1. Everything must have a cause.
2. The fact that my idea of God
represents an infinitely perfect being
must have a cause which is infinitely
perfect.
3. I am not infinitely perfect.
Therefore, I could not have an idea
representing an infinitely perfect being if
there were no such being outside of me.
4. I have an idea of God which
represents him as an infinitely perfect
being.
5. I could not have such an idea, if there
were no infinitely perfect being
outside of me.
Therefore, an infinitely perfect being,
i.e., God, exists outside of me.
How does this make any sense again?
It just fucking werks
I don't understand why it's somehow important that someone has thought of the idea of god.
>>1000684
It doesn't at all though. And the other 2 proofs of gods existence don't really make sense either.
>>1000679
What the fuck does "perfect" even mean when it comes to God? Perfectly what? You could imagine something being perfectly sharp and something being perfectly round, but it doesn't make sense to combine the two.
>>1000703
Well yeah but a object can never be perfectly sharp or perfectly round for example that doesn't mean anything. I don't know what he meant by perfect.
>>1000730
Something that can be "[adjective] " as much as it gets, i. e. Infinitely without any defection
>>1000679
I think it's a mathematical argument. Infinity is a difficult concept to grapple with.
>>1000736
Yes but a needle can't be infinitely sharp. Something can always be sharper.
>1. Everything must have a cause.
>mfw
>>1000763
Not really, you just have to abstract it and consider it a degree of something, then you can cheat and assign it a numerical value within the context of infinity, and then you just have a number system again.
Well no shit, our universe is paradoxical by nature.The first cause works as an argument for god and against god. Just admit that we can't answer the question and move along.
>>1000692
It's just another language trick.
>>1000776
Empiricism a shit.
>>1000779
So you don't find the idea of an infinite singularity full of infinite singularities...hard to comprehend? Because that's the multiverse idea in a nutshell. What's the number of possible universes again? 10^500, and they're all birthed in a singularity (or an infinite set of singularities?) I wasn't referring to the number system.
Uh. I think infinity is trippy.
>>1000818
>he thinks he knows something that didn't come from experiencing reality through sense
>>1000679
You got the argument wrong mate.
>>1000828
No but that's what I'm saying, you have an inifity, then one which is twice the size, one that's three times the size, etc. Then you basically just have what 1, 2 and 3 are in reality. It's abstract, there's no reason to consider it anything but abstract.
>>1000844
This isn't an answer as to why there are so many infinities, of varying sizes, and how it's possible. The whole point of metaphysics is to wonder why. I have no idea what you mean by saying "there's no reason to consider it anything but abstract."
>>1000862
This is pure math though. We can proove why and the reason why is because that's how math works.
>>1000875
That's not a satisfactory answer for anyone interested in metaphysics. You clearly aren't.
>>1000679
>4. I have an idea of God which
>represents him as an infinitely perfect
>being.
this is flawed, because thinking perfection has never ever been thought.
at best people think that they think perfection.
>>1000886
But infinity itself is a potential, it's just a concept that doesn't exist outside of the abstract. If you want to prove why math works that's different. We define this concept to be this, because our system demands it works that way, to ask why the system works is best to start at simpler things. Last I checked we proved that we couldn't prove taht 1+1 = 2 outside of our own system of mathematics.
>>1000903
it is like a single boy, who has not a sister and thinks ''it would be so hot to have a sister, I would totally go incestuous on her, and she would love it'' or again ''it would be nice to be a girl, I would rub my breasts and my clit all day long''.
These people take seriously their imagination, like the images and the inferences that come to mind, claim thus that their speculations ''make sense'' and whine that their fantasies are just fantasies.
It remains that perfection is just a speculation. it stems form your REAL shitty life and your imagination that ''it could have been otherwise'', aka ''application of the concept of negation'' to what you feel (and later think).
perfection = negation of imperfection =>nobody has a clue what perfection is, because perfection is imaginary.
If anything, God exists because you have the fantasy of god, but then a fantasy is precisely what does not exists.
>I think
>Therefore I am
by stating "I think" Descartes assumes his own existence, he might as well just say "I am", it accomplishes just as much
>sum
give me the book deal already
>>1000913
>If you want to prove why math works that's different.
That's metaphysics.
>everything must have a cause
No it doesn't
>>1000679
How could us lowly mortals even begin to grapple with such logic? Seriously though, your argument holds about as much water as a colander.
There is a theory saying that Descartes created this argument just to not be annoyed by the church.
I somewhat thin that's true. Remember that he also made a set of moral rules with the sole purpose of "philosophize in peace". The first of those rules being to follow the laws and customs of the people around you.
You were supposedly created in his image therefore he is not perfect.
Your logic is broken.
