God cannot create an omnipotent being. — Philosopher19

Why not? You come out with these cockamamie declarations that 1. don't make sense 2. don't have any reference and 3. don't have any proof.

If we followed your argument style, we could say that god is not omnipotent, not just, not anything.

Well, you can't argue, because you expect us to take and accept your haphazardly constructed baseless claims, so in turn you must accept OUR haphazardly constructed, baseless claims. Fair is fair, my only true friend.

If you think creating round squares is "something" that an omnipotent being should be able to, then consistency would have you believe that geometry should encompass "shapes" like triangular pentagons or round-squares.

Anyway, you're profoundly confused about the nature of omnipotence and your proof of God does not work for reasons I have already explained to you. — Bartricks

We cannot have a meaningful/rational (semantically consistent) discussion if we accept contradictory statements (semantically inconsistent statements) as being meaningful (semantically consistent) objections.

Since when? This you declare categorically, without any proof or attempt at it. — god must be atheist

Because it is semantically inconsistent for there to be two omnipresent beings. For there to be two omnipresent being, non-existence would have to separate them. In order for non-existence to separate them, non-existence would have to exist. Non-existence existing in contradictory. Hence why existence is infinite and omnipresent. This is why an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or semantics are in existence. A finite existence cannot accommodate an infinite number of semantics.

But an omnipotent being can make a non-doable into a doable. — god must be atheist

See my reply here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/546051

Why not? You come out with these cockamamie declarations that 1. don't make sense 2. don't have any reference and 3. don't have any proof. — god must be atheist

If that's how you feel, then I don't think there's any point in you and me discussing the OP any further.

For there to be two omnipresent being, non-existence would have to separate them. In order for non-existence to separate them, non-existence would have to exist. Non-existence existing in contradictory. Hence why existence is infinite and omnipresent. This is why an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or semantics are in existence. A finite existence cannot accommodate an infinite number of semantics. — Philosopher19

I shan't even try to add anything. This is perfect as it is.

I especially love this sentence:
A finite existence cannot accommodate an infinite number of semantics.

If that's how you feel, — Philosopher19

This is not a feeling, my only true friend. My remark was a reasoned opinion. There are no feelings involved in there at all.

. Cogito is that whose nature knows limitation ...

. God ... not the theological one ... that one ... is just mind projection ... a mythical creation of Man ... but Godliness ... the quality of divinity ... is that whose nature is boundless ... whose nature cannot be defined ... whose nature is ... therefore ... the unnameable ... and God ... are one ... an unity ... an oneness ...

. Therefore ... Cogito and God ... are ... diametrically opposite realities ...

. One exists ... God ... while ... other ... is a mind's creation ... a mind's projection ... Cogito ...

. God is a presence, not a person. Hence all worshipping is sheer stupidity. Prayerfulness is needed, not prayer. There is nobody to pray to; there is no possibility of any dialogue between you and God. Dialogue is possible only between two persons, and God is not a person but a presence – like beauty, like joy.

. God simply means godliness. It is because of this fact that Buddha denied the existence of God. He wanted to emphasize that God is a quality, an experience – like love. You cannot talk to love, you can live it. You need not create temples of love, you need not make statues of love, and bowing down to those statues will be just nonsense. And that’s what has been happening in the churches, in the temples, in the mosques.

. God is the ultimate experience of silence, of beauty, of bliss, a state of inner celebration. Once you start looking at God as godliness there will be a radical change in your approach. Then prayer is no more valid; meditation becomes valid.

. Martin Buber says prayer is a dialogue; then between you and God there is an “I-thou” relationship – the duality persists.

. Buddha is far closer to the truth: you simply drop all chattering of the mind, you slip out of the mind like a snake slipping out of the old skin. You become profoundly silent. There is no question of any dialogue, no question of any monologue either. Words have disappeared from your consciousness. There is no desire for which favors have to be asked, no ambition to be fulfilled.

. One is now and here. In that tranquility, in that calmness, you become aware of a luminous quality to existence. Then the trees and the mountains and the rivers and the people are all surrounded with a subtle aura. They are all radiating life, and it is one life in different forms. The flowering of one existence in millions of forms, in millions of flowers.

. This experience is God. And it is everybody’s birthright, because whether you know it or not you are already part of it. The only possibility is you may not recognize it or you may recognize it. The difference between the enlightened person and the unenlightened person is not of quality – they both are absolutely alike. There is only one small difference: that the enlightened person is aware; he recognizes the ultimate pervading the whole, permeating the whole, vibrating, pulsating. He recognizes the heartbeat of the universe. He recognizes that the universe is not dead, it is alive.

. This aliveness is God! This aliveness is awe ... Tao ...

First of all, regarding your argument, one must keep in mind that it

"can be linked with a realist view of God only via platonic metaphysics, which takes a realist view of abstract entities. Take it out of that context, and it does not imply a realist view of God at all. On the contrary, it suggests that God is just ideal." (Cupitt, Don. Taking Leave of God)

In addition, one must be careful in the discussion that value judgments do not unintentionally and secretly sneak into the whole thing without being justified.

The shape my four year old drew without a ruler, is imperfect as a triangle. Some would argue it's not even a triangle at all. Resembling a perfect triangle (being an imperfect triangle) and being a true triangle (a perfect triangle) are two different truths. — Philosopher19

The question is also whether your four-year-old had the intention of drawing a triangle. One can only argue about whether the drawing is a triangle if it was intended to be a triangle. Perhaps the drawing perfectly represents some other geometric figure. Maybe a whole new geometric figure that your four-year-old has earlier formed a definition for in her mind.

Resembling a perfect triangle is not necessarily identical to being an imperfect triangle.

If it was never meant to be a triangle, what entitles you to claim that it is objectively an imperfect triangle. A true triangle is given if it was intended to be a triangle and if it conforms to the general definition of a triangle without being too meticulous or splitting hairs.

A) Whatever's perfectly x, is indubitably x (an imperfect triangle's triangularity can either be rejected or doubted. A perfect triangle's cannot).

B) Whatever's perfectly existing, is indubitably existing (just as whatever's perfectly triangular, is indubitably triangular). — Philosopher19

The jump from A) to B) is problematic. Because triangularity is a property, existence may not be one. At least it is controversial. So your proof of God is based on a controversial premise. It is also based on a specific Platonism, which can be rejected outright. In addition, existence is probably neutral to perfection. Indeed, you should define your basic concepts like existence beforehand.

to be an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human, is to exist as an imaginary human, dream, or "real" human. — Philosopher19

This phrasing could create misunderstandings. To be an imaginary human is to exist in the mind or imagination as a property of the mind or imagination. To exist as an imaginary human sounds as if there is a human who perhaps exists as an imaginary human. But this is nonsense. Because the question what exists as an imaginary human is obviously odd. One would have to rephrase the question to make it appear reasonable.

The expression: to be an imaginary human is no better and equally misleading. It makes it seem as well that a subject can be an imaginary human. But this is also semantically nonsensical. An imaginary human is an image, a representation of a subject. But itself is not a subject.

When goodness is the standard, nothing is better than the real God or a really perfect existence. — Philosopher19

‘Good’ is an adjective. The notion of pure goodness is linguistically tempting to take it as a real thing. It was introduced into philosophy by Plato, who places the Idea of Good at the summit of the metaphysics of his Republic. The notion was severely criticized by Aristotle.

Your argument should first of all prove the existence of a Platonic "heaven", then it must clearly define its concepts and then one can see further.

This is not a feeling, my only true friend. My remark was a reasoned opinion. There are no feelings involved in there at all. — god must be atheist

Then what I should have said is if that's what you call reasoning...

I'm not trying to discuss religion here (though I value religion). Just matters of pure reason.

We can doubt ourselves, but we cannot doubt God's existence. This is the only thing I'm trying to highlight here.

My argument is purely focused on semantics. If x is a contradictory (semantically inconsistent) belief/theory/statement, then x is certainly false and we are rationally obliged to recognise it as being false and treat it as such. Realism and plato take nothing away from this rational obligation of ours.

The jump from A) to B) is problematic. Because triangularity is a property, existence may not be one. — spirit-salamander

If x is existing, then it has the property of existing. Is it not contradictory to say x is existing, but it does not have the property of existing?

So your proof of God is based on a controversial premise. It is also based on a specific Platonism — spirit-salamander

Again, to me, if rejecting x results in a contradiction or inconsistency in semantics, then I'd see myself as being rationally obliged to acknowledge x as being true. Where you view existence as a property, the OP demonstrates that God certainly exists. I don't see how you can reject existence as being a property. Also, I'm not trying to advocate a theory of forms here. I'm trying to highlight that the following beliefs are contradictory:

1) God does not exist.
2) God is not at least as real as we are (there is nothing more real than that which perfectly exists because it encompasses and sustains all lesser realities/beings (imperfect beings/realities or non-God beings).

This phrasing could create misunderstandings. To be an imaginary human is to exist in the mind or imagination as a property of the mind or imagination. — spirit-salamander

To be an imaginary human is to exist at least as a hypothetical possibility in existence. Santa is a hypothetically possible being (as opposed to a necessary one). Whether he is in our world/universe or not, is another matter. He (or something that resembles him) may be in dreams that some people have.

That which perfectly exists sustains all hypothetical possibilities, realities, worlds/universes and so on. There is nothing more real than that which perfectly exists because it encompasses all realities and hypothetical possibilities.

We are not the sustainers of the items of thought we imagine, or the dreams/nightmares we have. A finite being or existence cannot sustain an infinite number of semantics or hypothetical possibilities. Only an infinite being/existence sustains an infinite number of semantics or hypothetically possibilities.

If you think creating round squares is "something" that an omnipotent being should be able to, then consistency would have you believe that geometry should encompass "shapes" like triangular pentagons or round-squares. — Philosopher19

Doesn't follow. Again, you don't seem to understand what omnipotence involves. It doesn't involve actually making round circles or actually making the law of non-contradiction false. It involves having the 'power' to do those things.

So, the law of non-contradiction is true. Okay? It is 'true'. Not false. True.

But Reason - whose law it is - can make it false. She has the power to rewrite any and all laws of Reason, for they're her laws and that's how they became laws in the first place.

So, a square circle is not currently a thing, because Reason forbids it from being so. But precisely because that is why it is not a thing, Reason and Reason alone has the power to make it a thing and make one. See?

And that's why meaningful discussion is possible: for I am not saying taht any of the laws of logic are false, rather I am saying that there is one amongst us who has the power to make them false, and that person is Reason herself, who is God.

What you are doing in trying to show that God exists of necessity, is offending God. For you are saying that she 'must' exist - that there is something higher than God that keeps her, indeed forces her - into existence. And that's very, very confused. ANd like I say, heretical. You have actually made her less powerful than yourself in an important respect, for you can take yourself out of existence whereas you're insisting that she cannot. How offensive is that? And how silly is that - how silly to think that God can't take herself out of existence if she so wishes. And how silly - and so obviously contradictory - to think that being constrained by logic makes one more powerful than a being who is not so constrained! The absurdity is so absolute it hurts. And the irony - it is you, matey, not I, who is violating the law of non-contradiction.

I have explained why your ontological argument fails, and why any ontological argument for God will fail. It fails, for God does not exist of necessity but contingently.

Doesn't follow. Again, you don't seem to understand what omnipotence involves. — Bartricks

We'll have to agree to disagree.

why do people keep saying that? No! You're wrong. I don't agree to disagree. You are wrong.

I refuse to agree with you. I don't see you as having a choice in this matter. This is why I suggested that we agree to disagree. If I choose to disagree with you and you do not choose to agree with me, then we either agree to disagree, or we continue to discuss. But I am refusing to continue to discuss.

Yes, you are refusing to discuss - refusing to acknowledge that your argument does not work. We are not agreeing to disagree, you are running away, ok? No agreement. You. Running. Away.

Yes, you are refusing to discuss - refusing to acknowledge that your argument does not work. We are not agreeing to disagree, you are running away, ok? No agreement. You. Running. Away. — Bartricks

How you interpret your empirical experiences, is your responsibility. It is not my concern.

A couple of hints as to how to read Descartes Meditations:

Man's perfectibility - if we limit what we will to what we know we will never err. An immortal thinking thing with Descartes method for solving for any unknown will in time will unerringly.

Knowledge of perfection - Descartes argues that the idea of perfection cannot come from something imperfect. But note in the Fifth Meditation he argues that God's non-existence would be to lack a of perfection. The idea of perfection then can, and in fact does, arise from imperfection. We see that a thing is not perfect because it lacks something. We do not need the idea of perfection in order to see that something is not perfect.

The idea of perfection then can, and in fact does, arise from imperfection. — Fooloso4

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. The OP shows that God's non-existence is as semantically/meaningfully contradictory as a perfect triangle's non-triangularity.

[reply="Philosopher19;547011

It is only meaningless if you begin by defining God as perfect.

It is only meaningless if you begin by defining God as perfect. — Fooloso4

You define something other than God as a perfect being/existent without running into contradictions (if you are meaningfully/semantically able to), and you will have proven the following wrong:

Only God (the infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent towards good, omnimalevolent towards evil) is truly perfect (or exists perfectly).

Defining something into existence is frivolous, but I will play along. Since nothing constrains God's existence there is nothing to prevents the existence of an infinite numbers of Gods.

Defining something into existence is frivolous, but I will play along. — Fooloso4

You don't define something into existence. You simply acknowledge the existence of that which perfectly exists. You don't define something into being triangular. You simply acknowledge the triangularity of that which is perfectly triangular.

Since nothing constrains God's existence there is nothing to prevents the existence of an infinite numbers of Gods. — Fooloso4

You cannot have more than one existence. For you to have more than one existence, non-existence would have to separate one existence from the other. Non-existence existing is contradictory. Thus you cannot have more than one existence.

You cannot have more than one perfect being because you cannot have more than one omnipresent or omnipotent being (both omnipresence and omnipotence are semantical components of being perfect, just as interior angles adding up to 180 degrees is a semantical components of being triangular).

You don't define something into existence. — Philosopher19

No, you don't. But that is exactly what you are trying to do.

You cannot have more than one existence. — Philosopher19

But you can have more than one thing that exists.

You simply acknowledge the existence of that which perfectly exists. — Philosopher19

You do not know that perfect thing exist anywhere but the imagination.

You simply acknowledge the triangularity of that which is perfectly triangular. — Philosopher19

Perfect triangularity is either a hypothesis or part of a formal system.

You cannot have more than one perfect being because you cannot have more than one omnipresent or omnipotent being — Philosopher19

That is an assertion. You require your perfect, omnipotent God conforms to logic and the limits of your understanding. You seem to be using spatial terms for something that does not have a spatial dimension.

EDITED.

No, you don't. But that is exactly what you are trying to do. — Fooloso4

When I say 'existence' I am referring to that which is omnipresent. Non-existence has never existed and will never exist. You are not existence nor do you sustain it (contrary to solipsism). You are sustained by existence. You are sustained by God. You are contingent on God. Existence = the existence of God and only God. This is when you take semantics in an absolute manner.

If you take semantics in a non-absolute manner, then all meaningful things exist, but only God exists in a real and complete manner. A perfect triangle is really triangular, an imperfect triangle is not really as triangular. The perfect being is really existing, an imperfect being is not as real in its existing. That which is completely/perfectly triangular is at least as triangular as an imperfect triangle. Correction, only that which is completely/perfectly triangular is really triangular in an absolute sense. Nothing else is really triangular. In comparison to God, nothing else is really real/perfect/complete/good.

You do not know that perfect thing exist anywhere but the imagination. — Fooloso4

Then you have not understood the OP. I know that that which exists perfectly exists omnipresently, and I know that only God is omnipresent.

Perfect triangularity is either a hypothesis or part of a formal system. — Fooloso4

The semantic of triangle is the semantic of triangle. Again, if we are to be non-absolute with our semantics, we can talk about varying degrees of triangularity and being. If we are to be absolute with our semantics, then only God (that which perfectly exists) exists, and only triangles (that which is perfectly triangular) are triangular.

But you can have more than one thing that exists. — Fooloso4

Depends on whether you take the absolute approach to semantics or not. If not, then yes, but this does not change the fact that God is more real in its existing than you or any one or any thing/existent else. If you take the absolute approach (which is what you should do), then only God exists. You are just sustained by His existence. It's not your existence or reality (contrary to solipsism), it's God's. You are a part of it.

That is an assertion. You require your perfect, omnipotent God conforms to logic and the limits of your understanding. You seem to be using spatial terms for something that does not have a spatial dimension. — Fooloso4

I am being sincere to my awareness of the semantic of true perfection (of which omnipresence and omnipotence are both semantical components of). If you do not recognise this semantic or are unaware of it, then we cannot discuss it.

Unfounded assertion on top of unfounded assertion does not amount to more than a bunch of unfounded assertions.

Your notions of meaning and existence do not correspond to anything other than what you imagine they must be, as if, because you have convinced yourself of the truth of such matters therefore that is the way things must be.

Realism and plato take nothing away from this rational obligation of ours. — Philosopher19

They don't, but they give you an ontological basis. Otherwise, according to an extreme skepticism of language, your argumentation might proceed only in your head without any correspondence to experienced reality.

You will not be able to deny that you believe in a real given pure semantics of a logical language, which dwells in a kind of separate world, a realm of meanings.

Your appeal to semantic consistency must somehow be supported by something platonically real. Because, as already indicated, without Platonism your arguments could be pure subjective fantasies with abstract words, pure tautologies and pure hypnotically conditioned word superstitions.

Is it not contradictory to say x is existing, but it does not have the property of existing? — Philosopher19

I don't think it's contradictory. I can say that object X has many color properties and also say that object X exists precisely because I am perceiving it. Properties are predicated, existence is indicated. Two different things.

I don't see how you can reject existence as being a property. — Philosopher19

Aristotle (Analytica posteriora, 92bl3f) thinks that existence cannot be a characteristic of being because it applies to everything that is there.

Aristotle says:
‘since being is not a genus, it is not the essence of anything.’
‘existence can never belong to essence; being can never belong to the essence of a thing’

So the definition of a thing and the proof of its existence are two different and eternally separated things.

That which perfectly exists sustains all hypothetical possibilities, realities, worlds/universes and so on. — Philosopher19

So you believe in Meinongian nonactualities. From these non-actualities you get to God. And they are justified in this way:

We are not the sustainers of the items of thought we imagine, or the dreams/nightmares we have. A finite being or existence cannot sustain an infinite number of semantics or hypothetical possibilities. — Philosopher19

I would dispute the latter: namely, that there are an infinite number of semantics or hypothetical possibilities. There is only a limited number currently in the minds of all humans or perhaps extraterrestrial intelligent life forms.

Do I understand your concept of existence correctly? That which actually exists, or synonymously, perfectly exists, or exists at all, is that which exists completely independently and self-sufficiently? Humans would not exist perfectly because they would be dependent on something. The most imperfect existing would be the completely dependent one. Is that your definition? If not, please give us a clear definition of (perfectly) existing.

Since you attach great importance to semantic consistency, perhaps you can bring your proof of God into a formal structure like 1. or A) to 2. or B) with the conclusion: Therefore there is the perfectly existing, which we call God.

Because your explanations seem to be a little chaotic and not quite comprehensible for a non-initiated person.

You wrote:

Resembling a perfect triangle (being an imperfect triangle) — Philosopher19

I have replied:

Resembling a perfect triangle is not necessarily identical to being an imperfect triangle. — spirit-salamander

You seem to be saying that to resemble a perfect triangle is to be an imperfect triangle.
I say that this may be true only subjectively, but not objectively, because the resembling may not represent a triangle at all. You haven't said anything about that yet.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Your appeal to semantic consistency must somehow be supported by something platonically real. — spirit-salamander

Is it not the case that any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically inconsistent (contradictory) is false by definition? Can you give me an example of something that is contradictory, yet not impossible or false at the same time?

I don't think it's contradictory — spirit-salamander

Is non-existence not devoid of the property of being/existing? Can you give me any thing that is an x, that does not have the property of being an x?

I can say that object X has many color properties and also say that object X exists precisely because I am perceiving it. — spirit-salamander

Right, and if you tried to perceive of a round-square, what happens? You fail because round-squares do not exist in any way, shape, or form. Which means that they do not have the property of existing in any way, shape or form.

You do not say a triangle is not a shape (or does not have the property of being a shape) just because the semantic of 'shape' encompasses the semantic of 'triangle' (as well as all other shapes). The semantic of existing/existence encompasses all meaningful things (including the object X which you perceived). I think you are rejecting the semantic of existence as being a property just because it encompasses ALL meaningful things (shapes included). Not only is there no need to do this, but doing so results in contradictions. I do not think rejecting existence as being a property to be a semantically consistent move.

Before I address any of the other points in your post, I think it most efficient that we clear up this key issue first because everything hinges on this and we have not yet agreed on it.

Is it not the case that any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically inconsistent (contradictory) is false by definition? — Philosopher19

In general, I agree with you, although in the history of philosophy there has always been a dispute about what is semantically inconsistent and what is not. But keep in mind, some say that there can be no fixed rules for the correct, i.e. absolutely correct use of language. They might say that logic is based on the law of contradiction, but contradiction exists only in words.

Can you give me an example of something that is contradictory, yet not impossible or false at the same time? — Philosopher19

There is a theological doctrine or model of God that says that He is a divine simplicity, which means that He has no distinct properties. Omnipotence would be the same property as goodness. Or to put it in other words: being omnipotent and being good would be different senses for the same property:

"Our minds can only have a clear grasp of intellect, power, goodness, etc., as distinct attributes, since they exist distinct from one another in the things of our experience. But in God they exist as one: God’s power is His intellect, which is His goodness, and so forth[.]" (Feser, Edward - The last superstition: a refutation of the new atheism)

For our mind such a teaching is contradictory, but nevertheless not necessarily false and impossible.

Hegel apparently raised contradiction to an ontological principle:

"For Hegel, all finite concepts are inherently ‘contradictory’ because they are always partial and one-sided and usually derive their meaning from opposed ideas." (The Hegel Dictionary - Glenn Alexander Magee)

"Hegel also often speaks not just of thought as involving contradiction, but reality as well." (The Hegel Dictionary - Glenn Alexander Magee)

So there are at least different views on this topic.

Is non-existence not devoid of the property of being/existing? — Philosopher19

Here the mistake is committed to regard non-existence or nothingness as a real, actually available thing. But the non-existence simply does not exist. So non-existence or nothingness is neither devoid of the property of being/existing nor not devoid of the property of being/existing. I think you are making the mistake of reification. You seem to equate the nothing with the something. You probably believe that there is no thing without its corresponding word and no word without its corresponding thing and therefore the thing designated by nothing must also be something. But I hope you agree with me that it is really quite childish to conclude from the existence of a concept or word the reality of the thing that has been thought in the word. Accordingly, non-existence cannot be understood as an imperfect existence or as the most imperfect existence. To understand it nevertheless in such a way is clearly semantically and logically inconsistent.

Right, and if you tried to perceive of a round-square, what happens? You fail because round-squares do not exist in any way, shape, or form. Which means that they do not have the property of existing in any way, shape or form. — Philosopher19

Indeed, there are those who clutter ontology with entities such as The False. Thus, they believe that false propositions also hang around in an extra-temporal realm, that is, somehow exist. This is just to be said by the way. You are right, I cannot successfully perceive a round square, yet the false idea of one exists in my mind. Or to accommodate you, I say that the false idea has the property of existing in my mind, even if this sounds semantically weird. But a visually round square can never exist. That is true.

You do not say a triangle is not a shape (or does not have the property of being a shape) just because the semantic of 'shape' encompasses the semantic of 'triangle' (as well as all other shapes). — Philosopher19

I agree.

The semantic of existing/existence encompasses all meaningful things (including the object X which you perceived). — Philosopher19

What do you mean by meaningful things? Do you want to say that existing beings exist, which would be a pure tautology? Do you understand by existence the epitome, the totality of all being (all existing things)?

I do not think rejecting existence as being a property to be a semantically consistent move. — Philosopher19

Can you make a case for this, perhaps using Kant's thalers as an example?

"A hundred real thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers" (A599/B627, AW 822a).

"We do not add anything to a concept by claiming that it exists. Thus, Kant mentions the 100 thalers. Kant says that the real and possible thalers must have the same number of thalers in order that the concept be the concept of that object. If there are more thalers in the real thalers, then the concept and the object would not match. So, we do not add thalers when we mention that the thalers exist."
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Modern_S10/Notes/28-Kant5n.pdf

Still, I think you should put your argument into some kind of syllogistic framework so that people can see more clearly what you're getting at.

I don't think that from your own definition of everything you can clearly and unquestionably prove that God exists. I certainly think that definitions contain only concepts of our head, but that our head grasps many things that do not exist. Therefore, I do not see how to come from your concept of everything to the existence of God.

The conclusion from the existence of a concept to its real existence ist just false. From this language superstition then quite logically the ontological proof for the existence of God has emerged. One abstracted further and further, one generalized further and further, until one arrived at the empty or absolute concept of essence or being; and this very emptiest concept should still be brought under the concept of cause, the existence should be cause or effect of being. It is really inconceivable.

I also agree with Michael Martin's following critique of the ontological proof of God:

"Mackie has suggested that even if one grants that existence is a property and is part of the intrinsic greatness of God, the argument does not work. Anselm appears to suppose that the fool's concept is that of a nonexisting being than which no greater being can be conceived, where the entire italicized phrase represents the content of his concept. Given this concept and the assumption that existence is part of the intrinsic greatness of God, the fool does indeed contradict himself. However, the fool need not and should not conceptualize the situation in this way. The fool may simply have the concept of a being such that no greater being can be conceived. He does not include nonexistence within the concept, although he believes that the concept has no application in the real world. Viewed in this way, the fool does not contradict himself. But can the fool afford to admit that existence is part of the concept of a being such that no greater one can be conceived of? There is no reason why he cannot admit this, for he can still insist that such a concept has no application to reality. To put this in a different way, the argument can be undermined by noting the following: Suppose the fool admits that existence is a property of an entity, that existence would add to the greatness of any being, and that God is a being such that no greater being can be conceived of. The fool could say definitionally that God exists in reality. Or to put it in still a different way, "God is nonexistent" would be a contradiction. But the fool would not be forced into admitting that God in fact exists in reality and not just in his understanding. He could insist that the following is not a contradiction: "It is not the case that God exists" or "There is no God."
To say something exists definitionally and not in fact means that by virtue of the way a certain concept is defined, existence is part of the concept. For example, one can define a Loch Ness monster as a large sea animal that inhabits Loch Ness and define a real Loch Ness monster as a Loch Ness monster that exists in reality. Such a creature would then exist definitionally, since existence would be part of the definition of a real Loch Ness monster. But whether a real Loch Ness monster in fact exists is another question. Further, it would be a contradiction to say that a real Loch Ness monster did not exist. But one would not be uttering a contradiction by saying: "It is not the case that a real Loch Ness monster exists" or "There is no real Loch Ness monster." Similarly, if the fool said that God exists definitionally but not in fact, he would in a way be acknowledging Anselm's point that God exists by definition while insisting that the concept that includes existence need not apply to the real world." (Michael Martin - Atheism)

You are not existence nor do you sustain it (contrary to solipsism). You are sustained by existence. You are sustained by God. You are contingent on God. Existence = the existence of God and only God. — Philosopher19

You did not write this to me, but I still have a question. Doesn't that imply that everything that is not God does not exist, thus is nothingness?

In general, I agree with you, although in the history of philosophy there has always been a dispute about what is semantically inconsistent and what is not. But keep in mind, some say that there can be no fixed rules for the correct, i.e. absolutely correct use of language. They might say that logic is based on the law of contradiction, but contradiction exists only in words. — spirit-salamander

I studied philosophy at university, and the thing that I notice now that I did not notice as much back then, is that western philosophers do not seem to treat absurdities as absurdities as forcefully as they ought to. By this I mean some will entertain or accept something like Pyrrhonian scepticism as a form of "scepticism" despite it being as contradictory/absurd as something like multishapism "geometry" (mutishapism "geometry" deals with the study of "shapes" like round-squares and triangular pentagons). Any rational person ought to treat that which is absurd as absurd. Unknowns are unknowns (is there is a 10th sense?) and absurdities are absurdities (round squares). This distinction is clear. Thus, our obligations are rationally clear. If we clearly recognise that rejecting belief x is contradictory, then we must acknowledge belief x as certainly true.

There is a theological doctrine or model of God that says that He is a divine simplicity, which means that He has no distinct properties — spirit-salamander

But if this is contradictory, then it is surely false and therefore surely impossible to be real in any way, shape, or form. One is not maximally good in an absolute sense if one is not omnipotent. But clearly, the attributes of omnipotence and goodness are not the same, nor are the attributes of creativeness and infiniteness. If divine simplicity states that they are the same, then divine simplicity is clearly absurd (not meaningful or understandable) and must therefore be rejected.

For our mind such a teaching is contradictory, but nevertheless not necessarily false and impossible. — spirit-salamander

I think this statement is contradictory. We cannot recognise something as being contradictory, yet at the same time, consider it as not being impossible. If x is contradictory, it is certainly impossible. No two different attributes can be the same attribute. No one thing can be two different things at the same time. No x can be not x at the same time. Nothing can sit and stand at the same time etc. These are all clear impossibilities. Whether or not something with a 10th sense exists or not, that is an unknown. Absurdities should be treated as absurdities, and unknowns as unknowns (just as triangles should be treated as triangles, and not as squares).

"For Hegel, all finite concepts are inherently ‘contradictory’ because they are always partial and one-sided and usually derive their meaning from opposed ideas." (The Hegel Dictionary - Glenn Alexander Magee)

"Hegel also often speaks not just of thought as involving contradiction, but reality as well." (The Hegel Dictionary - Glenn Alexander Magee) — spirit-salamander

Contradictions and absurdities and lies exist, what they describe does not. There are no contradictions in reality (this is understandable). Now consider the alternative: There are contradictions in reality (is this understandable for one to say they have meaningful understood it?). One cannot see a round square, and one cannot understand reality as being contradictory.

I'm not sure what example Hegel has produced to justify such a statement, but even if he had, he could not have understood the statement because it would be contradictory.

So there are at least different views on this topic. — spirit-salamander

Yes, but we must not allow ourselves to view a view that is contradictory, as being a reasonable view. The irrational and the rational are not the same. No psychologist or scientist would adopt a clearly contradictory theory (unless they were irrational), yet to my understanding, this is happening in mainstream philosophy and maths (see how mathematicians reject the set of all sets).

What do you mean by meaningful things? — spirit-salamander

I mean anything that is not contradictory or unknown. Round squares do not exist in any way. Unicorns exist at least as hypothetically possible beings. A 10th sense is either an absurdity, or it is at least a hypothetical possibility (we don't know which), but that which is omniscient does.

Existence exists everywhere. Thus, existence (or that which is omnipresent), exists necessarily, as opposed to just a hypothetical possibility. This is because existence (that which is omnipresent) encompasses and sustains all realities and worlds. Unicorns and humans don't have the same ontological necessity as the omnipresent or existence. It is that which perfectly exists that is necessarily absolutely real, whereas unicorns do not perfectly exist, so they are not necessarily absolutely real. They are not perfect beings and there is only one perfect being. That being God.

Because I take the absolute approach, I describe God as instantiating existence, and unicorns as being in existence (as in it is possible for existence to produce and sustain unicorns, but it is not possible for existence to produce and sustain round squares). We must rationally account for why existence is such that round squares are clearly absurd, and why unicorns are not. And the only explanation is that it's just in the nature of existence...that nature being perfect (infinite and omnipotent). A perfect existence accounts for all semantics (including perfection and imperfection, infinite and finite), and imperfect existence cannot account for all semantics (hence why it is contradictory to view existing as finite or imperfect). In an imperfect existence, perfection would be as impossible and absurd as a round square, yet, we recognise that round square is absurd, whilst perfection is clearly meaningful (as is infinity despite us not being infinite). We cannot reject attributing infiniteness and perfectness to existence without running into clear contradictions.

"A hundred real thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers" (A599/B627, AW 822a). — spirit-salamander

Pretend/imaginary money and real money (real in terms of what we call our waking physical reality) are both in existence. If we take the absolute approach with regards to semantics, then neither the real money or the pretend money are themselves existing because they are sustained by God (which truly exists. Self-exists or is self-contingent). So here, existing or existence is still a property (one that only applies to God).

If we take the non-absolute approach to semantics, then both the pretend money and the real money have the property of existing purely because they are both meaningful. Anything that is absurd (like round-squares) is devoid of the property of existing. Or if I am to put it in the absolute way, is not true of existence. It is not true of existence that it is finite. It is not true of existence that it encompasses round squares in any way, shape, or form. It is true of existence that it can produce unicorns (because existence is infinite. A finite existence cannot accommodate an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities or semantics. And it is contradictory to say x is hypothetically possible and yet not hypothetically possible at the same time. Again, we must account for why unicorn is meaningful, whilst married bachelors are not. I think the conclusion is clear. It's all down to the nature of existence).

I don't think that from your own definition of everything you can clearly and unquestionably prove that God exists. — spirit-salamander

If we take the absolute approach, then only God is existing because God is instantiating existence. We are in existence, but we are not existence because we do not instantiate it. But I recognise the difficulty in saying x does not exist when x is not a contradictory thing. But what the flaws in Descartes' cogito conveys, coupled with what the OP proposes, is that if we are to be certain of the realness or existing of anything, it is God. Everything else could be a dream, or just not truly real. By semantics/reason, God is necessarily existing and real (we are not necessarily real and existing like God is).

I certainly think that definitions contain only concepts of our head, but that our head grasps many things that do not exist. — spirit-salamander

Give me an example. Because if you take the absolute approach, then only God qualifies as really or certainly existing. And if you take the non-absolute approach, then God is the most real existent (see my point about omnipresence encompassing all realities). The concepts in our head are not sustained by us. The concepts in our head do not pop in and out of existence because it is absurd for x to enter existence from non-existence, or to exit existence into non-existence. Thus, we simply access, or focus on one or more of an infinite number of concepts sustained by existence (God's existence to be more precise).

I also agree with Michael Martin's following critique of the ontological proof of God: — spirit-salamander

None of this applies to the OP. Both Descartes and Anselm took existing to be a good thing without justifying this move. I do no such thing. I ask what perfectly exists, and I provide the answer, and that answer is God (or a truly perfect existence). This is different to saying it's better to exist than to not exist, therefore God exists. Given God, if one is evil, it is better to not exist than it is to exist because a truly perfect existence is such that potent evil suffers Hell. God Punishes evil (perfection) and Rewards good (perfection). Clearly, it is better to not exist if one is evil. Or simply, it is better to not exist if one is going to be miserable and depressed, and this will never change. Thus, it's better for evil to not exist. Thus, it is not necessarily the case that existing is a good thing. But it is necessarily the case that existence (that which exists omnipresently) is perfect. Or it is necessarily the case that God is truly real (the omnipresent encompasses all realities).

For example, one can define a Loch Ness monster as a large sea animal that inhabits Loch Ness and define a real Loch Ness monster as a Loch Ness monster that exists in reality. Such a creature would then exist definitionally — spirit-salamander

I can define a visible to my eyes unicorn as existing in my room now. But that definition will not be true of existence because there is no such unicorn in my room. Thus that definition will be contradictory. However, I cannot deny the existence of existence without being contradictory the process. I cannot deny the existence of that which is omnipresent. I cannot deny only God absolutely exists (as demonstrated in the OP). Per the flaws in Descartes' cogito, the following conclusion was established: something is existing (or thinking is occurring as some philosophers say) but it is not necessarily us. Something is existing; as demonstrated in the OP, that thing is necessarily God.