God defined as the greatest does not exist

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby bahman » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:45 pm

This is the direct observation that the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.
User avatar
bahman
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby Venture » Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:22 am

Cantor's theorem is for Finite sets.

Language limits reason, reason limits understanding.

God exists outside of our understanding.

Call me circular, self-attesting or self-defeating?
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
"
User avatar
Venture
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:12 pm
Location: Canada

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:05 am

bahman wrote:This is the direct observation that the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem).
The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest.
Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.

Note again, you have to specify the context.

In the above your P1 [even if true] is based on the Mathematical perspective,
therefore it follows, that God cannot exists within the Mathematical perspective.

I argued in another thread, it is possible for the ontological God to exists in thoughts-only.
Ontological God = a God than which no greater God can be conceived [St Anselm] or exists.

It is common for people to raise thoughts [whether possible or impossible] that can influence them psychological, physiologically, positively [sexual fantasies, hopes, prayers, dreams, God exists] or negatively [psychosomatic diseases, evil acts].

However what is critical is the question whether it is possible for God to exists as real, to the extent of creating the Universe, delivered holy texts via prophets and messengers where some books contain malignant elements that believers complied with dogmatically.
This I have argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational-philosophical perspective.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby Venture » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:22 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
bahman wrote:This is the direct observation that the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem).
The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest.
Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.

Note again, you have to specify the context.

In the above your P1 [even if true] is based on the Mathematical perspective,
therefore it follows, that God cannot exists within the Mathematical perspective.

I argued in another thread, it is possible for the ontological God to exists in thoughts-only.
Ontological God = a God than which no greater God can be conceived [St Anselm] or exists.

It is common for people to raise thoughts [whether possible or impossible] that can influence them psychological, physiologically, positively [sexual fantasies, hopes, prayers, dreams, God exists] or negatively [psychosomatic diseases, evil acts].

However what is critical is the question whether it is possible for God to exists as real, to the extent of creating the Universe, delivered holy texts via prophets and messengers where some books contain malignant elements that believers complied with dogmatically.
This I have argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational-philosophical perspective.


You're dogmatically empirical while arguing an analytical argument. You use creation and God-inspired scriptures as a way to negatively connote all of God based beliefs. Your empirical ability is limited by yourself. Go live in the wilderness, try DMT, challenge yourself and change, study astronomy and geography. The commonality of this dualistic idea you have of people being influenced positively or negatively will hurt you, not me. Don't doubt me on this circular reasoning, you will base your life on a circular premise eventually.

Tell me about those malignant books. Tell me about what is real.

An invitation for real philosophy for once.
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
"
User avatar
Venture
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:12 pm
Location: Canada

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:50 am

Venture wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
bahman wrote:This is the direct observation that the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem).
The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest.
Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.

Note again, you have to specify the context.

In the above your P1 [even if true] is based on the Mathematical perspective,
therefore it follows, that God cannot exists within the Mathematical perspective.

I argued in another thread, it is possible for the ontological God to exists in thoughts-only.
Ontological God = a God than which no greater God can be conceived [St Anselm] or exists.

It is common for people to raise thoughts [whether possible or impossible] that can influence them psychological, physiologically, positively [sexual fantasies, hopes, prayers, dreams, God exists] or negatively [psychosomatic diseases, evil acts].

However what is critical is the question whether it is possible for God to exists as real, to the extent of creating the Universe, delivered holy texts via prophets and messengers where some books contain malignant elements that believers complied with dogmatically.
This I have argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real within an empirical-rational-philosophical perspective.


You're dogmatically empirical while arguing an analytical argument. You use creation and God-inspired scriptures as a way to negatively connote all of God based beliefs. Your empirical ability is limited by yourself. Go live in the wilderness, try DMT, challenge yourself and change, study astronomy and geography. The commonality of this dualistic idea you have of people being influenced positively or negatively will hurt you, not me. Don't doubt me on this circular reasoning, you will base your life on a circular premise eventually.

Tell me about those malignant books. Tell me about what is real.

An invitation for real philosophy for once.

Nope, my ultimate basis of reality is an empirical-rational-philosophical perspective.
Empirical proof can be very limited, i.e. Popper argued empirical scientific theories are at best "polished conjectures". Even scientists [most] will humbly agree with this fact. Thus we MUST reinforce the empirical with the rational and the philosophical basis of verification.

ALL?? Note I mentioned "SOME" in my point above. A good example is the Quran which contains loads of evil and malignant elements. I am easy with the NT since it has an overriding pacifist non-violent overriding maxim, i.e. 'Love [even] your enemies'.

What circularity?
Hey, note I am not only all talk but emphasize in the practical and actions.
I have discussed the practical as well or how to be highly spiritual.
Breathing Ability and Spirituality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194659

Good and deliberate spiritually attuned breathing and practices will generate natural DMT which effects should be secondary. What is critical is one must cultivate a strong breath foundation to enable one to realize one's optimal spiritual potential.

What is "real" is true and realizable in conformance within an empirical-rational-philosophical framework and system.

For example if you see an 'oasis' while journeying within a large desert, the empirical-based "oasis" that you see is not real when justified with the rational-philosophical perspective. Those who do not rationalize and philosophize their own perception and cognition may insist they saw a very 'real' empirical oasis and reacted with joy, hope, etc. especially if they were thirsty and searching for a water hole.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby bahman » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:51 pm

Venture wrote:Cantor's theorem is for Finite sets.

The subset of a set is bigger than the set because 2^n>n for all positive integer n. 2^infinity>infinity.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.
User avatar
bahman
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby brevel_monkey » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:03 am

This is the direct observation that the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.


I think you have equivocated on the word 'greatest'. The ontological proof relies on the meaning of the word 'greatest' as a judgement. Otherwise, it wouldn't follow that it is greater to exist than not to exist.
Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the plannings, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generations, and leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable.
- Sherlock Holmes, A Case of Identity
User avatar
brevel_monkey
'
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:01 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: God defined as the greatest does not exist

Postby bahman » Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:44 pm

brevel_monkey wrote:
This is the direct observation that the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.


I think you have equivocated on the word 'greatest'.

Greatest is something which greater than it does not exist.

brevel_monkey wrote:The ontological proof relies on the meaning of the word 'greatest' as a judgement.


It is already defined.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.
User avatar
bahman
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]