>just proved God's existence

>>17884976 (OP)
So why does God have to be omnipotent again? Is it an autism thing?

>>17885009
Then he would not be God.

>>17885026
Why though?

> my waifu is perfect therefore she exists
Nice argument here.

>>17884976 (OP)
>god is real.. because he just is okay
Why are presups like this

>>17884976 (OP)
Formal logic cannot predict unobserved phenomena.

>>17885043
God = perfection

>>17884976 (OP)
>changes "Possibly, God exists" to "Possibly, God does not exist"
>disproves God's existence

>>17884976 (OP)
Enjoy Mexico.
>>17885053
That mariachi just got louder.

>>17885061
Prove it.

>>17884976 (OP)
Doesn't the exitance (and even the conceptual existence) of figures like the Pagan gods (and the actual Christian god depicted in the bible but people will cope and seethe over that) disprove D1 instantly? Those are Gods beyond any doubt but also clearly flawed and not all powerful.

>>17884976 (OP)
this only works because there is a concept of god, not because there is a god.

>>17884976 (OP)
A5 is probably the biggest mental leep in this.
if something that had a lot of bad properties necessarily existed would it make sense to say that it's necessary existence is good?

>>17884976 (OP)
Circular reasoning, not worth taking seriously.

>>17884976 (OP)
No you just proved some abstraction based on some other abstraction, not the real existence of Godan, using that logic proves that anything that that positively exists must be perfect.

>>17884976 (OP)
D1 is the weak spot. The idea of a "positive property" is subjective, and God is beholden to no one's opinions.

>>17884976 (OP)
>A5 Necessary existence is a positive property
>T3 Necessarily, God exists
Isn't that Anselm's proof?

IIRC, he relies on a large number of unspoken assumptions. That doesn't mean his logic necessarily fails, of course, but it does require one to seal any cracks to make it airtight and it might be better to approach this another way.

If I were trying to establish this point logically, I would take the cosmological argument and the argument from perfection as my starting point, since those each prove the necessary existence of the unseen by the existence of that which is seen and measureable. One proof is by necessary efficient causes, the other by the nature of good-ness itself and the objectivity of forms in the classical sense.

>>17885066
It's not that trivially easy to overturn. You would have to prove that not existing is always positive, when very clearly that isn't always the case. There are examples where existing is a positive, and all it takes is one single example to overturn your argument. You don't know how to logic.

>>17885168
The weak link I see in the OP argument is simply the fact that an actually existing bad thing is no better or worse than the non-existing concept of that same bad thing.

I wouldn't attempt to argue that taking the concept of something evil, and then making it actually exist, is imparting some kind of inherently positive property to it. So I can see a valid challenge exists to A5.

>>17885300
>The idea of a "positive property" is subjective
I would counter simply by saying this isn't always the case.

Suppose we acknowledge the hypothesis that some properties that one might predicate are subjective as to whether or not they are positive. At this point you are still very far from proving that all are. Even if some properties are subjective, one cannot from this assume that all are. At least, not without committing a serious fallacy.

>>17885300
No every positive results from a double negative, so there is technically no such thing as a positive, just the negation of a negative.

This proves Zeus exists!

>>17884976 (OP)
>god exists, therefore god exists

>>17885507
No, its more like good things exists, god is good, therefore god exists.

There is no such thing as an essence, and existence is not a real predicate.
This is also an argument for Platonic realism, which for some reason is taken much less seriously than God.

>>17884976 (OP)
word play

>>17884976 (OP)
Lets go with this.

So all positive is God, therefore all negative is Devil. God and Devil both cant exist in same space and claim to be omnipotent. So either God=Demon or Neither God/Demon are omnipotent. Hence either 1) God is not just positive, this disproves the initial claim about property being either positive or negative, and about God being just good or 2) God is not omnipotent, thus not powerful as God would like to claim, the limits are untested, but at the very least if we apply the measure of good v bad as signs/influence of the powers of God v Devil, then god is virtually powerless/neutral/irrelevant, hence no value in admiration/worship as any form of "God" known in common sense (powerful/force for good/etc)

So this disproves God more than it proves it, lmao

What the fuck is a "positive property" and why are we asserting "god-like" is a positive property? Isn't that just circular reasoning?

Also, doesn't this just mean literally anything that can exist does exist? I guess I'll go talk to Harry Potter and Gilgamesh in Narnia on my griffin.

>>17884976 (OP)
Using logic to attempt to explain something beyond logic???

ummm you can't do that sir, it don't be that way

>>17885149
Because the perfect object would have all qualities, including the ones usually ascribed traditionally to God, i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, unity, self-sufficiency, etc.
>inb4 but having those qualities doesn't make the perfect object God!
a few of said qualities are aseity - which means absolute independence from any other object, being absolutely free - and being Definitio, which means He is the Source and Sustainer of Creation, completely distinct from anything else. There can't be more than one Perfect Object by definition, so therefore the Perfect Object naturally has to be God. Otherwise, "God" would not be a Perfect Object, and therefore not be God.

>>17885827
>the perfect object would have all qualities, including the ones usually ascribed traditionally to God, i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, unity, self-sufficiency, etc.
Why do you believe this? This is just an assertion of the position again.
> a few of said qualities are aseity - which means absolute independence from any other object, being absolutely free - and being Definitio, which means He is the Source and Sustainer of Creation, completely distinct from anything else. There can't be more than one Perfect Object by definition, so therefore the Perfect Object naturally has to be God. Otherwise, "God" would not be a Perfect Object, and therefore not be God.
These things don't seem to have anything to do with perfection as it is usually understood, they just seem like a list of supposedly relevant and positive ideas that have been stapled together, nor is there any reason to pin them on a God. Here is another trait "usually ascribed traditionally" to God, jealousy.

>>17885850
Your understanding of Perfection is mired by a false definition, which makes your argument fallacious. Perfection is simply put the complete ensemble of existent qualities a single object possess. Those qualities aren't simply "ascribed" to the Perfect Object arbitrarily, the Perfect Object _IS_ the definition of these qualities, otherwise the Perfect Object could not be intuited, recognized or contemplated as such.
>inb4 but we can't understand it
Understanding is not contemplation and is unnecessary to perceive objects. Or do you understand everything you lay your eyes off, or live in complete isolation from each and every sense and thought process because you cannot understand the input you are given?

>either a property or its negation is positive, but not both
Not what the axiom says. It says if a property is not positive then its negation is and vice versa, which is immensely more debatable and likely introduces contradictions in the logic.

>a God-like being possesses all positive properties
Then I suppose jealousy is a positive property (Exodus 34:14).

>positive properties are necessarily positive
Since God ordered to commit genocide (1 Samuel 15), then genocide is always good I suppose.

>necessary existence is a positive property
Then I suppose all those christcucks saying evil necessarily exists are really saying there's something good about evil.

>necessarily, God exists
Does not follow. The conclusion should be "necessarily, at least one God-like entity exists," and nothing indicates that the Christian god is one of them, let alone the only one.

But why am I wasting my keystrokes? The retarded christcuck will just "nuh uh" and keep pretending all it takes to make a stupid idea sound brilliant is to put some Greek symbols on it like a gender studies major.

>>17885869
> Your understanding of [p]erfection is mired by a false definition
What definition is that, if not the actual meaning of the word "perfection" within the English language? If you want to create your own definition which is not the proper usage then just create your own word and don't try to confuse matters
> Those qualities aren't simply "ascribed" to the [p]erfect [o]bject arbitrarily,
You are ascribing these qualities to this idea arbitrarily, asserting without any basis whatsoever that you are not doing so arbitrarily is not an argument.
> the Perfect Object _IS_ the definition of these qualities
Why do you believe this? And don't think it can be simply stepped over that you are attempting to smuggle in this term "Perfect Object" without showing that it exists or is meaningful.
> otherwise the Perfect Object could not be intuited, recognized or contemplated as such.
This is a weird assertion based on several other totally unproven assertions and an equal number of brazenly asserted definitions.
> Understanding is not contemplation and is unnecessary to perceive objects. Or do you understand everything you lay your eyes off, or live in complete isolation from each and every sense and thought process because you cannot understand the input you are given?
Thanks Kierkegaard, if you are really just going to throw up your hands and declare that your argument is incomprehensible but you are right anyway then just say so, that at least could be respected far more than this pretence that any of this makes logical sense.

Wouldn't this entity or idea be more perfect if it was so simple and persuasive that it could not possibly be denied by anyone? Would this be a positive trait? Doesn't the absence of this trait prove that either God is not perfect or cannot simply be summoned into existence by word games and suppositions.

>>17885168
They are all created. There is only one uncreated God and his name is Holy.

>>17885891
>What definition is that, if not the actual meaning of the word "perfection" within the English language?
Most definitions according to dictionnaries are negative definitions ("without fault"), I've given you the positive, objectively correct one.
>You are ascribing these qualities to this idea arbitrarily, asserting without any basis whatsoever that you are not doing so arbitrarily is not an argument.
>You are ascribing these qualities to this idea arbitrarily
no, I am doing it according to the positive definition of the word "Perfection", which I have already stated in my above post.
>Why do you believe this?
Because according to the positive definition of Perfection that i have just provided you, the object that has the quality of it is the source of all other external objects, as I have stated in my OTHER above post.
>And don't think it can be simply stepped over that you are attempting to smuggle in this term "Perfect Object" without showing that it exists or is meaningful.
This is a meaningless objection because if the quality in question - which is inextricable from the object that possess by its definition, which again includes unicity, which i've stated in YET ANOTHER ABOVE POST - was uncontemplateable - that is to say, not perceiveable by any experiencing being - then the entire exchange we've just had would be logically impossible to have had occurred. Therefore the quality must be contemplateable, which means it has a source, an object that logically possess the quality acting as a referential. Or do you suppose that qualities can simply appear out of Nothing, with no referential or object ascribed to them?
>Thanks Kierkegaard, if you are really just going to throw up your hands and declare that your argument is incomprehensible
I did not do so; in fact, I said quite the opposite in that while a man cannot understand immediately all that he lays his eyes on, he can yet learn the correct information concerning the input. (1/2)

>>17885869
That argument rests upon certain fundamental assumptions that have yet to be proven. To begin with, the assumption that all objects have a fundamental and unchanging essence, but this is debatable. Take a car, what exactly is a car? Is it the engine, the wheels, the frame, the brakes, etc? If you begin manufacturing a car, at what point does it become a car? When the frame is manufactured and placed, is it a car? When you add wheels does it then become a car? When you add an engine is it then? You could go on, but for all of these we would say its in the process of becoming a car. There is no fundamental essence of a "car" that is unchanging - to some extent its a mental construct for objects that when placed in a certain configuration we consider to be a car (and for those objects much the same and so on). There isn't a fixed essence, to demonstrate this.. we would say, as an example, that the essence of a car is a three to four wheeled vehicle powered by a combustion engine used for transportation of people. But if the engine broke down we would say it's still a car, albeit a broken car. If the wheels were stolen, the engine stolen then we would say its a car that has been hit by thieves, but we would still label it as a car despite it no longer possessing properties we would ascribe to a car. If that wrecked car was then sold for scrap, as it was being junked we would say its a car in the process of becoming scrap, and then finally we would call it scrap metal..

For all things, it is like this. A given object has no fixed existence, and the essence we would ascribe to them exists in the mind rather than as something truly real - an object is a construction applied to what we already perceive, and for this reason being able to conceive that an object with necessary existence exists does not prove that it actually does.

>>17885891
>>17885922
>Wouldn't this entity or idea be more perfect if it was so simple and persuasive that it could not possibly be denied by anyone?Would this be a positive trait? Doesn't the absence of this trait prove that either God is not perfect or cannot simply be summoned into existence by word games and suppositions.
The Undeniability of God's existence is proven by the fact that, despite the absence of any sort of sensually-perceivable objects possessing the quality of Perfection, it is still a an argument that occurs. Again, if no referential exists for Perfection, why is it a concept that reoccurs in the thought process?

>>17885929
>There is no fundamental essence of a "car" that is unchanging
One could argue that this is precisely because the fundamental essence of a "car" lacks the perfected qualities inherent to the perfected Source of its qualities that it fails to be eternal. To put it bluntly, you can't expect a perfect fundamental existence out of an imperfect sensual object.

>>17885935
>God exists because there are millions of retards like me keeping the argument going despite that we keep losing it.
Remember: this is the best of the best Christians can come up with after 2000 years honing their theology.

There's also the thing that if God possess all good qualities in abundance, that also means he has the finest taste, as an example of how silly that argument is. Therefore perhaps in heaven a person eats God.

>>17885956
>because there are millions of retards like me keeping the argument going
and they keep the argument running because even bigger retards can't point as to where the referential for this "Perfection" quality is in the state of Nature. There exists no perfect sensual object, and you absolute mongs keep saying Perfection doesn't exist as a cope, but then it begs the question as to why the argument is even logically conceivable if there is no Perfection to begin with. This is why just mentionning that the debate still keeps going is you admitting defeat by default.

>>17885970
>where the referential for this "Perfection" quality is in the state of Nature
It doesn't exist. You made it up as a cope.

>>17885958
is having a good taste a good quality though? It pampers to a sensual craving of the flesh - a literal physical obstacle to True Freedom - and leaves you vulnerable to something that is bound to that craving.

>>17885996
>It doesn't exist
No Thing comes out of Nothing, dumbass. Either the referential exists or the tenure of this entire argument not only did not occur but could not logically occur either.
(Pro-tip: it's not the second option)

>god could be real therefore you better believe in the bible
I'm not sure how these are related.
T. Supernatural being
(Watch for it, he's gonna ask if I'm a demon of Satan)

If you're gonna take the existence of positive properties as axiomatic, you might as well just make God's existence an axiom and save yourself the effort.

>>17886004
>the tenure of this entire argument not only did not occur but could not logically occur either
This. Keep coping, retard.

>>17885943
>to the perfected Source of its qualities that it fails to be eternal
Then you have to prove that an eternal and permanent being is capable of acting in a causal way to begin with, there are many arguments that a permanent being is incapable of causal action, and therefore incapable of being said to be the source of anything.

>>17886010
That's for granted, the issue is that upon god (or gods) existing he assumes a single religion.

Like, we know it's not the bible, right, because it's an amalgam of older myths, it could be anything, and I can post stuff of how it could have spinned, but the issue here's gonna be anon misbehaving.

Speaking of which, yes, this is the sword used to defeat Orochi by the Storm God Susanoo. Part of the imperial regalia.

>>17886025
I mean, yeah that's the issue with the God argument, at best it proves that a perfect God exists, but not any particular religious dogma, which would need to be proven separately. It also doesn't answer many other questions - the Christians believe in a trinity, Muslims and Jews in a unitary God, Hindus believe in their own supreme God, Platonists believed in a supreme God with many lesser Gods, you cannot say it proves a Christian God when it could just as easily argue for the other Gods. You could argue for the Islamic/Jewish God using the same argument on basis that being unitary and one is a positive quality, therefore God must necessarily be perfectly one, therefore the trinity is out of step with what God must necessarily be.

I'm not sure why, but Christian larpers have the dishonesty of a fair feast dice player and the intellect of their clientelle.

Suppose asian history books mention atrocities caused by Kitsune to Humans interaction. And these mention certain monuments, right.

You only would need chech if these artifacts are there, It would give credence to asian religions.

Behold, Sessho Seki. Killing Stone. From Japan, like, they entrapped the infamous fox there.

That's 2 artifacts.

>>17886033
However, you could argue that that isn't evidence as a sword can be forged at any point by any person, and a stone in a volcanic area can simply be near the cause of deaths rather than the cause of deaths.

>>17886036
I'm not arguing that, I'm saying: hey, at least they have artifacts.

Posting the finest gentleman out there, btw.

>>17886039
Well, yeah. Though Christianity does too - e.g. the billion or so relics. Though, I must say that a tree or rock is more convincing as the home of a deity than a cracker..

>>17886042
Believe what you will, EU has some shared mythology, like Will O the Whisp, which has a scientific explanation, but has been seen by my eyes.

>>17886033
Christianity does not, in fact, discredit the existence of other religions. It doesn't even discredit the fact that the "gods" worshipped in those religions are existent.
What it does dispute, in fact, is the fact that these gods are either/or creator deities, omnipotent, superior to God, in possession of the keys to the afterlife, and benevolent to humans. Christianity posits that these "gods" act as such out of vanity and amusement at letting Mankind fall into Gehenna while promising them the opposite.
>>17886042
>Though, I must say that a tree or rock is more convincing as the home of a deity than a cracker
A) That's an entirely arbitrary and sensual distinction
B)The host isn't the "home" of God. It is the Body of God. It's an important distinction because it means that God is physically present as a witness during the Eucharist and that you as a human physically partake in the Body of God, physically communing with God and through that unity with Him engaging in the process of divinization.

>>17884976 (OP)
D1 is already a failure.
Keep your Platonist bullshit back in the Iron Age.

>>17886055
Christian religion has its share of messes.
You're also very quick to accuse others of evil, yet when your god is petty you claim it's his will.

Us? We're pranksters.

>>17886055
>What it does dispute, in fact, is the fact that these gods are either/or creator deities, omnipotent, superior to God, in possession of the keys to the afterlife, and benevolent to humans. Christianity posits that these "gods" act as such out of vanity and amusement at letting Mankind fall into Gehenna while promising them the opposite.
To begin with, not every religion posits creator gods, or that what is was created. Buddhism, for instance, supposes that gods of some kind exist, but that they are part of the same cycle of samsara, so while capable of helping humans in some way are incapable of breaking someone out of the suffering inherent here.
>A,B
Well, yes. It's a joke.

>>17885997
You think that Jesus's duplicated fish and wine tasted like shit?

>>17886069
I don't think the fact that Jesus fed the multitudes with delicious food detracts from the fact that tastefulness is not an inherently good quality to possess, though. I'd consider it fairly neutral since it is preceded inherently by a binding bodily function.
>>17886067
>To begin with, not every religion posits creator gods
It doesn't detract from my point. The official theological position about Buddha, for example, is that He is a deceiver that preached the state in which one throws off all referentials as illusions - when most Christians consider that state of being as being equivalent if not literally being Gehenna, as God is the Referential. As for samsara, Christianity does not recognize it, and consider it a fallacy born out of human pattern recognition seeing reocurrences and assuming cyclical returns rather than the world conforming and rejecting in ebb and flow to its Referential.

>>17886095
Yes, but Buddhism has clearer arguments and explanations than Christianity, while also not being dependent on a historical event that no one could actually prove either way. If the Buddha was not a historical person then Buddhism could still be true, but if Jesus did not rise from the dead then Christianity would be false.

>>17886095
Calling flesh binding relies on mixing different incompatible religious strains.
You're relying on Greek ideas about the body being some kind of prison of the soul, possibly because of the lack of omnipotence of the divine Craftsman, and combining them with Christianity that is built around ideas of the body being the product of an omnipotent and loving deity making something in its own image.
These really can't be merged together without the expectation that the Christian God fucked up somewhere and that is why you are stuck in a shitty body that you have to escape.

Actually most religions do. Hinduism doesn't depend on a specific historical fact, neither does Daoism, Confucianism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism...

>>17886104
>You're relying on Greek ideas about the body being some kind of prison of the soul, possibly because of the lack of omnipotence of the divine Craftsman, and combining them with Christianity that is built around ideas of the body being the product of an omnipotent and loving deity making something in its own image.
>These really can't be merged together without the expectation that the Christian God fucked up somewhere and that is why you are stuck in a shitty body that you have to escape.
But the christian conception IS that the body is inherently fallen from its original state as God's image. Genesis 3 clearly states in what way the human body be diminished functionally from what it was meant to be.
The idea that the body and its functions are obstacles is not incompatible with Christianity. The idea that the soul somehow "escapes" the body rather than it being perfected on the Day of Resurrection, however, now that is incompatible.

>>17886134
Then why isn’t there evidence of a once perfect creation?
If before the fall all was perfect and idyllic why is there no evidence of this anywhere? Before humanity, animals killed each other, starved, died, were diseased…

>>17885009
Because if “GOD” has limits, that means there is a force out there greater, and you end up in an eternal powerscale like DBZ or something, which ends up being stupid. Technically yes it is feasible though.

>>17886134
Humans did lose immortality after the original sin, in Christian myth.
But the body is still fundamentally good afterwards. It still is in the shape of God and follows his pattern. No one thinks that Adam looked different from themselves other than being somewhat more perfect before his sin.
But your body is still the product of God and still made according to his divine pattern and in his image.

>>17886180
>But the body is still fundamentally good afterwards. It still is in the shape of God and follows his pattern. No one thinks that Adam looked different from themselves other than being somewhat more perfect before his sin.
>But your body is still the product of God and still made according to his divine pattern and in his image.
I never said the body wasn't good. I said that the bodily functions - the pulsions that encourage self-craving before reason, logic and faith - were not. Or do you disagree with Jesus Himself in Matthew 5:28 when He claims that the sexual pulsion of lust is inherently adulterous and therefore immoral?

>>17886199
Humans are a species naturally bent towards monogamy.
Lust in a society where the average person married young and rarely divorced, as that ancient Jewish society was, was more often than not a break from that monogamy.
It wasn't just the lust for a woman that was bad, it was the breaking of that natural and, in Christian myth, God-ordained, bond of monogamous marriage.

>>17885869
>Perfection is simply put the complete ensemble of existent qualities a single object possess.
apart from being grammatically fucked, you need to consider the fact that this haphazard sequence of words does not mean anything at all.

>>17886220
God never ever ordained monogamous marriage.

>>17884976 (OP)
Why is A2 'intuitively correct'?
Similar for A3.A4.A5 Even then all you have shown is that if you skew definitions enough, 'a set of all sets' actually exist, but that has nothing to do with most concepts of what one would call a God

>>17885057
This too /thread

>>17884976 (OP)
I never really understood the need to make the argument as unintelligible as possible. Why not actually rephrase it in a coherent way ?

>Some properties are objectively "positive" (A1)
>Any property implied by a positive property is also positive (A2)
>Positive properties can be instantiated and can possibly exist in some world (T1)
>A God-like being has all positive properties (D1)
>Being God-like is itself a positive property (A3).
>So, it's possible that a God-like being exists (C)
>Positive properties are necessary (A4)
>Every being has a core essence (D2)
>God-like is an example of D2 (T2)
>Necessary existence means that a being must exist everywhere (D3)
>Necessary existence is a positive property (A5)
>Thus god must exist (T3)

Essentially, god can exist so god must exist. The problem is that a property being "positive" doesn't make sense, at least in its unified format under "god". Necessary existence can be a positive property, but it doesn't mean that omnipotence also has to be a necessary property.
Then there's also the question of properties existing or not. Following Hume's metaphysics (or Kant's too), we could aswell say that all those properties are only derived from things we witness and that we subjectively interpret. If so, then the concept of positive properties or essence looses its meaning and devolves into observation made by the mind, or extrapolation at best.

>>17885808
Godel left positive undefined because a stricter definition makes the logic moot

>>17884976 (OP)
Arguments from 'essence' are retarded because they apply to almost anything fictional.

This is literally circular reasoning twisted up in phony baloney axioms.

>>17885061
not at all, you can't have two distinct and separate attributes be equated

>>17885490
Define "positive".

>>17885929
>A given object has no fixed existence,
The same object can be thought of in different ways, this is true. And a human mind's perception of objects can be skewed or prone to fallacy, also true. Yet this says nothing about God's mind, and the existence of true forms in God's mind. If these actual forms do truly exist, it may be possible for us to study them, for example through empirical means.

If we, fallible minds that we are, are capable of discerning objective good from objective evil, we can also reflect on our empirical perceptions, models and understandings, and have the potential to arrive at or ascertain self-evident truths.

>>17886010
>If you're gonna take the existence of positive properties as axiomatic
If you think he is wrong, that implies you think something is objectively right. And if you think something is objectively right, you've already conceded that point.

>>17886032
>I mean, yeah that's the issue with the God argument, at best it proves that a perfect God exists, but not any particular religious dogma, which would need to be proven separately.
Usually these arguments come up in the context of dealing with atheists, and this argument is sufficient enough to overturn atheism.

>>17886058
>D1 is already a failure.
That's just a definition, anon.

>>17886856
But, if you are arguing for the existence of God based on a fundamental essence, and you believe that for there to be fundamental essence there must be forms in the mind of God (for essence is derived from its perfection).. then you're stuck in circular reasoning. If you can't prove that there is an unchanging and specific perfect essence of, say, a table outside of presupposing a God and you try to prove God presupposing that things have a fixed fundamental essence, then you're presupposing God exists because essence exists in the mind of God, or God is proven because God exists.

>>17886930
I think A5 is the weak point in the argument of OP (which is Anselm's argument). I would instead point to the necessity of an uncaused cause for the natural universe and all objects therein. This argument is based on the fact that anything exists at all. I would also argue for the existence of objective good on the basis of our capability for discernment that it exists; you yourself wouldn't be here arguing in favor of anything if you didn't think it was true, or at least that something is true – so the act of making an argument (or saying that anything is good/bad or correct/incorrect) already implicitly concedes that there is an objective difference between true and false.

So, if God's existence is shown by the existence of anything at all, and by the presence of objective truth and good, then that implies there can exist real forms in the mind of God, etc. And these forms are analogous to the forms that human minds conceive of. They can be studied and one's understanding can be refined through empirical (for those things which are physical) and/or reflective means.

>>17886957
There isn't necessarily a need for an uncaused cause, there are models of the universe that avoid a creator deity while avoiding infinite regress per se, see Buddhism. Also, there's the issue that adding an uncaused cause brings its own philosophical problems, because you have to explain how God can permanent and wholly unchanging while also being capable of affecting change, and affecting change to those things that exist in a linear sequence.

>>17884976 (OP)
>we can't understand god
>but somehow we can mathematically prove him because we know exactly what it is
interesting form of hereticism AND retardation

>>17886985
>because you have to explain how God can permanent and wholly unchanging
This part is immediate from the definition of being "uncaused." If an entity is impermanent or not immutable, then that entity is not uncaused but rather is caused. A caused entity is imposed upon by other, external existences; that's how it comes into existence, by causes that pre-exist it. An uncaused entity is by definition pre-existent, both temporally and causally, to everything. Otherwise it wouldn't be uncaused and it wouldn't be sufficient to explain the existence of the natural universe, and there would be no reason to call it God. We would be back to having no explanation for why anything exists.

So if a particular entity or object itself isn't uncaused, then the uncaused cause that originated all of these physical phenomena has to be elsewhere.

And when you have at last arrived at the truly uncaused entity, that is God, since that entity actually meets the definition.

>while also being capable of affecting change
Simple. It is entirely possible for there to be an entity that imposes existence and other attributes on created things, such as the natural universe, yet is never imposed upon by anything. Every action taken by such an entity must be a pure act of will based on the nature of what the entity is, and the entity is never imposed upon by anything external. If it is imposed upon by something external to itself, then one must find the ultimate uncaused source of that imposition. The natural universe for example must obey what we call laws of physics. It has no choice. Those "laws" or "forces" are really impositions coming from a necessarily supernatural source. That supernatural cause is not bound by the same rules. The order that arises because of these "natural laws" is attributable to whatever supernatural cause determined what the impositions would be. This is also analogous to how people in the natural universe create things in a more limited sense.

>>17887025
Christians have never been known for their intellectual rigor.

>>17886922
It is a bad definition.
A Deity does not necessarily have all positive properties.

>>17886180
>Humans did lose immortality after the original sin, in Christian myth.
I don't know what colouring book this shit keeps coming from. the christian myth is that they were thrown out of the garden lest they also eat from the tree of everlasting life, i.e. there was a danger they will become immortal; ergo they weren't immortal before, so they could not lose their immortality.

>>17884976 (OP)
The proof is not interesting because the real question is not the existence of God but of the nature of God. That God exists is not particularly meaningful or interesting if the consequences of God existing are no different from God not existing.

No one believes anything based on logic. The human mind works on emotions. Even logical proofs are just a way of enhancing the emotion of being convinced of something enough to be motivated to act on it. Basically self-hypnosis. Prayer is the same, so is a warcry during a battle or cheering in a crowd.