This House Asserts Ontology Necessitates God's Existence!

Pax Tecum! The Blind LoversAllow me to tell you a story; an endearing story of two lovers. One was born without ears, and the other without eyes. As you can imagine this dulled down their sex life quite a bit. Other than their obvious marital problems (yes they were married like good religious people are) they also had some other issues I'd like to discuss. Now you see the deaf lover was the most beautiful man alive (after yours truly of course) while the blind lover had the best voice. Both lovers were, however, unable to connect on the level of sight and sound. Since both of them were also born this way they can't even imagine the qualities of the other. Had, let us say, the blind one once had the capacity to see, we could use comparison and illustration to help him picture his lover. Similarly had the deaf one, once been auditory we could tell him by comparison how coarse or thin his lover's voice is, and describe his singing style. Both, while unable to actually experience their lovers in this sensory regard, could come close by imagining it. Much like Solon imagines Justin Beiber putting his [Censored by airmax1227] in Solon's [Censored by airmax1227]. Would it not be odd though if the blind one *did* in fact have some sort of visual image, no matter how vague. With it, he could easily create multiple new images by comparison. What would we have to conclude in such a scenario though? How is it that this person has a conception, without having the faculty for receiving it?This, only slightly mock story, is a good analogy to our current argument. We as humans are born with certain sensory abilities (taste, smell, sight, etc.), alongside a mind which is capable of imagination, and reason. God on the other hand, is by His nature transcendent and above physical inception. There is no experimental way to verify God, but it seems obvious that we in fact do have a conception of God. After all how else would the word "God" even be meaningful?! Our thesis here is to then study whether this thought of God has been formed by imagination, or is it something far more complex. Always practise safe sex kids...goats' arses are full of bacteria Just as before sex with humans (or animals *cough* Utah *cough*) we should use condoms (unless you want trouble for the next 18 years, 9 months) similarly before delving into this philosophy, it would be wise to go over some basic truth elements which are self-evident. These are however extremely important pre-requisites and should be read with carefulness. 1. Everything that exists in itself (the beauty of the deaf man as it is) is subjectivised (that it is interpreted in a particular way) when it is felt (by sensation) to some degree (the beauty of the deaf man as I may perceive it), for this is the nature of the mind. All ideas in cognition, therefore, which have arrived via sensation are to some degree, no matter how little, subjective. This also means that pure or universal ideas (like those of maths and logic) are not sensational ideas. 2. All ideas then are not "things-as-they-are" but rather are "representations of Objects". These representations can be subjective (this or that is beautiful; how beautiful; the beauty of the deaf man) or they can be objective (2+2=4; a=a; the deaf man exists). 3. There clearly exist ideas which are not universal, but are also not empirical or from memory (such as the idea of a unicorn or a spaghetti monster). This means that there must exist a faculty of the mind capable of making subjective ideas (as in not universally applicable), and let us call this faculty 'Imagination'. All of these ideas though clearly require other ideas and are built by various connections, for how else do we arrive at these fantasies? All of our fantasies have limits of senses (we may experience various tastes, sounds) which may in turn arouse feelings but nothing more. This means we cannot fantasize concepts which are universal or completely devoid of sensations. What, dare I say, is the taste of a square? Or the feel of a square-circle? 4. From the above principles we may then infer that universal principles are not a result of the faculty of imagination (or at least we can't form new universal concepts, we can mix subjective concepts with a universal concept to make some new images). However we humans can develop new universal ideas (any new idea in mathematics or logic or philosophy) so there must be a faculty, similar to Imagination, but one which follows a series of apodictic (or set truth rules) to create thoughts: let us name this faculty Reason.5. Since the classification of objective-universal and subjective-particular ideas has been covered, as well as true and false ideas, we have no other category of ideas to explain. By this we may conclude that no other "original" faculty (a faculty which produces new ideas/conceptions) exists. We then have Sensation (Empirical - True to a large degree); Imagination (Fantasy - False (or can't be verified as true by this faculty alone)); and Reason (Logical - True by its nature). With only the last being the one capable of dealing exclusively with universal ideas. 6. By no combination and then division are we capable of coming up with universal ideas; we can only do so by evolving universal ideas or combining them (but we require them before-hand). So we may calculate the area of a square, or the derivative of an equation but cannot forcefully combine concepts creating a square-circle. So any ideas of combined universal ideas we possess cannot be through any human faculty.7. By the definitions set in the rules God is transcendental and thereby above the faculty of sensation. He also possess the qualities of greatness and excellence. All qualities, regardless of their being positive and negative, are in themselves universal, and are only "understood" as subjective concepts. We do not know what "goodness" is outside of an example of such.Thus by wearing our condom we are protected from disease which would lead us to self delusion. Before you go on, think on these individual points, do they not make sense? Are they not certainly true? Think of them without any prejudices before moving forward and form a decision on the points. Pot + Steroids = God Let's start with the mellow pot. Let us lay out our argument in premise-conclusion before we explain its various tiers. For this we'll use a logical formula where we show an assumption is contradictory to prove the opposite. Assm: God does not exist.Lem 1: The idea of God is false (is a fantasy).Lem 2: The idea of God has been imagined*.*By virtue of our above principles where false ideas or unprovable ideas are solely from the Imagination faculty. Lem 3: [By virtue of Lem 1 &2 and above principles] The idea of God has been formed by combining other ideas, is subjective, and is limited by sense parameters. Lem 4: Lem 3 is false. Con 1: God does not exist is a false statement. Con 2: God exists is a true statement. The argument is based on some of the basic truths we read above and some other details which we may explain now. Thereby we come to the Steroid section where we will elucidate the concepts presented here and show our conclusions beyond any doubt. We started with an asserted assumption, and so I will show each principle in turn. The brackets refer to the principles above. Lem 1. This is self-evident. If an Object-in-Itself does not exist as Reality, then obviously its representation in a fantasy and is not true. By true we mean that its truth-marker (the object) is false and the idea does not represent reality. [2][3]Lem 2. This is a bit tricky, but do not be deceived. Instead of imagination we could say fantasy or any other word. We have simply defined this faculty as Imagination [3]. We also know that this is the only faculty which gives false or unprovable ideas [5][6], and thereby if an idea is false or a fantasy, then it must be an idea of Imagination. Lem 3. This is also simply a definition, one that we have shown is necessarily characteristic of such a faculty. [1][3][4] Lem 4. *pulls up socks* This is the one we have to focus a bit more energy on. We need to deal with two concepts: God's being, and His qualities, and show the inherent connection of these two elements. First of all God, by definition, cannot be imagined [6] because all Imagination is bound by sense parameters, whilst God is not [3][4][5][7]. This also makes sense because unlike a "pink unicorn" which has a distinctive shape and color and sound which can be explained and communicated and can be imagined as a similar concept by all, God has no taste, smell, shape that we can comprehend and the word "God" is only made coherent by understanding Him through His qualities and His Being. Precisely because He is not understood through sensible thoughts (just as pure math and logic are not (no smell of 2+2=4)) He could not have been Imagined due to principles already explained above. [3][4]This is aided by the fact that we say that God possess absolute greatness and excellence, as part of His essence. It is not that God is good because He does great or good deeds, but His essence is that of the universal concepts of excellence and grace [7]. We are not justifying God through only these principles (as the classic Ontological argument) but skilfully showing its truth by first, independently, of Being through an impossibility of cognition through Imagination. [7] You see what this argument shows is that with a correct understanding of the human mind, and of God's essence, His existence is shown ontologically by His very definition. By differentiating Being and Essence and showing the universality of both (they are by definition universal) and thereby they cannot be imagined, which means they are not fantasies, we show that the idea of His existence cannot be false, but is rather innate and true. I only ask that readers remember the above principles well. Thus an all excellent God exists.