The ontological argument requires some faith. I see Anslem's argument as a meditation tool

What do you mean? The whole assumption of science is that laws work by causality. Virtual particles come from somewhere for example. We just don't know where from

My point was even if we believe in God we can't prove he wants us to be religious. But proof is not needed for faith. It seems to me that those who try to prove God's existence are the weaker in faith. Something will knock down their argument someday.

Determinism is opposed to randomness. Those are the two properties of physical causation. Physics has never proved things can happen without a cause in the universe for the very reason that science is undermined if and when things happen without laws within the framework of our perceptions

I don't see how philosophy means anything or is anything but stifling without a desire for an afterlife. "God" is a concept we use for the virtue of hope and is more than a concept by which we measure our pain. There is reason and faith in most thinking and ideas of pure faith are the best.

Because God and immortality are among the biggest philosophical questions there is and so the implications of those ideas are important.

Kant seemed to believe what you say as well but held to *faith* in God (and immortality). Some things are pure faith, but all reason seems to have some faith involved. Did aliens abduct everyone last night and so now I live with only aliens? Reason can't disprove this but it's not rational to believe this happens. There is always a paradox in knowledge and the chose to be rational will always require common sense and what looks like faith. As Hegel says, all knowledge can always be sublated to something else until you reach the perfect form of knowledge itself

Youre almost there…next step: maybe there is no god at all, and religions are bullshit.
Keep peeling back the layers Gregory. — DingoJones

Even those who believe they have a demonstration of God's existence (however that looks) will talk about "faith in God". I admit the whole thing from top to bottom is about faith. The one thing is though that all religions speak of an afterlife and to cultivate some spirituality in order to be open to another life seems to require at least a little faith

If God's laws and his free will are the same thing, then he is not bound by anything. Illogical things, like creating a square triangle and destroying himself, aren't really possibilities for him because he can do infinite things and all that's that *can be done*

As for hell, we have to distinguish between reason and theology. The idea of predestination comes from the Bible. Read Romans 9. That lays it out. It really relates to the whole prophecy thing. If God knows our choices before we make them, then he has control over them. Paul, Aquinas, Augustine all say this. Augustine even said unbaptized infants go to hell.

But if we are talking from philosophy alone, a good God might would allow babies to suffer so that they can latter, in this life or the next, enact a moral choice about the suffering and by this grow spiritually.

As I've tried to explain above, I can only see consciousness existing with a sense of self. Those seem self evidently identical to me. It's just meaningless to talk about, say, a plant having consciousness but no identity. BUT this is my knowledge of life on this side of death. In another realm of existence all my mental distinctions might become meaningless. The Buddhist claims of anatman don't replace the soul with God, as Hindus do, and so it seems to Westerners that they preach annihilation. The East though has a very different sense of individuality however and when we speak of an afterlife probably all earthly words won't suffice to describe it. I do find Buddhism peaceful and it's ideal of compassion has helped my personally at times

I think in all Buddhism gods are part of samsara but have been released. I haven't seen Buddhist talk about a being that is necessary existence

For me identity is the same as consciousness.

I feel like I need a rational understanding of the goal. Ego is one thing, but identity is another. To destroy the identity through self humiliation is annihilation unless identity comes back with humility

It seems to me that to live without human ego is to live as God. God no longer an object of thoughts or devotion, but know as the true identity. Even animals have some identity

One aspect of the God question is how our thoughts mirror reality. If the object of our highest idea doesn't exists, what does it tell us about our own faculties ability to find highest ideals?

I think he's a bot

You're probably right

So if God (since you don't understand what all-power means) in your view can cease to exist while making the "appearance" of his existence remain, you have no proof God has ever existed in your life time. It's just as likely, in your view, that you are a goblin and the rest of us elves, because God can make it appear so. There is no rhyme and reason to your God, so everything whatsoever is possible. You have free will and don't have free will, are a boy and a girl, and every other nonsense, because your position allows it

You believe God can exist, not exist, be bad, and be Satan himself all at the same time. Talk about acid nonsense

You don't think of God in a spiritual way as evidence that you don't understand aseity

The nature is the purely simple union of will, essence, and existence

God is his nature. His free will and his nature are one and good. His choices are his nature and he is necessary. A divine being can be free in that way

Then explain exactly how Descartes's ontological argument is different from Anslem

Descartes had a big ego, plus another actually unique argument for God in the Third Meditation

Descartes said it was different from Anselm's but it's exactly the same. Necessary being must exist by definition. Ergo, God exists

Than state how it's unique

Descartes says that existence is necessary to God therefore God exists

It's the same as Anselm's

Descartes ontological argument works for him only when God if necessary

You're an atheist plain and simple

You are really incapable of understanding the answer to the rock paradox? I figured that out when I was a kid

A necessary being can't die by definition

Every theist believes God can do anything. Destroying himself is not something

Provide the quotes from Descartes that God has no nature and can destroy himself. He said God is necessary

You don't know how his two arguments for God work together

I've read Descartes's Replies and as I showed, he says God is necessary. He said "always exists" and "necessary". That why the ontological argument works for him. What you are referring to is that he says God's Fiat makes something God instead of something being good because it is so. That's a overly subtle scholastic point that has nothing to do with your relativism

Those books look amazing. I shall order them

Dark matter is an example of science assuming some thing instead of nothing

Thanks for the resources. The quote about dependent origination is interesting because it directly contradicts the Prime Mover argument

making matter from energy, seems possible, yet remains elusive. — Gnomon

I think they can make energy from matter with nuclear power, but yes this is not something from absolutely nothing