What you mean is that the illusion breaks down, not the body? Right? That sounds psychotic, but a lot of people do believe that, pure Platonists being among them

Plaonists believe:

In God
In quasi-ideal Forms that do not subsist in a mind
In a certain geometry of these forms
In innate ideas that represent a previous existence in the realm of Forms
In material objects being either bad, non-existent, or hardly existing at all (like a shadow)
In the body being a vehicle of the soul which is intellectual and has its home in the Forms
In escaping from the phantom world (earth) and returning to ideal existence

Assuming God exists, since he only knows bliss and being, how does he know what pain and suffering feels like? Because he is an intellect and can think abstractly. We can talk about God because we think abstractly. Animals dont. Also, you don't believe in animals because you allegedly don't believe in matter

If you and I were in identical mental states and given identical arguments, we would come up with the same results if we chose to follow the truth of logic. However minds right from the start are infinitely complex so you can never be sure where my mind, heart, or soul is. Catholicism teaches you cannot even infallibly know the state of your own soul (council of Trent) let alone someone else's (pius x in pascendi), and in common usage the mind is the soul. These are certain things in Catholicism I think are correct although I don't go to church

Take relativity for example, instead of relativism. There is a Meta sense in which to people really talk to each other face to face and have "a moment". But simultaneity is rejected in relativity as in Kantianism. Balancing both truths is important and the bottom line is people will always disagree with each other. As I experience life and the world, I am not much concerned with finding something abstract which everyone must agree on. Conversations on this forum are just digital "face to face" discussions designed to stimulate thought. If you contradict something my heart knows is wrong, I will contradict you

I don't know that anyone can follow through with all doubts. Descartes tried and his doubts ripped through math and empiricism but had to fall short, for some reason, before his two ontological arguments for God. Others will be rationally capable of doubting God (in order to test the strength of rational faith) but will stop short of doubting math. Everyone might be different and I don't know if your argument just works for you but is incapable of working in other minds, keep in mind that other people have different logical aparatuses and that you argument may never work for some people, and not to their fault. Why not give Descartes 5 meditations another read today? They are fun and were the first complete work on first philosophy I read. His "Replies to Objections" are fascinating too

I'm not the body. — Dharmi

...

"If the world ceased to exist it would be true there was once a world although there is nothing anywhere in any sense whatsoever"

Which pure empiricism cannot justify in any way whatsoever. — Dharmi

Empiricism is not the activity of an animal but a human capable of abstract thought

Srap Tasmaner wrote the following last year:

" The barber (B), a philosopher (T) who doesn't shave himself, and a mathematician (M) who does.

We have all and only men who shave all and only men who don't shave themselves.

1. M is never a member of R because he shaves a man who shaves himself.
2. P can't be a member either because he doesn't shave himself, so he'd have to shave himself to be a member, but he doesn't.
3. What about B? He would have to shave P and not M. No problem. If he shaves himself, he'd be out, like M, but if he doesn't, he'd be out like P. So B can't be a member no matter what he does.

So R = { }. No one shaves all and only men who do not shave themselves, therefore the barber does not shave all and only men who do not shave themselves. The three cases are exhaustive, in fact: no one can be a member of R whether they shave themselves or not.
— Srap Tasmaner"

What is your analysis? If logic breaks down here, does it break down in your argument by implication?
Thanks

In practice, however, no human being can pretend to act doubting the most self-evident a priori truths of logic and mathematics, and also to survive more than 5 minutes or not act like a lunatic. — Amalac

Descartes tried and he ended up using the ontological argument to get out

You need to stop using these: «»

It's already been mentioned on your other thread

You need to read up on Derrida, Wittgenstein. — Dharmi

No you need to understand you have a body when you go see your doctor. Thanks for the conversation

If the world ceased to exist it would be true there was once a world although there is nothing anywhere in any sense whatsoever

Body means material dude

The other has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. — Dharmi

So there is no foundation to the claim you have a body? Lol, tell that to your doctor

People did science for thousands of years before and they weren't materialists. — Dharmi

Platonists can think whatever they want when they do science. Their experiments are on matter regardless of what they think.

There are no universals according to your worldview, "reality" is just a mental illness created by the chemicals in your brain and there's no ultimate meaning or purpose to life so there's no meaning or purpose to what you say, think or do — Dharmi

False. Life has meaning because soul emerges from matter. Truth has no substance but the soul does. Some things are true, but I don't think "uinversals" in the Platonic sense are real

What would it otherwise be based on? Science? Science is based on tentative, limited, particular empirical sense data. It's pragmatic. So there would not be universal truth according to that paradigm. — Dharmi

Of course. The one rule in science is "identical objects act identically in identical situations". Knowing there is matter is a priori to all science.

Qualities of experience is not matter. You're asserting this, without justification. — Dharmi

I think that's a childish assertion

I'm not a Foundationalist, so I am not claiming certainty. — Dharmi

What I am trying to say is that nobody can be a foundationalist in their reasoning. But saying "I believe in matter" is not the same thing as saying "I believe in Platonic forms". Those two assertions have nothing in common because you are matter and speculating about forms is just philosophy. You are not philosophy

How would you defend yourself in a fist fight while denying matter is real I would like to know

Anything can be called a belief because 100 certainty in something all the time is a spook

There are no universal truths if you deny universals. — Dharmi

No, this is based on your belief in the substance of truth (Platonism)

No, it's the worldview that I have. Believing that everything in your mind is a chemical illusion is mental illness. — Dharmi

Well I disagree. I had a great childhood and thus do not deny matter. I've experienced some trauma but it hasn't shaken my belief in matter. People get traumatized by life and deny matter. It's insane to do so though. There are universal truths, but no universals as substances. Truth is not a substance

But we've never experiences natures. And a nature is a universal. Every metaphysician knows that. — Dharmi

There is no consensus in philosophy. We experience matter and classify them according to their natures. Universals are spooks of metaphysicians

A body is like an avatar in a video game. — Dharmi

That's mental illness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorder

Because those philosophies are inconsistent. "There are natures but there are not." Pure sophistry. — Dharmi

There are not universals, but there are material natures. The latter are defined by the matter we experience

No, matter is not provable. Qualities of experience are all that has ever been proved. You've decided ad hoc to call these qualities of experience "matter" — Dharmi

That's absurd to the highest degree. You are denying you are a body then

Substances, natures, essences are universals. — Dharmi

Thought of in Platonism or Hegelism terms, sure. Not in Kantian or empiricist terms though

Anyway, this is a derail. — Dharmi

Formalism is denying that talking about matter in ontological terms is legit, so maybe speaking of nominalism might be a derail even though it runs counter to Platonism

I would claim it's much older. — Dharmi

If it's much older, prove they believe in Platonism? Matter is entirely provable. Punch yourself in the arm or pick up a chair

That's why Max Stirner, Nietzsche, Existentialists, Postmodernists and nihilists are honest and consistent nominalists.

EXACTLY. They share no properties in common. "Just matter" no dude, "matter" is a property. They don't share that property. You just said they share no inherent natural properties. Matter is property. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're proving my point.

Matter is a quality of experience, you can't prove it is real. And quantum physicists can't even describe the mass, charge, spin, location, weight etc. of "matter" which is no different than it not really being there.

No, empirico-materialism leads to solipsism. According to Kant, and according to you, all that exists is reducible to sense perceptions (without anything linking them together due to Hume's problem of induction) and chemical combinations in the brain creating the illusion of "reality."

Your worldview leads to solipsism, my worldview says the world exists actually and truly. There are properties, natures, qualities, essences, natures that things truly actually have. — Dharmi

Matter is not a property, it is a substance. You are made of matter. It doesn't matter is messed up people also believe in nominalism. A healthy person can believe in it to. Are all Platonists perfect?

Because we have historiographical studies of ancient societies, and as far as we can tell, the vast majority of human societies held to a form of Idealistic Panentheism. Mesoamerican socities, ancient European, Vedic, East Asian. — Dharmi

That doesn't tell us what THEIR ancestors believed. Humanity is between 200, 000 and 300,000 years old

Soul emerges from matter. Belief in matter is essential and the only people who in their souls' don't believe in matter are people that have had psychology trauma or some kind. This at least is what makes perfect sense to me

"Platonism" is as old as humans have been walking the Earth. — Dharmi

How do you know that?

whole nominalist worldview would logically entail that all of reality is a fantasy. — Dharmi

No it doesn't. It just says that a tree and another tree don't share some quasi non-material nature in common. Its just a bunch of matter. And matter is real. Qualities might be outside or inside the mind, but even Kant realized we have to posit SOMETHING out there, because otherwise we have solipsism. Solipsism is absurd, so there world is not fantasy. This is clearly true (platonism is not)

It's interesting how old nominalism is. It's seems to me to be common sense. Ideas of natures and objects having accidents coming out of substances are adult fantasies to my mind

You have the idea of God and the idea that existence is perfection. So I see you are using two premises and really using Descartes's first ontological argument of the third meditation and then linking it to his next argument. Because you have a thought of God, does it have to correspond to what it represents? I did threads on them but the moderators didn't like the topic and deleted them. I at least presented them in true philosophical form, while you are (im sad to say) presenting muddle in order for people to have faith in your logic. I don't use faith, I use logic. Descartes, ironically, did not use faith but logic, yet they could not get him out of his arguments in the "Replies". Why does your idea of God have any substance in it? Why should you assume it has any potency to do anything by way of showing what is outside subjectivity? Atheist nowadays are not into phenomenology of spirit. They are looking for an objective demonstration that there is a God, and even Mr. Feser's or whatever Thomistic "proof" doesn't do it for them. Too many assumptions!!

I can rap on this

Imagine you are a penguin, walking on those cute feet toward the water. Suddenly a lion seal bites your fin off after leaping at you from under the water. You didn't choose to exist, you didn't ask to exist. Yet your consciousness, will, and horror is suddenly real. Did or does creator go through this? No but maybe it's necessary for a creature to experience these affects on its will for a greater good. But this reflects God and shouldn't God's reflection be perfect. But God is bound by laws and logic. So a human gradually gains consciousness. Let's say he doesn't face a true test till after he has become guilty. God is neither guilty nor faces a test. So the goodness of God is in subtlety of will, which the person should have used instead of becoming guilty. And maybe God has to set things up so that people fall and others rise. We are a community of a species and so maybe the system is necessary, for God is bound by laws and logic. He chooses to create but can only do so in certain ways. He has to allow the evil for the good, the fallen for the chosen, the pain for the victory, and the shame for the love. Yet it's reflects his nature, perfect and peaceful. It's a picture akin to an actual picture: that is, to a pianting. It puts the frames around the edges. Yet it leaves you wondering at the end what the creator even is, does, or wants from us, especially since he chooses not to reveal his existence to anyone whatsoever

In your attempt to mechanize an abstract logical puzzle so that it can be told to society "a computer can prove there is a God", consider that if we mechanize the barber paradox and set it side by side with yours, a computer would say relativism is true. The barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves. Think of those being shaven as holding the razor away from themselves. So the barber shaves those and only those who hold the razor away form themselves. So the barber does not shave himself. He does not shave himself because he shaves only those who not shave themselves. Even if he shaves everyone who does not shave themselves, he still couldn't shave himself. But as TPR member Srap Tasmaner said here awhile back:

"Let S be the set of all men who don't shave themselves.
P is a member of S.
To be a member of R, you have to shave all the members of S.
Since P is a member of S, to be a member of R he would have to shave himself.
But he doesn't.
Therefore P is not a member of R."

Check out my thread on the barber paradox if you want to see other renditions which explain how this expounds to infinity (and I always want to, again, give credit to Srap for the above). These kind of ABSTRACT logic puzzles can go on forever and if you set your "argument" side by side with the barber paradox a computer can come up with the solution of "infinity" as in the sense of a spurious infinity of relativity

"The subject of all perfections does not exist» were true, then necessarily non-existence would be a perfection of said subject, which would imply a logical contradiction, which would then imply that the proposition «God does not exist» must be false."

But Divine thinking is the idea of an: "While I think necessarily, I exist necessarily," which idea I cannot experience in the first person, present tense mode. — charles ferraro

There.

Maybe you think you are God. Oh well

"But do you accept that those disjunctions are true? If you do, then either p or not p must be true, where p is «Existence is a perfection» and not p is «Non-existence is a perfection»."

I said existence is a perfection. I wont repeat that

"If the proposition «the subject of all perfections does not exist» is true, and you admit that existence and non-existence are predicates, then said subject (precisely because it does not exist) must have the predicate «non existence» (non existent subjects have predicates too)."

Of course. To not exist is to not exist

"The subject of all perfections, and it follows from the definition of perfection that said predicate, since it is a perfection, must be expressed without any limits, and if that's true, then necessarily it can't also not not exist as an idea in the mind, for otherwise it would not have that perfection, meaning non existence would not be a predicate of it, which contradicts either the disjunctions or the Law of the Excluded Middle."

False on every point. The LEM has nothing to do with this. God exists only as an idea

"And since God exists as an idea, that is a fact that contradicts the idea that the subject of all perfections has the perfection of non-existence (since he does exist in that way: as an idea in the mind)."

I never said God has the perfection of non-existence but the fact that one can have a vague notion of him does not mean he exists or does not exist

Whence it follows that the assumption that non-existence is a perfection must be false. And because of the disjunction, the only possibility is that existence is a perfection, from which it follows that said subject must exist not only as an idea in the mind, but also outside the mind."

Existence is a perfection, a perfection only this world has.

"1.Do you deny that the subject of all perfections exists as an idea in the mind? If you don't, and you accept the previous premises and steps, you must also accept what you have quoted right there.
If you do, then you must hold that the subject of all perfections is inconceivable. But the fact that we (or at least I) can understand the proposition «There is a subject of all perfections» contradicts that claim. Unless you say that you don't understand that proposition, in which case this argument won't convince you.
Remember that the notion of existence (the one used in Leibniz' argument of the eternal truths, which you accepted) I mentioned implies that what exists as an idea in the mind also, in some sense, exists (with said predicate either being a perfection, or not; in the latter case whatever has that predicate only exists as an idea in the mind, but not in the former case) and the same applies, the other way around, to non-existence.
2. Again, the argument does not attempt to prove that «absolute perfection» exists, rather it attempts to prove that «the subject of all perfections» exists."

All you are SAYING is that you have the idea of God. That's not going to get it into someone else's head by the laws of logic unless you have a true argument, which you CLEARLY do not

"If you say that existence is a perfection and don't deny the disjunction, then necessarily the subject of said perfections must exist (for the reasons given above: it follows from the definitions that you have accepted and the remarks on this comment). To reject this is to reject the definitions of «perfection», «the subject of all perfections» and/or «exists»."

There is no moving "two ideas" you are using. There is one idea, that you have an idea of God. Where is the other idea

"1. If you mean that the greatest being can exist outside our thoughts, remember that what the argument asserts here is the following: IF non-existence is a perfection, then the greatest being cannot exist in any way possible. IF that's true, then obviously it can't exist outside our thoughts either."

God doesn't exist outside our thoughts within the paradigms of this discussion. Nothingness has nothing to do with the argument. You have a premise "I have an idea of God" and nothing else. Don't use that "nothing" as an argument.

"If you mean that It only cannot exist outside our thoughts but may exist in our thoughts, If it cannot exist in any way possible (If you accept 2, 3 and Modus ponens), it can't exist in our thoughts either, for then he would exist as an idea in the mind, which contradicts the definition of non-existence as a perfection, since it would then be limited and not a perfection.
And if you deny that non-existence could be a perfection while accepting the disjunctions, then you must, as I said, accept that God must have the perfection of existence, that is: He must exist."

False. Modus ponens and all forms of argument require more than one premise.
You have one premise "I have an idea of God"

"This is setting up a Reductio ad Absurdum"

There is no reduction except of your words to one premise "I have an idea of God". I don't care if you have an idea of God, I don't care FOR your idea of God, your game you have devised is boring, and your agenda is clear

"1. Either nonexistence is a mark of greatness OR Existence is a mark of greatness [premise]"

Existence us

"2. Nonexistence is a mark of greatness [assumption]"

False


"3. If nonexistence is a mark of greatness then the greatest being cannot exist in any way possible [premise]"

Yes

"4. The greatest being cannot exist in any way possible [2, 3, Modus ponens]"

Outside our thoughts, yes

"5. God is the greatest being [definition]"

In thought

"6. God cannot exist in any way possible [4, 5 Substitution: The greatest being = God]"

Outside us

"7. If God cannot exist in any way possible then God cannot exist as an idea"

THERE is the problem. You go from saying God can't exist in any way is non-existence is a perfection. God exists in our thoughts and the thought is that his existence is a perfection. HOWEVER, it does not prove he is outside our thoughts to say we have the thought of him existing even is non-existence cannot be a predicate

"8. God cannot exist as an idea [6, 7 Modus ponens]"

9. God exists as an idea [premise]"

God can exist as an idea

"10. God cannot exist as an idea AND God exists as an idea [8, 9 Conjunction, contradiction]"

You didn't prove this contradiction exists

"11. False that nonexistence is a mark of greatness [2 to 10 Reductio Ad Absurdum]"

Obviously

"12. Existence is a mark of greatness [1, 11 Disjunctive syllogism]"

Obviously

"13. If existence is a mark of greatness then the greatest being must exist [premise]"

FALSE

"Leibniz' definition of perfection is: «The magnitude of positive reality, taken precisely, beyond the limits or boundaries in the things that have them. And where there are no limits, that is, in God, perfection is absolutely infinite. (Source: Monadology)"

Let that be the definition.

"For the following argument, I shall also use the notion of existence given by Leibniz, specifically from his argument from the eternal truths, according to which eternal truths (eg: 2 • 2 = 4) exist in the mind that apprehends them. The proof, which is a new form of the ontological argument, can be formulated like this: A subject of all perfections can be conceived."

Ok

"Said subject either exists or does not exist."

Of course

"If existence and non-existence are predicates, then either existence is a perfection or non-existence is a perfection."

Existence is a perfection

"When existence is a perfection, then in the subject of said perfection said attribute must be expressed without any limits, which would imply that it would not only exist as an idea in the mind, but also outside the mind."

If it exists yes.

"Let us assume that the subject of all perfections does not exist: then non-existence is a perfection, and in the subject of said perfection said attribute must be expressed without any limits, which would imply that not only does it not exist outside of the mind, but neither does it exist as an idea in the mind."

FALSE. It exists only in the mind so far

"Therefore God does not exist as an idea in the mind."

FALSE. It exists only in the mind so far

"But God does exist as an idea in the mind, therefore the assumption that the subject of all perfections has the perfection of not-existing led us to a contradiction."

NO. The idea that it exists as perfection exists in the mind but there is no argument so far that absolute perfection must exist

"And therefore this assumption must be false. From which it follows that God has the perfection of existing, that is: He exists."

So why are you now retracting and saying you are no talking about God.


"Hume's objection to the original argument is the following: «I will begin by noting that there is an obvious absurdity in the claim to prove a factual point, or to prove it with a priori arguments. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies contradiction. Everything that we can conceive as existing, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is, therefore, no being whose non-existence implies contradiction. Consequently, there is no being whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and I am willing to let the entire controversy depend on it.'
But we see that if this new argument were valid (which I neither affirm nor assure), the manifest contradiction would be that if God did not exist outside the mind, he would not exist as an idea in the mind either."

FALSE. The idea is an idea only. Getting from idea to REALITY was the goal, right?

"This also answers the objection that not-existing might be better than existing, and that therefore non existence might be a perfection."

It doesn't answer that at all. Non-existence of a good is not a perfection. But you presented not one argument for anything. No argument was presented.

"It does not, however, answer the objection that existence is not a predicate."

It's not a predicate if its absolute. Something may lack something, but the non-existence is not a predicate

"Thoughts?"

You are being really dumb

You say (1) we have the idea of perfection. (2) existence is a perfection "which would imply that it would not only exist as an idea in the mind, but also outside the mind. Let us assume that the subject of all perfections does not exist: then non-existence is a perfection, and in the subject of said perfection said attribute must be expressed without any limits, which would imply that not only does it not exist outside of the mind, but neither does it exist as an idea in the mind. Therefore God does not exist as an idea in the mind. But God does exist as an idea in the mind"

Youre just playing with logic. We can think that we have an idea of perfection. But again, does that idea have a consistent form in our minds and does it accord with something outside our minds? You don't have the crucial form of an argument because you use a linguistic trick. You haven't laid out a clear argument really for anything