(Hint: The illogical-ness of the statement might have something to do with your definition of the word 'exists') You are again right. Based on my definition, existence doesn't make any sense. If I was discussing my definition of existence I would prove that any definition doesn't make any sense.
Are you saying that there cannot
be a coherent definition of 'existence'? I guess I'm a little confused.
But, no worries. I think we're both in agreement that having a name and a requisite definition is not sufficient
to demonstrate existence.
But I'm here to find out if God exist.
Presumably, then, you have other criteria for demonstrating existence in mind? Seeing as how 'being given a name and a definition' fails to provide sufficient reason to demonstrate existence?
Lot's of stuff exists. I dare say a bunch of stuff that exists are things that I do not know or believe do, in fact, exist.Can God be one of those? If no, why not?
Depends on what you mean by 'god', but, for the most part, without any further definition of 'god', then certainly that fits into the 'may exist I just don't know it' bucket. Lots of stuff is in that bucket: white hole, mome raths, good Rush songs, flux capacitors, Vishnu, invisible red strings of fate, ice-9, snowmen on Pluto, fire-monsters on Venus, the President of Mexico, the lost city of Atlantis, black smoke monsters, Bigfoot, leprechauns, pixies, good Pixies cover bands, etc. If I assume that I have grotesque, fundamental misunderstandings of reality (which is a possibility), the list can get even bigger. Like, infinitely
Yes, there are certainly some descriptions of 'god' that I can confidently say do not exist (but again, if I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality, I could be wrong
). If by 'god' you mean a 7-sided purple monster that plays tennis with the heads of children on the top of the Washington Monument...well, I'm rather confident that 'god' does not exist. Why, you ask? Because the manifestation of actual reality
is incongruent with that entity's existence - I see no entity on the top of Washington Monument engaged in a game of tennis with the heads of children.
If by 'god' you mean an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity that has a vested interested in human affairs that inspired and/or penned an old poetic book as his primary means of communication to his beloved creations...well, I'm rather confident that 'god' does not exist. Why, you ask? Because the manifestation of actual reality
is incongruent with that entity's existence - I see no loving action from an entity with unrestricted power; I see no entity perfectly capable of communication, with the apparent desire
for communication, actually engaging in communication
. I see lots of people playing pretend
I'll shortcut some of the conversation, because I've seen this song-and-dance before and have a rough idea of where you're going with this:
No, I do not know everything. I have never claimed to know everything. There are gaps in my knowledge. Yes, I could be wrong about all sorts of stuff, not just regarding beliefs/claims I have that I do not have extreme confidence in (Higgs boson is a real phenomenon), but also regarding beliefs/claims I do
have extreme confidence in (the sun will rise in the morning; fire burns; there are no good Rush songs).
Why do they exist or why do I think they exist? You answered correctly. The question Why I asked at the beginning (My first post on this thread) was about why do you think they exist.
Let me try and make sure I understood your "why" :
1. The thing manifest circumstances in external, objective reality that coincide with it's existence and do not coincide with it's non-existence.
2. You can make predictions about it explain other aspects of external, objective reality based on the manifestations in external, objective reality due to it's existence
3. It continue to exist even If you deny it existence.
I'm having trouble to understand point 1 and 2. Does it apply to Love? Or does Love answer some other rules that you forgot to describe? Or love doesn't exist?
For 3. I'd say that it applies perfectly to God
What is love
? Because points 1 and 2 certainly do apply to love. Or is love something so meaningless to you that you cannot differentiate between 'love' and 'not love'?
3 would certainly apply to god. And Thanos. And Santa Clause. And white holes. And invisible red strings. And Vishnu. And small teapots orbiting the sun. That things that exist do so without regard to our opinion on the matter does nothing to suggest that everything therefore must
The ontological argument is a pretty weak argument. I suggest you abandon it.