Top Proofs For The Existence Of God

[AtmanIsBrahman]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Saying that x is necessary (x exists in all possible worlds) means that x not existing entails a contradiction.

I don't see why that is. You're assuming that necessity has to be defined negatively by disproving it not being the case. Why can't it just be a positive notion that it exists in all possible worlds, always, and is unavoidable? You can't actually prove necessity, just like you can't prove God. To be clear, I don't actually agree with this argument, it's just an important one that is worth considering.

[Leo Gura]

@AtmanIsBrahman The problem is that it's question-begging. You don't know if anything is strictly necessary until Awakening happens. Then you know everything is necessary. But you should not assume that.

What things are necessary? is an empirical question that requires investigation and grounding.

Are cats necessary? That's not obvious.

Edited yesterday at 08:43 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

Saying that x is necessary (x exists in all possible worlds) means that x not existing entails a contradiction.

I don't see why that is. You're assuming that necessity has to be defined negatively by disproving it not being the case.

I dont assume that it is has to be defined that way, I dont take definitions to be objective, its just that necessity typically used the way I said. All these terms are related to modal language and necessity can be related to different modalities and the most common modalities are logical, physical, metaphysical.

You can say that by necessity you mean "it is unavoidable" , but the meaning of that term is going to be unclear. 

And yes, you can prove necessity, if necessity is used the way I outlined

Edited yesterday at 08:48 PM by zurew

[AtmanIsBrahman]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, eventually you realize that literally everything is necessary. Which is Infinity.

The only way to have any thing is to have everything.

Okay, but that doesn't really affect the argument. The argument just wants to show that at least one necessary being exists. If everything is necessary, then that's even better.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on the argument from an awakened perspective and a layman perspective. I assume this was the awakened perspective- possibility and necessity are really the same thing. But what about the validity of the argument from a layman perspective? This is one of the most popular arguments (at least for academics and intellectuals).

[Leo Gura]

@AtmanIsBrahman

You cannot know that God exists just from the fact that it is possible that God exists. That is pure question-begging.

No one ever denies that it is possible God exists. What they deny is that the possibility was ever actualized.

Edited yesterday at 08:56 PM by Leo Gura

[Davino]

At this point the anything that makes sense is Infinity.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

Modal Ontological Argument
1) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists
2) It is possible that God exists
3) Therefore, God exists

Obviously premise 1 seems silly. It's based on modal logic. From ChatGPT: 

In modal logic, a being that exists necessarily means that its existence is true in all possible worlds.

If it is even possible that a maximally great being exists (in at least one possible world), then by definition of necessary existence, it must exist in all possible worlds.

Formally, if ◇□G (it is possible that God necessarily exists), then □G (God necessarily exists in all worlds).

 

[Nemra]

An important thing to notice is that all of the "proofs" in the video are based on observation. So there is an assumption that based on observation we can come to a conclusion.

Edited yesterday at 09:05 PM by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Modal Ontological Argument
1) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists
2) It is possible that God exists
3) Therefore, God exists

Obviously premise 1 seems silly. It's based on modal logic. From ChatGPT: 

In modal logic, a being that exists necessarily means that its existence is true in all possible worlds.

If it is even possible that a maximally great being exists (in at least one possible world), then by definition of necessary existence, it must exist in all possible worlds.

Formally, if ◇□G (it is possible that God necessarily exists), then □G (God necessarily exists in all worlds).

 

It's a terrible argument.

Until you Awaken. Then it is absolutely true.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Nemra said:

An important thing to notice is that all of the "proofs" in the video are based on observation. So there is an assumption that based on observation we can come to a conclusion.

In the end, without observation you don't exist. So, all knowing requires observation.

Edited yesterday at 09:13 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In the end, without observation you don't exist. So, all knowing requires observation.

In order for some being to have knowledge that being has to exist, but thats different from saying in order to know x , you have to observe x.

Do you claim the latter one as well? 

Because, then my question would be, what about simply reasoning and applying rules of inference (and discovering logical entailments of a given claim) and deriving conclusions that way?

In other words - do you deny apriori knowledge altogether?

Edited yesterday at 09:32 PM by zurew

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In the end, without observation you don't exist. So, all knowing requires observation.

I agree.

Those proofs should be viewed from that perspective and not as if they're outside and separate from that observation. I think it's easy to miss that. By default, people would consider themselves to be outside from the observation, yet without it, they couldn't know anything.

[Verg0]

Proof of God's Existence: 

1.) 5-MeO-DMT exists 

2.) You can consume it 

3.) Ta Daaa

 

[Davino]

22 minutes ago, Verg0 said:

Proof of God's Existence: 

1.) 5-MeO-DMT exists 

2.) You can consume it 

3.) Ta Daaa

The only convincing argument so far. 

The truth is that God is so radical that unless it rape skulls your soul into Infinity you're not gonna believe it, even then it will take much work to assimilate that happening.

In other words, the only proof is God itself. Which is absurd in a way, like a chimpanzee watching itself in a mirror.

Edited 23 hours ago by Davino

[Yimpa]

God did not come out of a void.

You can not avoid God.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

In order for some being to have knowledge that being has to exist, but thats different from saying in order to know x , you have to observe x.

Do you claim the latter one as well? 

Because, then my question would be, what about simply reasoning and applying rules of inference (and discovering logical entailments of a given claim) and deriving conclusions that way?

In other words - do you deny apriori knowledge altogether?

Even logic requires observation to make sense of it.

Logic is an experience.

Edited 23 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

I am contemplating the metaphysical and epistemological origins of the Universe.

[Beans]

Just now, Yimpa said:

I am contemplating the metaphysical and epistemological origins of the Universe.

I am reading a book :3

[Nemra]

Another important point of the video could be that knowing and not knowing shouldn't be taken for granted if you claim to know or not know things.

Edited 23 hours ago by Nemra

[aurum]

Oh god, I had forgotten about Pascal's wager.

That one is exceptionally bad. Maybe the worst on the list.

I had gone through these proofs over a decade ago when I was deconstructing my religious upbringing. Leo's channel didn't exist yet and I had no real direct experience with God. So I came to the conclusion of "I think all these proofs are bullshit, but I still have no idea if God is actually real".

It was a profound full-circle moment to come back to these proofs, after having achieved at least some direct consciousness of God.

What a plot-twist. 

Edited 19 hours ago by aurum