graymouser

Ooh, I missed that part because I just went into the inherent difficulties of any Ontological Argument (that you can't define something into existence). You're right, he's basically assuming what he sets out to prove.

-Wayne

pope fiction

You need to learn more about functions. G[x] is a function of x, and with what limits? How can the independent variable be "coherent" while it's function, G, is not?

Chimp

Correct genius, G[x] > x

Therefore G[x] is not really "incoherent" as the bearded one and others, attempt to argue.

G[x] is total existence not a conceptual subset of existence, therefore the absurd "pink unicorn" argument fails to invalidate
G[x]

G[x] is more than a "qualifier". It is a predicate.

dshimel

But how did you get from G[x] being the sum of existance to G[x] being God?

breathilizer

Suppose you excluded x from G[x]. What is left?

Just G, right?

So what is G alone? If x can stand alone, and G[x] simply includes x, what is G?

If G CAN NOT stand alone (w/o x) then G is nothing, and therefore does not exist.

This means that if you remove x from G[x], and you are left with nothing, then just that... you are left with nothing.

If you remove x from G[x], and still have G, then what is the definition of G?

All that I can decipher from your argument is that everything in the universe includes everything in the universe. There isn't much thought or logic that needs to be applied to that conclusion, and it certainly doesn't prove a deity

Silent Acorns

Chimp,

Your argument makes no sense to me. On the surface, it appears that it contains several internal contradictions as Soralis has pointed out. I am willing to venture that this is due to our misunderstanding of your point. So let's start at the beginning:
1. What do you mean by "universally distributive" and "all inclusive"? Are you saying that G[x] includes every element of existance, including the cup of tea on my desk and the speck of dirt on my shoe?

2. When you say "G[x] > x" do you mean that G[x] is greater than x or that x is a subset of G[x]? If it is the former, in what sense is G[x] "greater" then all x?

Hopefully, a good answer from you will help me understand your bewildering [3] in the OP.

dshimel

I think it is quite simple to see what he is saying.

God exists and is sum off all things.
Since something exists, God exists.


Still, he is assuming God exists in his opening statement, meaning the rest is just circular reasoning.

Silent Acorns

Yeah, but he also says that G[x] is an "entity". How can something be the sum of all existence and an entity (which suggests individuality to me) at the same time?

For now, I'm hoping that he's not as confused as the OP appears to be.

dshimel

God is the sum of all things. God is an entitiy. Therefore, the sum of all things is an entity.

pope fiction

Doesn't answer my question.

What do you mean therefore? G[x]>x doesn't provide much of an argument.