Fair enough, then it's a question whether Leibniz is right or whether Aquinas is right (given some assumptions).
I'm open to both possibilities. What reasons does Aquinas give for accepting that? You can just tell me where you got the quote if you don't want to put it here. — Amalac

That was from the Summa Theologica I believe. I do not have the exact article from that work but I wrote down that sentence when I was reading the Aquinas's works. According to Aquinas God could create infinite universes so this one is relatively perfect, but God could always have created greater ones. Leibniz thought this was THE greatest universe, period. Leibniz believed in the ontological argument, Aquinas did not. You're version of it is not stronger than Anselm's or Descartes or Malebranches's or Leibniz's. You just choose a different way to try to trip up the reader, AND I don't say this to put you down but just to be objective. You obviously like these kinds of ideas/arguments and I do to. But again they say much about the mind but say nothing about what is outside the mind.

Why is it suspect? — Amalac

Because it undefended. I am not saying it's indefensible, but you have not given a reason to think we can turn all our ideas of good into a single subject. The argument you used in the OP to "prove" this subject exists is just a "bait and switch" linguistic tactic and it's not going to fool people who read philosophy

Aquinas wrote (I can quote too) "But the order of things is the best it can be, since the power of the first cause does not fail the potency in things for perfection." Really though, we learn of perfection subjectively and have a limited understanding of its objectivity. To try to list perfections and increase them to infinite in order to assign it to a subject is very suspect. To try to prove this subject exists as you create the idea of it is worse.

the existence of a «perfection», rather the existence of «the subject of all perfections». — Amalac

Depends how you mean by that. Why draw a distinction between perfection, perfections, and a subject of them? If perfection is the state of Nirvana, for example, these distinctions don't mean much perhaps

I don't reject that the subject of all perfections could be a state. — Amalac

Ok. I asked that several times and now I have an answer. I think your argument works in a certain sense, in the sense of being consistent with the system of Hegel. (see: https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Proofs-Personhood-God-Philosophy/dp/019879522X)

It doesn't prove anything a priori outside the mind imo. It proves something about the mind

Leibniz tried to say a person was the subject of perfection. Again, are you only saying there is a perfection in the universe?

I don't think it's conclusive. — Amalac

So your argument proves exactly what then?

You may argue that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything a priori, — Amalac

You have to provide an example of something proven a priori and one proven so conclusively

The subject — Amalac

Subject doesn't mean person in your usage. So you're saying you can prove, but not conclusively, that something perfect exists but not necessarily a person. Is that your position? Again, I said it could be a state, but do you reject that? And on what grounds?

Notice what you are defining here isn't «God», but rather «perfection» — Amalac

Yet you go on to define your argument as proving perfection, not a person

There is a difference between saying the subject of all perfections and the subject of all perfection — Amalac

Is there?

If you are saying that maybe the subject of all perfections isn't a «person», that's fine, it may be something else. I have no interest to defend the notion of a personal God as is presented in many religions. — Amalac

Then all you are trying to prove is that perfection exist. I wouldn't argue that it does. But why are you using the word God then?

I don't see what could be gained by me repeating what others have already expressed better than I can. — Amalac

Because you are trying to present a proof and the core of the argument hasn't been presented. Now we know you are talking about perfection existing instead of a being. Maybe you need to explain what "perfection exists" means in the sense you speak of

Your argument says "I can think of God so he exists". It doesn't seem strange to you that you believe you can tweek that idea into proving a priori a being's existence?

It doesn't state that God and perfection are synonimous, rather it states he is the subject of all perfections. A perfection is a quality/predicate, and some perfections, such as existence, can also be asserted of things other than God. — Amalac

But the subject of all perfection is God and that is core to your argument. Whether it is a reasonable philosophical concept in itself has not been defended by you. Instead:

lookup Leibniz' proof that the idea of God, as defined, is possible — Amalac

You should provide the argument yourself in your own words instead of sending people on a goose hunt

Amalac's argument has philosophical assumptions because not only is the existence of God not proven by his method but the idea of God being a real, consistent concept, has not even been truly defended.

In order to defend your "argument" you have to prove there is something greater than human virtue and the rewards (since the human goal is happiness) of it. Prove something greater is even possible

So no, I am not talking about a state one can attain. — Amalac

But I am! Is the greatest thing possible a person or a state? Your logic has assumptions

It would be interesting if someone took everything Marx wrote about actual philosophy (as opposed to history or social theory) and put it into book form. It probably wouldn't be a long book, so he is not much of an actual philosopher as compared to, say, Kant

For most Eastern philosophy infinite perfection is a state that humans can attain. It's not a substance that your mind turns into a person, like you've been doing. You assume that moral perfection is different from virtue and you turn moral perfection into a substance and then into a person

Godel's proof, as I saw it explained, is like having a card that says " this is not the answer, turn over" on both sides. It leads to a spurious infinity. Intuitively it makes sense to me that this can happen in mathematics but the logicists and positivists weren't into those kinds of ideas

The logical positivists wanted to mathematize knowledge and make math into logic. Traditionalist say they have it backwards. Paul Cowen however in the 60's proved that there IS and is NOT an infinity between countable and uncountable sets. Both his proofs made sense. There is something about this area of knowledge by which we can come up with contrary results. It's probably an area were no proof is possible, as Godel talked about. There are infinite things we can prove and infinite things we cant. Can the infinite unprovable things be known by intuition? Idn. Mathematicians now have to ask "is this even provable" so they prefer to ignore Godel.

I was more interested in for example Heidegger's last section of Being and Time and other such writings, and how they relate to physics. Science and philosophical thought are very much intertwined and it's interesting how they are connected

Huh. Nothing you've said addresses what time reversal is or what time is

As I said earlier, some physicists now have said time causes gravity instead of gravity causing time. So I asked "what is time then". You keep saying over and over again "time is what clocks measure" but that's not pertinent to anything I was addressing.

Name the top 5 things you know about the nature of time which reveal what it is since you so want to find a problem where there isn't one

You have assumptions of the idea of "substance". They are undefended by you and and have no basis. Again, maybe the greatest good is where good people go (hence a place and a feeling) instead of a person. That place and feeling is more or less infinite and perfect. Whether there is a non-human in that state is a non-question. There could be, but it doesn't matter. The idea that there is a person who has all "perfections" has so many assumptions behind it that I think you'll have to do a lot of self-questioning to get out of this mess you got your mind into

Maybe God became God after a test. The ontological argument always presupposes Platonism, which is an assumption

The

I meant a physical detection where we find characteristics of it.

So why can't the greatest blank possible be the afterlife? Why put a person in there as the greatest blank. It's as hoc

You mention Pure Act, which is of course from Aquinas. God as understood by Aquinas have 3 parts: his essence, his free will, and his necessary will. Now moral goodness doesn't flow from essence. You can't define goodness by substance. This is not how moral goodness is properly understood. It is impossible for any being to simply possess moral virtue. Morality is act. God's goodness might be seen as infinite possessed goodness, but that couldn't be as good as proper virtue. So let's set essence aside for a moment. So we have necessary will now. Nothing willed necessary is morally perfect. That's obvious.

Also, how would do you reconcile God having one will when he wills necessarily and freely? I thought he was supposed to be perfectly simple.

It is said when talking about the "problem of pain" that God cannot create free creatures who can gain virtue without allowing them pain. However, since God was always happy, couldn't he create creatures more in his likeness (without having to allow pain)? God doesn't face struggle to find happiness. His act of existing is blissful I thought. So we have an infinite deity who loves infinitely but does so with bliss and necessity. And we have his creatures who have animal natures which earns its way in life through strain of their muscles and wits. Doesn't this seem strange to you?

So the conclusion is your idea of God is vague and probably inconsistent, and therefore trying to prove his existence from sheer logic is ridiculous

Your arguments have many assumptions woven into them. Maybe ultimate goodness is a place and feeling we experience when we die, not some God out there watching us

Descartes implicitly admitted the ontological argument doesn't work unless the idea of God is clearer than all other ideas. I'm saying it's the least clear of all our ideas so the argument doesn't get off the ground. There isn't a new form of the argument. People put it into different language structures and call it modal and whatnot but it's the same all lost cause

All that we know of good is beauty in the world, the goodness of children, and virtue in adults. Trying to conceptualize a being having all those "to infinity" or whatever is not a sound philosophical move. You can't prove the first step of your argument. It's not a clear and distinct idea like Descartes said so it is not possible to prove anything from it

Also remember that if we look at the Jesus story as ancient literature we have the person in history who was more convinced of anyone that he knew or could prove there was a God, yet as he suffered death he too said God had abandoned him

When we try to connect the idea of light being in eternity and it having a constant speed (fastest in the universe) the thoughts aren't very distinguishable from philosophy. I don't think a clear line can be drawn. That was my point on that. On time, when anyone (Neitzsche or whoever) speak of cyclic time, surely they mean something more than imagining time on a circle instead of a line. A line can be turned into a circle by the imagination and vice verse. What cyclic time means is what I wanted to discuss further if anyone is interested and has some thoughts

I thought it was clear that by "detecting time" i meant finding out what it was and what's it's internal structure was. What I was saying in the OP is that its conceivable for two particles to annihilate each other and go to nothing. If time reversal is involved the annihilation would appear to us like something coming out of seer nothing

To clarify, "supernatural" means divine. "Spiritual" means "of the soul". We can understand the soul because we all have a psyche and the psyche, when operating correctly, is "soul". When people feel "grace" that is what the Chinese call "chi" or "qi". When under the influence of grace your will often feels like someone is giving it to you, but rationalizing about this "person" comes at it from the perspective of philosophy and reason, and this gets into a lot of difficulties. So since we can't really form a proper idea of this divine person or persons, the ontological argument really fails

Why do you think a subject of perfection is conceivable? Firstly, in theology this gets into problems with the "perfect being" having both a necessary will and a free will. Secondly, it's extremely Platonic to think of virtue as some kind of substance that can exist as an infinite nature. Thirdly, a "supernatural" being cannot really be conceived at all so why speak about it in such a context? Fourthly, infinite such persons would be greater than say 3 so you would have to say there are infinite divine persons in this "perfect" substance. Therefore the arguments proved too much and nothing at all at the same time

I don't think you want to understand the experiment(s) so nevermind.

Just Google free will experiments. When I looked into this there were many many of them. If I say "lift a hand" and accurately predict you will lift the left one, and then do this multiple times, this does show something about free will

There lots of experiments on this. With high accuracy they predict which of several options a person will do based on subconscious, not conscious, activity. The subconscious may contain part of our free will though, and again they can't perform this in situations where free will really counts

No, they predict which hand will move

They are able to PREDICT what you will do before you make the decision. However, the prior subconscious choice may be your hidden free will and they can't perform this experiment in situations where the stakes are much higher than flexing your hand. I have no doubt though that people are not free in flexing their hands in those situations although they think they are

You can't go from looking a clock to conceptualizing General Relativity without thinking philosophically. Scientists don't need to think about philosophy all the time but they do this often while doing theoretical physics