Descartes ontological argument is sound.

[AskTheFamily]

Someone asked, if “God can destroy himself”, this is my reply.

He is the necessary being, so impossible to not exist. He can’t destroy what by definition is necessary in all worlds.

Despite the “it’s a predicate”, the following is true about existence:
“it’s better an evil deed stay imaginary than come to reality, because it’s negative existence/darkness/evil”.
“it’s better an good deed come to action than stay imaginary that come to reality, because it’s a positive existence/light”
“it’s better a good person exists and lives forever in a good state, then not exist”
“it’s better a evil person doesn’t exist if he is forever to be evil”

None of these say anything about them actually existing. However, the necessary type existence, but by the mere concept of it, is such that it by definition cannot not exist.
Predicate [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] doesn’t matter in this respect. If you perceive a necessary being as possible, then it exists.

Descartes was right, though people don’t present his argument properly.

And aside from that, is existence by definition, has levels. If you are to deny levels of existence, then definitely a necessary being doesn’t exist. But I’ve shown how evil negative existence is such it’s better it doesn’t exist. And the positive existence is better to exist.
The highest type of existence to be possible, by mere conceptualizing, is Necessary absolute existence such that it cannot not exist.

If you can grasp these levels and all levels by definition don’t have to exist, but the absolute level does, then it’s proven God exists necessarily and hence, it’s impossible for him to destroy himself as it’s not possible he doesn’t exist.

The oneness of God is also reliant on that God is absolute existence such that he misses no possible existence, and that all existent things come from his bring them to light by his own light, but at a very low scale compared to him.

Predicate thing to deny this argument doesn’t work, because, if we go by that, it’s not really worse for evil deeds to exist then not, nor better if good deeds exist, so the predicate thing is just a way to avoid the truth.

The truth is there is possible “best pizza”, everything is such that can’t become absolute. So there is no perfect island and all these silly ways to dismiss Descartes argument which is sound.

So in short - the necessary one, cannot not exist, and so it’s impossibly by definition to destroy himself.

 

[Silmarien]

Descartes was right, though people don’t present his argument properly.

You haven't presented his argument at all.

Here's the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy's article on it, for anyone who is interested: Descartes' Ontological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Ontological arguments are tricky, though. How compelling you find them depends upon how well you think human conceptions are a guide to ontology.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You can read it from Descartes, and it's all about levels of existence and the highest type being necessary type. I've supported it, and the more great you are, the greater it is that you exist, but not necessary. However, the necessary existence is the highest type, and this is true, and can be observed, for it lacks no existence possible in all possible worlds (that is probably why it been argued God knows he is the only absolute being existing at all).

 

[AskTheFamily]

If you going to read as philosophers presented today, it's like Wahabis presenting Shiite arguments and proofs, it's going to get really ugly. No need for that ugliness, just read it from the original, and it's clear.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Aristotle was right in his arguments for the Divine, the Perfect form of all things, the archetype of beauty and source of greatness that has come down to all in various grades.
The Kalam argument is sound and it's not the case that it's applying fallacy of composition to infinite chain of effects to remain an effect (and this can be proven with many proofs, among them a proof by induction, pm me if anyone wants that).
Anslem's argument is sound but it's a little more complex to present, but it's not as presented by the west and is not that simple to dismiss with predicate nonsense.
Descartes, I just proved it, there is levels of existence, and necessary existence is by definition the highest.
There is other arguments like "If God doesn't exist or sees us exactly as we are, who we are is an illusion (I have many proofs for this premise)"
"We aren't an illusion"
Therefore God exists and sees us exactly as we are.

There is so many ways to know God. The moral argument has many versions in Quran, all can be proven.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I proved the predicate non-sense which Descartes and the first guy, both knew it would be stated, but didn't term it that, is non-sense. It's non-sense way to escape the argument which is sound.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I don't believe predicate non-sense, because it would be no different if I committed suicide or appreciated life if the predicate non-sense was true.

It's a trait we are alive. It's a trait and not only there is levels of life. The highest life contains existence to the highest degree. God is defined to be greatest. Greatest includes the highest level of life, which by definition must exist, which is another word to say the highest life is absolute life which must exist necessarily.

They both presented sound arguments. The predicate non-sense is just that non-sense.