God sees - strongest argument for God.....

[Mystic]

The strongest argument that is repeated in many verses in Quran is that God witnesses all things and as such no doubt he Exists.

Now this may seem circular, but is it really?

It maybe said we need to know God exists to know he sees all things.  How else would we know this attribute of God without knowing God himself and his attributes?

Well, I think if we break it down:

1. We require perception for our identity
2. We have an objective identity.
3. Our perception is not what defines our objective identity.
4. All spiritual identities need an accurate perception.
5. The ultimate possible perception would be more accurate than all other perceptions.
6. The ultimate possible perception is thus what gives us an objective identity.

As for 1, it can be argued our thoughts, our deeds, they all require a state of conscious. Our concept of ourselves also requires a perception. But are we that which defines the level of our deeds, the quality of our actions, or is there a judgement beyond ours that defines our deeds? Makes us inherit our deeds.

The Quran often emphasizes who better as a judge than God?

 I also argue it's obvious we are not just a subjective concept that has no reality. We know this or we wouldn't even estimate ourselves or take some sort of guess of who others are.

It is also obvious that the real deed and our real hidden secret deep within us behind our actions has to be seen through an absolute accurate perspective. And we know through our nature that as far as this goes, we human deep inside know perfect perception requires absolute knowledge of what it means to be good. For example, suppose a person is higher then all of us in good deeds. How will our lower perception judge what he is. All possible levels of goodness thus be known and seen by this perceiver.

We constantly act as if there is a judge who makes us inherit our actions. We just don't focus to realize it. But this perception is something we cannot not assume. Even Atheist subconsciously are acting on this perceiver existing and making them inherit their deeds and other people inheriting their deeds.

In my belief, this is probably the strongest most potent argument for God. Because you have to deny yourself having an objective existence or say that it somehow it exists independent of your perception but also independent of any perception, both which are equally illogical.

Thank you for your time, with peace and blessings!

[Chad32]

"Knowing his attributes" doesn't mean anything. We have a general idea of what Vampires are capable of, but we don't believe they're real. We know a lot about Superman, but that doesn't make him real.

[Minimalist]

Now this may seem circular, but is it really?

Yes.  Time to wake up, lad.

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, MK! I've missed you, lol.

Number 2 is a bald assertion. In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "objective identity", to be honest. I know I'll probably be sorry for asking but...maybe you could elaborate?

[Mystic]

"Knowing his attributes" doesn't mean anything. We have a general idea of what Vampires are capable of, but we don't believe they're real. We know a lot about Superman, but that doesn't make him real.

This has nothing to do with the argument. I don't have time to repeat the argument in different words as I use to do in all threads before when I would bring an argument. So I will suggest is carefully read the argument and try to comprehend the argument. You picked an introductory line that is saying it's not circular by saying "is it circular so much so we have to....", and are misunderstanding the intro as part of the argument.

[LadyForCamus]

So basically, your argument is: "there must exist some perfect, objective perfectness because...well, it's just obvious. Therefore, God!"

Good one. *scratches head*

[Mystic]

Oh, MK!  I've missed you, lol.

Number 2 is a bald assertion.  In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "objective identity", to be honest.  I know I'll probably be sorry for asking but...maybe you could elaborate?

I mean your value, what you are, your inner beauty, your level in the good or evil scale, where you are in that, exact value, exists.  What you are exists independent of subjective judgment.

But at the same time, the type of existence your are requires a judgement. It's not like a physical object, it requires perception and judgement that defines what you are. That judgement must be accurate, absolute, and also gives you the substance of that judgement (maintains you).

I don't think 2 is a bald assertion.  At most a person can say our perspective of ourselves isn't perfect but is close enough. Close enough to what? I would argue it is obvious close enough to the REAL You, the objective you that is independent of your judgement and others judgement except the ultimate judge who maintains you and makes you exist as you should.

[chimp3]

Mystic Knight:

I do not require god(s) to have an identity.

My senses are good enough (could be better).

I do not have a spiritual identity. I am stardust and to dust I shall return.

There may be minds much sharper than mine , but there is no "ultimate possible perception".

Where do you get this nonsense from?

[LadyForCamus]

I mean your value, what you are, your inner beauty, your level in the good or evil scale, where you are in that, exact value, exists.  What you are exists independent of subjective judgment.

Says who? Where is your evidence for that assertion? I don't accept that premise because you have no way of demonstrating it to be true.

But at the same time, the type of existence your are requires a judgement. It's not like a physical object, it requires perception and judgement that defines what you are. That judgement must be accurate, absolute, and also gives you the substance of that judgement(maintains you)

Bold mine. This is just a repeat of the above unsupported assertion.

I don't think 2 is a bald assertion.  At most a person can say our perspective of ourselves isn't perfect but is close enough. Close enough to what? I would argue it is obvious close enough to the REAL You, the objective you that is independent of your judgement and others judgement except the ultimate judge who maintains you and makes you exist as you should.

So, you say it's NOT a bald assertion and then you support your position by restating the assertion in different words, lol. "It's not a bald assertion because it's not." Okay. I see you haven't made much progress since the last time you put forth an argument for God here, MK. It's the same "objective truth/morals" stuff you've been saying since I've met you.

[Angrboda]

 I also argue it's obvious we are not just a subjective concept that has no reality. We know this or we wouldn't even estimate ourselves or take some sort of guess of who others are.

Saying that something is obvious is not arguing for the case. I disagree that there is such a thing as objective identity. That your intuition tells you something different is not an argument that what you believe is true. If identity is a subjective reality, a product of the subconscious mind, the subconscious provides a representation of who we are to ourselves. We make similar judgements about other minds. I judge that you are intelligent because I observe indications in your behavior that you are intelligent. This perception of you could be completely wrong. I don't have complete information about you. Yet I still construct an identity for you based on the things you've revealed about yourself. You're young, Muslim, studying computers, etc. In the same way, your own brain constructs an identity for you. It's not objective, it's based in your actions, capabilities, and decisions. Nothing about this suggests that an external perceiver is necessary for us to be aware of our identity. Even if our identity is objective, which I don't buy, that doesn't demonstrate that we need some external referent to be aware of this objective identity. You've just strung together a bunch of bare assertions, all of which seem intuitively obvious to you. And this seems to be the sticking point in all your arguments, that if something seems intuitively real to you then it necessarily is real. But I don't agree that these things that you say are obvious are in fact obvious. And that breaks the argument. Since I don't agree with your premises, and I don't, then your conclusion, God, doesn't follow.