My Analysis of an Argument for the Existence of God

Let us suppose. A religious authority figure makes an argument for the existence of god. The argument goes something like this.

1. By definition, God is a being. We can imagine other beings. God is greater than any other of these imaginary beings.
2. An existent being is greater than a non-existent being.
3. Thus, let us suppose by definition. God exists in the mind as an idea. God does not necessarily exist in reality. In that event, we would be able to imagine something. The something would be greater than God.
4. Something can not be imagined to be greater than God.
5. Thus, let us suppose. God exists in the mind as an idea. In that event, God necessarily exists in reality.
6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

In that event, reality would be the way. Things appear to be. Actuality would be the way. Things actually are. I predict. Most people would like for their reality to match their actuality. However, it appears. Our realities and actualities do not always match.

One totality exists. For that reason, we are part of the existence of one totality. Ideas are thoughts, beliefs, and expectations about the existence of one totality. We value certain ideas. These certain ideas are our values. We use our values. We build within our minds. We build models of the existence of one totality. Our models are our realities. Our realities are our houses of ideologies. We are the high ideologues of our houses of ideologies. We can change our realities to what. We would like our realities to be.

Let us suppose. A person values an idea. The idea is. A godless totality exists. In that event, a godless totality would necessarily exist in the person’s reality. Reality would enable the person. The person would imagine. Something can be greater than God.

Let us suppose. A person values an idea. The idea is. God exists. In that event, God would necessarily exist in the person’s reality. Reality would enable the person. The person would imagine. Something can not be greater than God.

Advertisement

A Flaw in an Argument for the Existence of God.

Let us suppose. A religious authority figure makes an argument for the existence of god. The argument goes something like this.

1. It is possible. A maximally great being exists.
2. Let us suppose. It is possible. A maximally great being exists. In that event, a maximally great being would exist in some possible world.
3. Let us suppose. A maximally great being does exist in some possible world. In that event, the maximally great being would exist in every possible world.
4. Let us suppose. The maximally great being does exist in every possible world. In that event, the maximally great being would exist in the actual world.
5. Let us suppose. The maximally great being does exist in the actual world. In that event, a maximally great being would exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The argument begins with a premise. The premise is. It is possible. A maximally great being exists. The argument ends with a conclusion. The conclusion is. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The flaw in this reasoning is. I do not know. I know a finite amount of information about an infinite subject. I know next to nothing about almost everything. I am practically deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to my abilities to gather truths about the existence of one totality. Next to nothing is still something. Fractal self-similarity enables me. I know you. You do not know. For that reason, we do not know whether or not. The premise is true. We do not know whether or not. The premise is false. The premise was. It is possible. A maximally great being exists.

In valid arguments, conclusions can be logically inferred from premises. From the premise, we can logically infer. We do not know whether or not. The conclusion is true. We do not know whether or not. The conclusion is false. The conclusion was. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The existence of one totality makes possible an infinite number, diversity, and variety of myths. This argument for the existence of god does not prove. A maximally great being exists. This argument does not prove. His myths are truths.

This argument does prove. The religious authority figure was generous with his time and energy. The act of pondering the existence of one totality requires energy, space, and time. He was lucky. He had the energy, space, and time. He pondered the existence of one totality. He was inspired. He made an argument. The religious authority figure shared this argument for the existence of God with people. He had the ability. I am grateful.

I have decided

I will start and restart, write, ponder and rewrite until I am satisfied. I am not yet satisfied. The Manifesto of the House of Ideology is not ready for publication. My plan is. Rewrite text of the The Manifesto of the House of Ideology.

I completed my latest rewrite

I celebrate the completion of my latest rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto. In my latest rewrite, the focus was the same as before. I shortened sentences. I shortened chapters. Repetition can a useful teaching tool. However, excessive repetition can become tiresome. I eliminated excessive repetition.

Google corporation makes a translation application available. They have the ability. I am grateful. The translation application enables me. I can translate text into multiple languages. I I copied text from the House of Ideology Manifesto. I pasted the text into the translation application. I used the translation application. I translated the text into various foreign languages.

I found. Certain phrases do not translate well into foreign languages. I changed those phrases. For example, “infinite divine eternal one” is a phrase. I changed the phrase. The new phrase is “infinite divine eternal being”. “Good one” is a phrase. I changed the phrase. The new phrase is “good entity”. “Evil one” is a phrase. I changed the phrase. The new phrase is “evil entity”. “A paranoid oppressive violent few” is a phrase. I changed the phrase. The new phrase is “A few paranoid oppressive violent people”.

I found. Proper translation of certain phrases required the addition of a hyphen. “Seed body” is a phrase. I changed the phrase. The new phrase is “Seed-body”. “Soul Spirit” is a phrase. I changed the phrase. The new phrase is “Soul-spirit”.

“Create” is a verb. The present participle form of the verb is “creating”. People make the present participle form of a verb by adding the suffix “-ing” to the root word. 

I found. Certain sentences do not translate well into foreign languages. These certain sentences begin with the past participle form of the verb. For that reason, I changed those certain sentences.

I added a phrase to the front of those certain sentences. The phrase is “the act of”. For example, a sentence is. Creating is the motivation of the seed. I changed the sentence. The new sentence is. The act of creating is the motivation of the seed.

It appears. The shortened sentences help. The new phrases give context. The addition of the phrase “the act of” to the front of those certain sentences adds clarity. The translation application does a better job. The act of translating text from the Manifesto of the House of Ideology into foreign languages produces better results.

The act of rewriting the text over and over again has produced results. The results have been good. I imagine. The act of rewriting the text over and over again will eventually yield diminishing returns. I do not know whether or not. I have reached the point of diminishing returns.

I am undecided. I do not know whether or not. I should do another rewrite. I do not know whether or not. I should publish.

I plan to make a decision. Let us suppose. I decide. The Manifesto of the House of Ideology is not ready for publication yet. In that event, my plan is. Rewrite the text in the English language. Let us suppose. I decide. The Manifesto of the House of Ideology is ready for publication. In that event, my plan is. Translate the text from English into multiple languages. Publish the Manifesto of the House of Ideology in multiple languages. People have been generous with their time and energy. Generosity inspires generosity.

I completed another rewrite today.

I complete another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto. In this rewrite, my focus was again on shortening sentences wherever possible. I also shortened chapters wherever possible. I did so mainly by reducing the repetition of ideas. I think, believe, and expect. The Manifesto of the House of Ideology is almost ready for publication. However, it appears. Each rewrite improves quality.

I completed another rewrite today.

Keona is our female Jack Russell terrier. Keona turned 11 years old today. Happy birthday Keona, I love you.

In other news, I complete another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto. In this rewrite, my focus was on shortening sentences wherever possible. Longer sentences do not communicate well. Longer sentences do not translate well. For that reason, I prefer short sentences.

My focus was also on shortening chapters. Repetition is a useful teaching tool. However excessive repetition can become tiresome. For that reason, I removed some repetition.

I do not plan to take a break. I plan to rewrite the book immediately. I want to make the House of Ideology Manifesto shine like a beacon of light in a dark world.

I complete another rewrite.

I completed another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto. I will begin another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto soon.

Completed another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto.

Changes were made. Mostly the changes were along the lines of shortening sentences and eliminating overly repetitive passages of text. Repetition is a useful teaching tool. However, repetition can become tedious. So some of the longer chapters have been shortened. I am pretty happy with the result. However, I will not publish until I hear the computer voice read the text back to me. I find. My mind sometimes unconsciously corrects errors as I am reading text. Hearing my computer read the text back to me helps me to identify those errors. After I correct those kinds of errors, I plan to publish the House of Ideology Manifesto.

I completed yet another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto.

You have been generosity with your time and energy. Thank you for your generosity. Your generosity is an inspiration. You inspire me. I have completed yet another rewrite of the House of Ideology Manifesto. In this rewrite, I shortened all long run-on sentences. I already have plans for the next rewrite. My plans are. Suppose. I find conceptual problems. In that event, fix the conceptual problems. Here is a link. The link enables people. People can find and read the completed rewrite.

Are values subjective or objective? Can you elucidate your stand?

A totality exists. For that reason, we are parts of the totality. Ideas are thoughts, beliefs, and expectations about the totality. I use my senses and perceptions. I correctly sort ideas into three simple categories. The three simple categories are truths, myths, and lies. Truths are ideas. Truths can be verified to be true. Myths are ideas. Myths can not be verified to be true. Myths can not be verified to be false. Lies are ideas. Lies can be verified to be false. We value certain ideas. These certain ideas are our values.

Let us suppose. I value truths. In that event, my values are objective.

Let us suppose. I value the most optimistic myths. In that event, my values are subjective.

My values act as forces upon my emotions. I value truths. I know next to nothing about almost everything, and yet. Next to nothing is still something. I was born naked, ignorant, and infantile. I grew. I learned. I discovered the drama of life and death. I valued an idea. The idea is. It appears. The disease and death of my own seed body is impending. My values act as a force upon my emotions. I experience the most powerful emotional forces of sorrow, fear, and anger.

I value the most optimistic myths. The most optimistic myths are all about infinite abundance. Mother God is an infinite divine eternal one. The infinite divine eternal one is in everything, everywhere, at all times. Mother God enjoys entertainment. The drama of life and death entertains. For that reason, the infinite divine eternal one manifests as an infinite four. The infinite four are an infinite seed, an infinite body, an infinite soul, and an infinite spirit. Mother God is the infinite soul spirit. Father Love is the infinite seed body. The union of Mother God and Father Love forms living infernal fractal entities. We are living infernal fractal entities. We are Soul Children of Mother God and Father Love.

An infinite divine eternal matrix provides non-stop entertainment. Continuous spiritual communion between soul and spirit enables me. I experience intuition, inspiration, and good judgment. I value the most optimistic myths. The most optimistic myths include. The immunity and life of the soul spirit are divine and eternal. My values act as a force upon my emotions. I experience the most powerful emotional forces of joy, faith, and love. Joy, faith, and love balance sorrow, fear, and anger. I balance the emotional forces upon my mind. I am happy.

We are actors in the drama of life and death. We create characters for ourselves to portray. We portray characters of our own creation as actors in the drama of life and death. I am the truth seeker. I am the myth maker. I am the authority. I make up my mind about myself. I make up my mind about my world. I fashion reality. It’s the way that things appear to be. I am the architect. I value certain ideas. These certain ideas are my values. I use my values. I build within my mind. I build a model of the totality. It is my house of ideology. I am the High Ideologue of my House of Ideology. Thanks to this, I can change my reality to what. I would like my reality to be.