*The purpose of this argument is to describe the reader.*
Premise 1: I am Alive.
(∃z)(A(z))
Definition 1: It is false that something is Alive and not Conscious.
(∀x)(A(x)>C(x))
Definition 2: It is false that something is Conscious and not a Mind.
(∀x)(C(x)>M(x))
Definition 3: All Knowledge is a subset of Awareness.
(∀x)((x∈K)>(x∈W))
Definition 4: Awareness is a subset of the Mind.
(∀x)((x∈W)>(x∈M))
Premise 2: Observable reality is a subset of the Mind.
(OR⊆M)
Premise 3: The Mind creates observable reality.
(M)BA(OR)
Premise 4: The Mind derives objective morality.
(M⊢(OM))
Definition 5: If all knowledge is a subset of any Mind, then said Mind is omniscient.
(∀M)[(K⊆M)>SC(M)]
Definition 6: Everything that observable reality is a subset of is omnipresent.
(∀Q)[(OR⊆Q)>PR(Q)]
Definition 7: Everything that creates observable reality is omnipotent.
(∀Q)[(Q)BA(OR)>PO(Q)]
Definition 8: Everything that derives objective morality is omnibenevolent.
(∀Q)[(Q⊢(OM))>BE(Q)]
Definition 9: Everything: omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is God.
(∀Q)[(SC(Q)&PR(Q)&PO(Q)&BE(Q))>G(Q)]
Axiom: For all x, Q, and P, if x is a Q and Q is a P, then x is a P.
∀(x, Q, P)[(Q(x)&P(Q))>P(x)]
Conclusion: I AM God. (Proof 3)
(∃z)(Gz)
I think, therefore let there be light.
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Divine revelation is self-actualization.
We are made in God’s image.
Thanks for playing!
Translation Schema:
(z = I);(A = Alive);(C = Conscious);(M = The Mind);(K = Knowledge);(W = Awareness);
(OR = Observable Reality);(BA = Brought About);(OM = Objective Morality);(G = God);
(SC = Omniscient);(PR = Omnipresent);(PO = Omnipotent);(BE = Omnibenevolent)
Proof:
Premise 1: (∃z)(A(z))
Premise 2: (∀x)(A(x)>C(x))
Premise 3: (∀x)(C(x)>M(x))
Premise 4: (∀x)((x∈K)>(x∈W))
Premise 5: (∀x)((x∈W)>(x∈M))
Premise 6: (OR⊆M)
Premise 7: (M)BA(OR)
Premise 8: (M⊢(OM))
Premise 9: (∀M)[(K⊆M)>SC(M)]
Premise 10: (∀Q)[(OR⊆Q)>PR(Q)]
Premise 11: (∀Q)[(Q)BA(OR)>PO(Q)]
Premise 12: (∀Q)[(Q⊢(OM))>BE(Q)]
Premise 13: (∀Q)[(SC(Q)&PR(Q)&PO(Q)&BE(Q))>G(Q)]
Premise 14: ∀(x, Q, P)[(Q(x)&P(Q))>P(x)]
Deduction 1 (Existential Instantiation, P1): A(a)
Deduction 2 (Universal Instantiation, P2): A(a)>C(a)
Deduction 3 (Universal Instantiation, P3): C(a)>M(a)
Deduction 4 (Hypothetical Syllogism, D2, D3): A(a)>M(a)
Deduction 5 (Modus Ponens, D1, D4): M(a)
Deduction 6 (Universal Instantiation, P4): (z∈K)>(z∈W)
Deduction 7 (Universal Instantiation, P5): (z∈W)>(z∈M)
Deduction 9 (Hypothetical Syllogism, D6, D7): (z∈K)>(z∈M)
Deduction 10 (Universal Generalization, D9): (∀x)((x∈K)>(x∈M))
Deduction 11 (Definition of Subset, D10): K⊆M
Deduction 12 (Universal Instantiation, P9): (K⊆M)>SC(M)
Deduction 13 (Modus Ponens, D11, D12): SC(M)
Deduction 14 (Universal Instantiation, P10): (OR⊆M)>PR(M)
Deduction 15 (Modus Ponens, P6, D14): PR(M)
Deduction 16 (Universal Instantiation, P11): (M)BA(OR)>PO(M)
Deduction 17 (Modus Ponens, P7, D16): PO(M)
Deduction 18 (Universal Instantiation, P12): (M⊢(OM))>BE(M)
Deduction 19 (Modus Ponens, P8, D18): BE(M)
Deduction 20 (Conjunction, D13, D15): SC(M)&PR(M)
Deduction 21 (Conjunction, D17, D19): PO(M)&BE(M)
Deduction 22 (Conjunction, D20, D21): SC(M)&PR(M)&PO(M)&BE(M)
Deduction 23 (Universal Instantiation, P13): (SC(M)&PR(M)&PO(M)&BE(M))>G(M)
Deduction 24 (Modus Ponens, D22, D23): G(M)
Deduction 25 (Conjunction, D5, D24): M(a)&G(M)
Deduction 26 (Universal Instantiation, P14): (M(a)&G(M))>G(a)
Deduction 27 (Modus Ponens, 25, 26): G(a)
Deduction 28 (Existential Generalization, D27): (∃z)(Gz)
Conclusion: (∃z)(Gz)
Source:
medium.com/@jgeor058/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-you-b5f793d5c167