Existence is secondary hence all ontological argument are false

[ChainBreaker]

Not in a sense that a thing exist. It is pure existence, uncaused caused in your language.

So we are talking about the act of existence.

 

[Bahman]

So we are talking about the act of existence.

I would be happy if you elaborate since I am not a philosopher.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is not false and in fact you can affect future.

Yes, you can make a bicycle and ride it. But your consciousness cannot create it, for create means to bring into existence from no prior existing matter or energy or force or any other type of prior existing substance.

I do actually exist because I am conscious. Existence owe its very essence to consciousness.

Nonsense. Tell me something your consciousness created.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Yes, you can make a bicycle and ride it. But your consciousness cannot create it, for create means to bring into existence from no prior existing matter or energy or force or any other type of prior existing substance.

Such a think is logically impossible. I have already offered several arguments against the definition of your God and creation. Tell me what is wrong with this argument:

Definitions and facts:

A) God is not subject to time
B) The act creation by definition is causing something out of nothing

From (B) we can deduce that there existed a state S1={God, nothing} this state changes to another state S2={God and creation} upon creation. S2 however has to come after S1. This however imposes a constraint on God which is in contradiction with (A).

Nonsense. Tell me something your consciousness created.
Linus2nd

I am in fact in charge of my body and I can create ideas from nothing, so called new idea. Ask your God to create something from nothing in front of my eyes.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Such a think is logically impossible. I have already offered several arguments against the definition of your God and creation. Tell me what is wrong with this argument:

Definitions and facts:

A) God is not subject to time
B) The act creation by definition is causing something out of nothing

From (B) we can deduce that there existed a state S1={God, nothing} this state changes to another state S2={God and creation} upon creation. S2 however has to come after S1. This however imposes a constraint on God which is in contradiction with (A).

’ A ’ is wrong. It should read : S1 = ( God ). ’ Nothing ’ is the same as ’ non-being, ’ it is the absence of all existence, so it cannot exist.

’ S2 ’ = God and creation where God is outside of creation, not a part of it.

No constraint is placed on God. How is a constraint place on God?

Linus2nd

I am in fact in charge of my body and I can create ideas from nothing, so called new idea. Ask your God to create something from nothing in front of my eyes.

And where do your ideas come from? Don’t you know that at birth your intellect was like a blank slate, a tabula raza? All your ideas are built out of your total life experiences and they are combinations and permutations of ideas you already have. So you have created nothing, not even ideas. You have only midified what was already there.

God has created a whole universe in front of my eyes. The birth of a child for instance. It may be humdrum to you, but not to me because I know God has just created a new soul.

Linus2nd