A new ontological argument

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

A new ontological argument

Postby Certainly real » Sun May 16, 2021 12:07 am

The shape my four year old drew without a ruler, is imperfect as a triangle. Some would argue it's not even a triangle at all. Resembling a perfect triangle (an imperfect triangle) and being a true triangle (a perfect triangle) are two different truths.

A) Whatever's perfectly x, is indubitably x (an imperfect triangle's triangularity can either be rejected or doubted. A perfect triangle's cannot).

B) Whatever's perfectly existing, is indubitably existing (just as whatever's perfectly triangular, is indubitably triangular).

We know what it is for x to be perfectly triangular. What is it for x to be perfectly existing? To be, is to exist (to be an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human, is to exist as an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human. Denying this would be both logically and semantically inconsistent). Thus, to be imperfect, is to exist as an imperfect being/existent. An imperfect triangle exists imperfectly as a triangle, and as an existent (better triangles and existents than it can be conceived of).

Nothing is better than a perfect triangle when triangularity is the reference or standard. When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than God or a perfect existence (I do not want a pretend/imaginary god on my side because he cannot give me a perfect existence. Real good is better than pretend good, and pretend evil/harm is better than real evil). When existing is the standard, nothing is better than God. It is better to be the real God than to exist as just an illusion/image of God (the real God is better than all humans or image/imaginary/pretend gods). We are meaningfully/semantically aware that something perfectly/indubitably exists, semantics dictate that this is God (of which there can only be one. You cannot have two omnipotent/perfect beings).

It is not us who truly/indubitably exist (contrary to the cogito). It is not us who instantiate existence (contrary to solipsism). We can doubt ourselves and our realness, yet we cannot doubt existence (the omnipresent) and its realness. By this I mean the omnipresent is necessarily at least as real as us. Having contradictory (semantically-inconsistent) beliefs/theories is wrong by definition/semantics.
Certainly real
Thinker
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 12:25 am

Fuck dude. Stop with the supreme being shit, seriously man.

Ok, fuck, here the deal. There is no such thing as a perfect triangle. Even if you consider platonic forms, what if one ‘perfect’ triangle is a centimeter larger than another ‘perfect’ triangle?!?!

Ever think about that?!

What a platonic form really is, is the category “triangleness” that allows us to abstract a triangle from an infinite number of variations so we don’t have to give anew name to every triangle we see.

Sorry, I get really impatient with people like you because the evil you’re perpetrating is mind blowing.

I’m going to explain existence to you:

We ALL made this TOGETHER! We did this to keep us from being bored with ALL of our eternal lives.

The current plan is a spirit reputation system. You build your reputation or you lose it. That’s all it is right now.

I’m making a new plan for everyone. That’s what I do.

To watch your wickedness on display here is abhorrent to me... you want there to be an unaccountable king because you want to be an unaccountable king.

Life isn’t about ruling people dude, it’s about making friends - as many as you can. That’s it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun May 16, 2021 3:41 am

Certainly real wrote:To be, is to exist (to be an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human, is to exist as an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human.

To exist = to have affect on something. - James S Saint (Affectance Ontology).

So -
If God has affect, God exists (whether good, bad, or whatever).
If God has no affect, God doesn't exist.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun May 16, 2021 3:43 am

Ecmandu wrote:Life isn’t about ruling people dude, it’s about making friends - as many as you can. That’s it.

So how many friends have you made?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 3:51 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Life isn’t about ruling people dude, it’s about making friends - as many as you can. That’s it.

So how many friends have you made?


Ultimately, people delight in truth more than bullshit.

Everyone is trying to state their truth every moment. That’s what people do.

You feed the world bullshit. I feed them truth. Let’s see how it plays out.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 4:04 am

Ecmandu wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Life isn’t about ruling people dude, it’s about making friends - as many as you can. That’s it.

So how many friends have you made?


Ultimately, people delight in truth more than bullshit.

Everyone is trying to state their truth every moment. That’s what people do.

You feed the world bullshit. I feed them truth. Let’s see how it plays out.


You have a massive army, and I’m but one man.

Can you withstand me?

That’s the question you should ponder.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 4:19 am

Of course I have a lot of friends, but that’s beside the point. You preach lies, I preach truth

How do you think that’s going to work out for you?

Existence is currently a reputation system. Think about what you’re doing to yours.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 4:40 am

I want to add something else.

Ignorance is ALWAYS a defense!

Tell the ‘demons’ to fuck off just because you didn’t understand something. Understand ?

Part of my spirit is demonic, it’s not a bad way to be, you have a lot to thank demons for. They have feelings just like anyone, they also are protectors, just in different ways. We can all get together and reminisce about this some day.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Certainly real » Sun May 16, 2021 8:14 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:To be, is to exist (to be an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human, is to exist as an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human.

To exist = to have affect on something. - James S Saint (Affectance Ontology).

So -
If God has affect, God exists (whether good, bad, or whatever).
If God has no affect, God doesn't exist.


Do you agree that only the perfect being, perfectly exists?

If it's not perfectly being/existing, then it's not perfect. It is imperfect or exists imperfectly.

God cannot be bad because being bad semantically requires that one be imperfect (or exist imperfectly). Thus, it's not just that God is good, it's that only God is truly good (just as only a perfect triangle is truly triangular), which is interesting given that in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19, Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”. The reasoning of Jesus was sound (according to the Bible).

Also interesting is that an imperfect triangle resembles a perfect triangle. We are created in the image/resemblance of God according to the Bible (see Genesis 1:26-27).
Certainly real
Thinker
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun May 16, 2021 9:11 am

I don't know what "the perfect being" means.
I don't know what "perfectly existing" means.
I don't know what "imperfectly existing" means.

Everything you are saying is contingent on what those mean. But I don't think that you know what they mean either. Obviously you want to relate them to perfect goodness but I don't think you know what that means either.

Sorry mate, you just use too many ambiguous words and you can't do that with logic.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Certainly real » Sun May 16, 2021 11:19 am

obsrvr524 wrote:I don't know what "the perfect being" means.
I don't know what "perfectly existing" means.
I don't know what "imperfectly existing" means.

Everything you are saying is contingent on what those mean. But I don't think that you know what they mean either. Obviously you want to relate them to perfect goodness but I don't think you know what that means either.

Sorry mate, you just use too many ambiguous words and you can't do that with logic.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the ambiguity issue. The perfect being = the greatest possible being (God). Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of (a perfect existence). They denote the same exact same thing/being/existent/entity. It's hard for me to accept that an individual cannot make sense of what a perfect being is whilst having some awareness of the semantic of God. But I am not you, and you are not me, and I am not omniscient, which means what seems crystal clear to me, may genuinely be ambiguous to you. So long as neither of us are insincere to the Truth, then neither of us are committing evil (excluding everything else). And since God punishes evil or deprives it of good (it's perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve, Existence being perfect means that Existence punishes evil), all are better off not being evil. God does not compromise on His Perfection. God does not wrong anyone (including Himself). Hence why only He is Lord (capital L to emphasis lord in an absolute sense).

In any case, the OP is a part of the following:

http://philosophyneedsgods.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/
Certainly real
Thinker
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ichthus » Sun May 16, 2021 3:10 pm

Ecmandu... This is my first time reading you in ILP, as far as I know. You are too much! For what are you overcompensating when you have absolutely no content to your rebuttals? This is philosophy. You must be lost. Please review your posts and ask yourself what you really add to the discussion. Everything you put in to *sounding* critical should be redirected into *being* reflective. You have it in you. We all do. Show us what y’got.
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. The basta’ds.
Ichthus
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 3:32 pm

Ichthus wrote:Ecmandu... This is my first time reading you in ILP, as far as I know. You are too much! For what are you overcompensating when you have absolutely no content to your rebuttals? This is philosophy. You must be lost. Please review your posts and ask yourself what you really add to the discussion. Everything you put in to *sounding* critical should be redirected into *being* reflective. You have it in you. We all do. Show us what y’got.


https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... e#p2815998

That’s post that started this...

It’s of sound mind. Then obsrvr asked how my philosophy of no rulers was working for me as far as making friends...

I’m making a new plan for existence ... it gets a little bumpy sometimes... sometimes... extremely bumpy.

It goes with the territory in absurd ways and bleeds into my posts here as well.

I don’t like these glib ruler over everything people.

Do you think that they give 2 shits about the pleasurable exclusive access problem? No, their souls aren’t that deep. I think about it constantly. I abide by it more than they’ve ever tried (probably because unlike them, I care about it). Who are all these horrible people sucking up to their own sublimated narcissism?

You tell me who I am, I’ll tell you who I am, maybe we meet in the middle.

Having actually been to hell. For no reason. This shit isn’t funny to me.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A new ontological argument

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 16, 2021 3:46 pm

I’ll additionally add this point with emphasis:

Existence is violating everyone’s consent in one way or another. Consent violation is what sin is.

That means all of existence is sin.

Once you figure that out and then ask the claimed powers that be to fix it... they make excuses! Lots of excuses ... and then you see through the veil.

They can’t do it !!!

It’s bullshit. All bullshit.

That’s when I figured out we all made this together, that there’s no blasphemy and that this is designed by all of us as a reputation system.

When I submit my plan to god wannabes, they get toungue tied and angry that I see straight through them and exposed them in front of others.

True story.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users