anonymous No.5319367]

Why does God need to be a being?
Why does God need to be a word?
Why does God need to be defined?
Why does God need to be understandable?
Why does God need to be righteous?
Why does God need to be moral?
Why does God need to be great?

When are you people going to find out that God is everywhere. It is hiding in the equations. It is what makes the trees grow. It is what makes the stars shine and the planets spin. It is the creator that knows of no beginnings and no ends. It is something that transcends our petty world of words and norms and morals and reasoning. You can find God by loving a person. You can find God by doing good deeds. You can find God by studying with passion. You can find God by observing the subtle changes in the wind.

You will never find God if you insist on rationalizing and forming a description. You will never find God because you insist that God is a part of your world, and not the other way around.

You are what God is contemplating. God is what you can't contemplate about.

[Anonymous No.5319380]

>>5319367
>Why? x7
Because that's how gods are created, just how you made up your own to feel like you have a special and unique perspective on your world.

[Alexandre No.5319383]

A perfectly great spider can't exists because this is an inchorent concept, ( spiders can be squished) as opposed to this, I see no problems with a perfectly great being. These are problems you run into when you attempt to parody the argument. The definitions of the things you attempt the parody always return to bite you in the ass. LOL!

[Anonymous No.5319385]

>This is self evident, we may have no scientific evidence for God, but this does nothing to deny the fact that its after all possible that a being such as God, exhibiting maximum greatness in every way, is possible.
No, like there is no greatest natural number, there is no greatest being or at least you don't show why it would. Didn't bother reading on from there.

[Anonymous No.5319391]

>>5319380
No, that's how concepts are created. God, however you might want to define it, is still a concept.

[Anonymous No.5319398]

>>5319333
>maximally great being

great in what sense?
who decides the sense?

maximal in what direction? based on what values?

to exist is to be limited by form, by time, by space and causality.

God can't exist by definition since God is typically not a "finite" being.

[Anonymous No.5319394]

>>5319383
>spiders can be squished
Not perfect spiders though. Kindly remove yourself from the gene pool.

[Anonymous No.5319403]

You're make an illogical leap from Step #3 to Step #4. At that point, it simply becomes a problem of semantics, not proof for the existence of God.

See: scholarly criticism of Meditations on First Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5319408]

>>5319333
>It’s possible that a maximally great being (we call ‘’God’’) exists.
>therefore God exist.

>it's possible, therefore it exists.

[Anonymous No.5319423]

>>5319333
>maximally great

gibberish.
do you have an argument based on logic instead of feels?

[Anonymous No.5319454]

>>5319333
>1. It’s possible that a maximally great being (we call it object X) exists.

How do you rank objects?

[Anonymous No.5319470]

>>5319333

Why would a maximally great being give a shit about what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms, or care whether we worship it or not? You would think that a maximally great being would be above things like that.

[tetra koiwai No.5319514]

then whats stoping me from beliving that i could find a means of immortality in a possible world, escape the infinatly expanding universe in another, meet with my immortal self in the shrinking universe, imprint his knowledge on the immortal self, and hop between universes until i become god? then take over all universes? isnt that possible?

[tetra koiwai No.5319527]

>>5319470
perhaps he is a maximum faggot. op, argue the existance of god with rationality, not gibberish and possibility. condense the universe to a finite scale and leave god on the infinate scale. obviously you need to learn how to articulate yourself more.

[sage No.5319562]

>>5319333
/x/----------------------------->

saged and reported

[Anonymous No.5319566]

God is the set which is equal to its super set.

[Anonymous No.5319572]

>>5319566
God is the set which is equal to its power set?

[Anonymous No.5319581]

http://www.cogwriter.com/god-omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent.htm

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but the definitions of those terms have become muddled. This is a pretty good apologist argument for the existence of God that does not create logical fallacies like "making a rock so big he can't lift it."

[Tobi No.5319634]

>>5319581

No. It would only be illogical if I asked a human being "Can you create a rock so heavy that you can't lift it?" Because a human obviously can't do this. But, if you ask the Christian God (Because the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent, all powerful, ect) "Can you create a rock so heavy that you can't lift it?" Then it's not illogical, because God is supposed to be omnipotent. Tbh, I have seen better arguments than this, this isn't anywhere close to an Apologist argument.

[Anonymous No.5319650]

>>5319634
But omnipotence in that sense IS illogical, because if you create a rock so big you can't lift it, and then you can't lift it, you clearly aren't able to do anything, because you can't lift the rock.

[Anonymous No.5319698]

>>5319367
what?! photosynthesis is what makes the trees grow, nuclear fusion is what makes the stars shine, gravity is what makes the planets spin. Why not just accept that you don't need a god for these things and see them for what they are?

[Anonymous No.5319719]

>>5319650

>But omnipotence in that sense
>in that sense
>sense
Omnipotence basically means do to anything at any time.

[Anonymous No.5319731]

>>5319698
Yes, words and concepts make all those things go round. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you are blind. Try to gain wisdom.

[Anonymous No.5319742]

1. It’s possible that a maximally great faggot (we call ‘’OP’’) exists.

This is self evident, we may have no scientific evidence for OP, but this does nothing to deny the fact that its after all possible that a being such as OP, exhibiting maximum faggotry in every way, is possible.

2. If it’s possible that a maximally great faggot exists, then a maximally great faggot exists in some possible threads.

This has to do with the concept of possible threads, a possible thread is a representation of how the thread may have been, for instance, we can conceive of a possible thread in which everyone were trolls or in which tits were never shown and so and so... Granted that it is possible OP exists then he must exist in at least some possible thread.


3. If a maximally great faggot exists in some possible thread then it exists in every possible thread.

By OPs attributes then this must be so, for if we can conceive of a faggot who would exist in certain threads but not say in threads where every post is a sage then the entity that could exist also in the thread where the posts are sage would be the maximally great faggot ''OP'' we allowed in 1 the possibility of existence. So the faggot who can exist in 75 possible threads is greater than the faggot who can exist in 10 possible threads and so is the faggot that can exist in all possible threads greater than the one who can exist in 75 possible threads.
4. If a maximally great faggot exists in every possible thread, then it exists in this actual thread

THis is so because strictly speaking the actual thread belongs to the set of possible threads because if it weren't possible it would not be actual!

5. Therefore a maximally great faggot exists in this very thread.
6. Therefore a maximally great faggot exists.

7: therefore OP exist.


And therefore OP IS A FAGGOT /sci/!

[Anonymous No.5319752]

>>5319742

I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.5319777]

>>5319742

Copying that pasta for posterity

[Anonymous No.5319815]

>>5319731
are you trolling? those "concepts" are wroked down to chemical formulas and numbers. any infant can understand them if they actually took the time to learn what they were. You don't need mysticism to understand something that is already explained.

[Anonymous No.5319820]

>>5319815
But the concepts in themselves don't make the world spin.

A common misconception is that laws of physics are what make the world go. But this is not the case. Laws of physics are just our concept that approximates reality and predicts outcomes.

You are probably so thick-headed that I have to put this in caps for you to take notice of it:

THE FORMULAS THEMSELVES DON'T ACCOUNT FOR ACTION, THEY MERELY TRY TO APPROXIMATE AND EXPLAIN ACTION

Is it clear now or do I have to write a novel before you understand this extremely simple concept?

[Anonymous No.5319843]

>>5319742
10/10, I hope to see this reposted

[Anonymous No.5319867]

> It’s possible that a maximally great being exists
Nope. It is either true that one exists, or it is true that one does not exist, but it is not true that there is nonzero probability for both. This is what fucks people up with the Envelope Paradox.

Also, "great" is ill defined.

> If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds.
For all anyone knows, there is only one possible world. If you just assume that anything is possible, then of course you can come to any conclusion you like.

[Anonymous No.5319892]

I remember reading about this proof of god's existence somewhere. It doesn't use "alternate universes", but rather the idea that the concept of a perfect god is an "infinitely great being". The implication of this proof was that since the concept exists, or that because we can conceptualize such a god, his qualities must exist and therefore he must exist. The flaw in that proof is that the qualities of "having existence" and "being infinitely great", or even frankly "having a concept" are all defined, but neither the existence of those qualities as concepts, nor the existence of a conceptualization of a "perfect god", lead to his existence.

Suppose a perfect and infinitely great apple, and suppose the previous theorem is true, and that a god, by the description given above, is proven to exist by the theorem given above. Then, an infinitely great apple does exist, and suppose that this apple, which is infinitely great in that it has the property of being perfect and being extant, also has the property of nourishing every body within the same universe as it. That would be great, wouldn't it? Would it not make for a more "perfect" (or flaw-deficient) apple?
Then, we have a counter-proof. There are starving people, therefore such an apple may not exist. Therefore, since the apple was proved in the same way as the theorem above, the theorem above must not hold.

<cont'>

[Anonymous No.5319901]

>>5319892
Ah shit, my Ctrl + C failed. In summary, you can conceive of a world that includes a god that is present in all other worlds, but you can also conceive of worlds that, by nature, do not include gods. Your conclusion is based upon either the unproven assumption that there is an infinite continuum of worlds, with infinitely varying properties, or that one concept interacts with another concept's nature.

[Anonymous No.5319915]

>>5319403
This. Also, It's an analytical argument that assumes God exists from the outset, and merely explains the definition.

[Anonymous No.5319925]

>>5319333
Does a maximally great being perceive an infinite number of qualia?

[Anonymous No.5319931]

>2012
>Still believing in gravity
I shiggity diggity doop bob ba doo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4VHcFY1Vg

[Anonymous No.5319962]

>>5319931
oh wow, I actually made it to around 3:40, when he started talking about clouds, before the bullshit was obvious enough that I felt comfortable turning it off.

[Anonymous No.5319980]

OK, I'll bite.
.
-
.
But only because my answers are always the best. Read this. It's quick.
.
-
.
Your first point is wrong, and all the rest depends on it:
>1. It’s possible that a maximally great being (we call ‘’God’’) exists.
Maybe not. You're imposing a version of reality where "possible to conceive of" and "possible to exist" are the same thing. This is probably not the case. At the very least, you need evidence to back it up.

[Anonymous No.5319990]

>>5319357
To be fair to OP, he's just copying down Godel's ontological argument.
Religion is so good at destroying logical thinking that apparently even Godel couldn't do it right when religion came up.

[Anonymous No.5320007]

>>5319990

pretty sure its anslems argument from like hundreds of years ago

the whole perfect being and the parody of it was the perfect island

[Anonymous No.5320011]

>>5319980
your answer sucks balls

[Anonymous No.5320015]

>>5319931
the center of heaven is the center of earth? heresy.

[Anonymous No.5320033]

>>5320011
No it doesn't. It points out precisely what the logical flaw is. If you can't say precisely what the flaw is, you're just saying you think it's wrong. If you summarise the argument, that's essentially a strawman.

The flaw is not that easy to work out, and I don't believe anyone else in the thread pointed it out. Other people mainly tried to shoe that some other part leads to a contradiction. That's very indirect, and is really sidestepping the issue.

[Anonymous No.5320044]

>>5320007
There have been several versions, each with the flawed axiom that a perfect being can exist. I would say that everything we know about the Universe implies nothing is infinite. That would sort of exclude infinite power.

[Anonymous No.5320045]

>>5320015
No, that guy was claiming that earth is somehow convex. So the inner edges of his outermost circle was the 'ground' that we're sitting on now, and we're being pushed into it by energy radiating from heaven.

[Anonymous No.5320052]

>>5320033
The biggest flaw is that for God to be God as defined, he'd have to be God for the whole universe at once. If there isn't a God on one world in this universe, there isn't a God in any of them.

[Anonymous No.5320084]

>>5320033
I think a better logical flaw would be to point out that only a perfect being could define perfection.

Your argument doesn't even seem based on logic, based on your language (e.g. 'this is probably not the case'). Your argument ... actually seems to counter a quasi-philisophical argument with some sort of scientific standard of burden of proof. And even then it seems a bit flimsy, as I actually find it quite difficult to conceive of an impossible thing... for instance, a 20-dimensional object. I can't fucking conceive of it and it's probably not possible. But a hippopotamus the size of jupiter? Sure. And that's certainly more 'possible', I would say, than a 20-dimensional object.

[Anonymous No.5320139]

>>5320084
>a better logical flaw would be to point out that only a perfect being could define perfection.
But that doesn't even matter. You don't need to define perfection to speculate on its existence. So that's not a flaw.

Let me explain what I mean, and let me explain why it's based on pure logic.
A logical argument is the same thing as a theorem. I'm not going to convince you of this. You can look up wikipedia for formal logic.
The initial objects in the proof are axioms. They are the things which must be accepted as true. You have a series of statements. At first there are axioms. Later statements are derived by logic.
As with a mathematical theorem, if we are to disagree with it, we must find an axiom we disagree with, or an illogical move.

In the first statement:
>It’s possible that a maximally great being (we call ‘’God’’) exists.
I'm saying that I don't agree with this statement. The meaning of my reply was to point out the linguistic problem here: the word "possible".

In the comment on this statement, it is said
>its after all possible that a being such as God, exhibiting maximum greatness in every way, is possible.
which shows this misunderstanding: in justifying it, the word "possible" is used to mean "conceivable". Now as he moves on to statement 2, it's clear that he's taken "possible" to mean "possibly in existence".

So I am saying he must say:
1. Anything that is conceivable is possible
2. It’s _conceivable_ that a maximally great being... etc

[Anonymous No.5320188]

>>5319367
using that logic i can find god by raping you anally.

[Anonymous No.5320187]

>Ontological Argument
>2012
Hahahahahahaha, oh wow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Alvin_Plantinga

[Anonymous No.5320193]

It appears to be evident that OP is a gigantic faggot.

[Anonymous No.5320196]

>>5319333
>exhibiting maximum greatness in every way
Logically inconsistent or incoherent.

>2. If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds.
Gross misunderstanding of the many-world HYPOTHESIS.

>3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds then it exists in every possible world.
Relies on your ill-specified earlier definition. Remember kids, if you start with logically inconsistent premises then you too can derive anything you want!

[Anonymous No.5320203]

>>5319333
Also, this is what separates rational people and religious people. Did you practice critical thinking? Did you ask yourself "Might I be wrong? How might I be wrong? Did I bother checking if I am wrong?". You obviously did not apply critical thinking. Your ideas are indisputable and unfalsifiable, and thus garbage, vacuous, and cognitively meaningless.

[Anonymous No.5320206]

>>5320196
this

[Anonymous No.5320208]

>>5320139
>But that doesn't even matter. You don't need to define perfection to speculate on its existence. So that's not a flaw.
Speculate on what's existence? God's? If we're not going to define it then why even bother using the word 'God'? Doesn't that simply reduce his argument to 'the perfect thing has to be real, and not merely conceptual, because to be merely conceptual is to be imperfect?' And a that point, haven't you neutered the argument of any sort of controversy or weight?

>let me explain why [my argument is] based on pure logic.
And >>5320084 I pointed out the flimsiness of your argument. I do not see that you've shown the statement 'anything that is conceivable is possible' to be false. You've merely taken a piece of the puzzle, said 'this is the bad part', and opened yourself up to massive amounts of trolling and arguments which ultimately lead to nowhere.

[Anonymous No.5320225]

>>5320139
>it's based on pure logic.
This is an admittance of failure. You are trying to make a claim about our shared reality, but you do not use science and evidence. Thus you are automatically wrong. There is no need to evaluate anything further about your argument. Come back when you learn some science.

[Anonymous No.5320231]

>>5320225
>science vs philosophy
Are posts like this allowed here?

[Anonymous No.5320239]

>>5320231
This is the science board. Get out. You can come back in once you start using some science.

(Or talk about math.)

[Anonymous No.5320250]

>>5320239
Well... he does make some testable predictions, though, doesn't he? He says that conceivable!=possible. You could disprove him by pointing out something that is conceivable but *completely* impossible.

[Anonymous No.5320252]

>>5320250
oops, I mean you could prove him right by pointing out something that is conceivable but completely impossible.

[Anonymous No.5320260]

>>5320250
Ok. Prayer working beyond the placebo effect.

Except now we're going to get into a pedantic of what it means to be impossible. The best evidence we have shows that prayer does not work.

[Anonymous No.5320263]

>>5320260
Pray working isn't impossible, it just doesn't happen to be the case.

[Anonymous No.5320265]

>>5320263
Ok, I don't understand what he is claiming. Give me an example /observation/ that would demonstrate he is wrong, not some bullshit thought experiments.

[Anonymous No.5320295]

>>5320208
>haven't you neutered the argument of any sort of controversy or weight?
You might say so, but I wouldn't. I think the weight and controversy stand for themselves because of what this supposed proof is. I just want to say precisely why I think it's wrong.
The use of the word "God" is really just saying that you think "maximally great" is a definition of God. Talking about the existence of God without a definition is pointless and stupid. This is one of many definitions. Some of them are short like this and others are long, like the picture of God from the Old Testament.

>I do not see that you've shown the statement 'anything that is conceivable is possible' to be false.
That's the whole point. What I am doing is reducing the problem to axioms, which you can either agree or disagree with. I'll fully admit that I should have done a full job of it. The axioms are:

(a) If something is conceivable, it is possible that it exists.
(b) A being may be judged in terms of greatness of (a finite or infinite number of) properties
(c) "Maximum greatness" includes the property of existence, and existence > non-existence.

0. Start with (b). Maximising even an infinite number of these is possible (maths: parameters of a function), and so the being is conceivable.
1. By (a), the being is possible.
2. This is fine. The existence of other worlds is OK because they are conceivable, and thus possible by (a). By (c), the being exists.
3. By (c), this is OK
4, 5, 6, 7 all logically sound.

Thus, we can now argue about (a), (b) and (c), because the logic is now sound. In the end, it is science and perception which lets us decide for ourselves, but I personally find them to be hard to swallow, especially (a). That's why I said "probably not": with axioms, you either agree or you don't, and you can't use logic without axioms. Go ahead and try.

[Anonymous No.5320300]

>maximally great being

[Anonymous No.5320301]

>maximally great being

[Anonymous No.5320302]

>>5320225
You did not understand my post. I'm saying the criticism is based on logically assessing the argument. Eventually some form of evidence must be used to compare it with reality.

>>5320252
Yes, that's right.

[Anonymous No.5320321]

>>5320301
>>maximally great being

Im' trying to imagine that and I can't. I don't know what it means.

I made it simpler by thinking "maximally great object"

what makes one object greater than another?

[Anonymous No.5320322]

>>5320295
that's actually really good and means that "maximaly great" makes sense

[Anonymous No.5320365]

>>5320295
>(c) "Maximum greatness" includes the property of existence

Existence is not a property.

Existence is a relation between a concept and an object.

>existence > non-existence.

This makes no sense and is just based on feels.

[Anonymous No.5320375]

>>5320365

This ^
Kant already destroy all ontological arguments.

Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words.

Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality.

However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).

You can't derive that an object exists via its definition.

Specially if that object is outside space and time, that kind of existence is gibberish to us.

[Negrodamus !1SqiNl6CuQ No.5320392]

>>5319367

God is in every dick you suck. You can find God by shoving millions of cocks up your asshole. You can find God by drowning in the cum of the 1000 men you sucked off before you typed that post.

You attempt to call people unwise and thick-headed when they don't buy into your silly game of calling anything God. There is no point in having the construct of a "God" if it is anything I could do ever. I can feel God when I'm taking a shit. I can feel God when I ejaculate. I can feel God when I punt a small child into a 4-lane highway.

You're trying to say that God is this odd, encompassing power that makes everything happen but we can't really define him correctly because he is whatever you want him to be because he is God because he is this odd, encompassing power that makes everything happen but we can't really define him correctly because he is whatever you want him to be because he is God because he is this odd, encompassing power that makes everything happen but we can't really define him correctly because he is whatever you want him to be because he is God because he is this odd, encompassing power that makes everything happen but we can't really define him correctly because he is whatever you want him to be because he is God because he is this odd, encompassing power, etc. etc. etc.

tl;dr
Your logic is flawed, and I like to feel God when I shove pointed objects down my urethra.

[Anonymous No.5320397]

>>5320365
Lrn2mathematics.

Let's say "properties" are ordered sets. Each element in the set is a possible value for this property. One property might be kindness, as is measured from 0 to infinity (half-open real line). The ordering of the set would then be the same as for the real numbers.
>Existence is not a property.
Yes it is, it has values "existence" and "non-existence". The ordering in the set is non-existence < existence.
>This makes no sense and is just based on feels.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that this is a way of describing OP's argument sensibly because part of it was too imprecise to even examine.

>>5320375
What you're saying is interesting, and I agree with that. I know it's wrong from the start, for that reason. But it's also very close to what I'm trying to explain: the argument DOES start from certain assumptions which are not proved. So what I'm trying to do is REFRAME the problem as something with axioms and logic. Then, all you need to do is decide whether you agree with the axioms.

In other words, the fact that it's an ontological proof is a flaw, but what if we remove that flaw?

[Anonymous No.5320409]

>>5319333
> if

[Anonymous No.5320471]

>>5320295
>I just want to say precisely why I think it's wrong.
Well... if you think a perfect thing exists, and 'exists' is a caveat to it being perfect... you're basically saying 'I think something that exists exists'... so, yeah. You've neutered the argument.

And the way you broke down the argument is incomplete. OP is wrong because of the reason I put fourth originally, >>5320084 . To fault him for saying that conceivable things are possible is just very flimsy.

[Anonymous No.5320495]

>>5320397
>Yes it is, it has values "existence" and "non-existence".

Irrelevant.. The object itself exists or doesn't exist, it's an empirical matter, not a property of the object.

existence doesn't add any new information to the object's nature. It's not like a color that attaches to an object.

You can imagine a blue ball vs a non-blue ball. But you can't imagine a ball vs a non-existent ball. Makes no sense, its not a property of the object its an empirical matter.

The argument tries to make existence a property of the object and it tries to make "X exists" an analytic or logical matter -- but it isn't.

You can't deduce an object exists just by looking at its definitions refer to this >>5320375

[Anonymous No.5320505]

>>5320495
>The object itself exists or doesn't exist

and it isn't even this simple, things exist in different ways --

numbers exist in one way
dreams in another way
physical objects in another way
etc

[Anonymous No.5320507]

Go to bed, Spinoza

[Anonymous No.5320519]

>>5320295
>(a) If something is conceivable, it is possible that it exists.
I can conceive of a luminous aether. Doesn't mean it exists. Doesn't mean it's physically possible, aka possible according to physics. I don't know what other definition of "possible" you might be using.

You are doing an equivocation on "great". There are plenty of strict weak relations, and it does not follow that there is a single "up" direction along all axes. Instead, you can flip an axis and still be consistent.