Here again is what you don't think makes sense:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:46 amI allowed for it, examined it, and rejected it in this case.tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:58 amYou should allow for the possibility that it does make sense, but that you don't understand.
The argument that Kalam, Anselm, Descartes and Plantinga all make rests on necessary existence being conceptually greater than contingent existence. Since you cite the Bible telling us we are made in God's image; as contingent beings, we are ontologically subordinate to the necessary being of God. We are imperfect simulations of a perfect reality. Which bit doesn't make sense?tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:58 amThe point I was making is that if the ontological argument has any merit, it is because the greatest thing conceivable has to be the most real thing. That is the rationale behind Plato's theory of Forms and the premise on which Kalam, Anselm and Descartes constructed their arguments. If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:21 pmAnyone who did not know they were in a "simulation" would never think to call it a "simulation." Anyone who knew it was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating."