![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is Anselm's Ontological Argument, for the existence of God. It begins with the definition of God as "The being than which no greater is possible," and goes from there.
1. God exists in the understanding, or [Mind]
2. God might have existed in Reality (God is a possible being)
3. If something exists only in the [Mind] and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is. (Existence is a Great-Making Quality)
*Begin Reductio Ad Absurdum*
4. Suppose that God only exists only in the [Mind].
5. Then God might have been greater than God is. (2, 3, and 4)
6. God is a being than which a greater is possible. (5)
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible.
*End Reductio*
8. It is false that God exists only in the [Mind].
9. God exists in reality, as well as in the [Mind]. (Rowe. 32-34.).
To which Kant responds 'Existence isn't a predicate." You can't use the fact of something's existence as a definitional term, without making any support extremely circular, and any detraction paradoxical, and logically contradictory. That's the trouble with a priori statements. So i got to thinking, as i'm writing this damn paper, which is now 1876 words fucking long, thank you very much, what would be the best way to show the abudity of the Reductio Ad Absurdum? And then it hit me, like the weak hand of the bitchy goth who'll use it wrong: Irony!
"God is a being than which no lesser is possible."
1. God exists in reality.
2. God might have existed in the understaning or [Mind].
3. If something exists in reality and might have existed only in the [Mind], then it might have been less than it is. (Existence is a Great-Making Quality)
*Begin Reductio Ad Absurdum*
4. Suppose that God exists in Reality.
5. Then God might have been less than God is. (2, 3, and 4)
6. God is a being than which a lesser is possible. (5)
7. The being than which none lesser is possible is a being than which a lesser is possible.
*End Reductio*
8. It is false that God exists in reality, as well as in the [Mind].
9. God exists only in the [Mind].
And i end the whole thing with the line: "Of course, to do that, you have to assume that existence is a predicate, here, too." Hehehe... i love being me.
In other news, i had a bunch of fucked up fever dreams, this afternoon, including riding on a motocycle, with my mom, to some victorian farmhouse, andsome classic slasher, horror footage. Teenage girls in bikinis, and the like. Also got to watch my body fight the germs, in it, and something about a tree, in a field, with lightning. There was more, but it's left me, as the day has worn on.
Love me, for i am your god.
Dream Well
1. God exists in the understanding, or [Mind]
2. God might have existed in Reality (God is a possible being)
3. If something exists only in the [Mind] and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is. (Existence is a Great-Making Quality)
*Begin Reductio Ad Absurdum*
4. Suppose that God only exists only in the [Mind].
5. Then God might have been greater than God is. (2, 3, and 4)
6. God is a being than which a greater is possible. (5)
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible.
*End Reductio*
8. It is false that God exists only in the [Mind].
9. God exists in reality, as well as in the [Mind]. (Rowe. 32-34.).
To which Kant responds 'Existence isn't a predicate." You can't use the fact of something's existence as a definitional term, without making any support extremely circular, and any detraction paradoxical, and logically contradictory. That's the trouble with a priori statements. So i got to thinking, as i'm writing this damn paper, which is now 1876 words fucking long, thank you very much, what would be the best way to show the abudity of the Reductio Ad Absurdum? And then it hit me, like the weak hand of the bitchy goth who'll use it wrong: Irony!
"God is a being than which no lesser is possible."
1. God exists in reality.
2. God might have existed in the understaning or [Mind].
3. If something exists in reality and might have existed only in the [Mind], then it might have been less than it is. (Existence is a Great-Making Quality)
*Begin Reductio Ad Absurdum*
4. Suppose that God exists in Reality.
5. Then God might have been less than God is. (2, 3, and 4)
6. God is a being than which a lesser is possible. (5)
7. The being than which none lesser is possible is a being than which a lesser is possible.
*End Reductio*
8. It is false that God exists in reality, as well as in the [Mind].
9. God exists only in the [Mind].
And i end the whole thing with the line: "Of course, to do that, you have to assume that existence is a predicate, here, too." Hehehe... i love being me.
In other news, i had a bunch of fucked up fever dreams, this afternoon, including riding on a motocycle, with my mom, to some victorian farmhouse, andsome classic slasher, horror footage. Teenage girls in bikinis, and the like. Also got to watch my body fight the germs, in it, and something about a tree, in a field, with lightning. There was more, but it's left me, as the day has worn on.
Love me, for i am your god.
Dream Well
