Argument Reconstruction #1
Part A
The ontological argument provides a basis that is entirely set on pure reason, and in just as well, an argument on whether or not God truly exists.
By God, it means that there can never be another being greater than him.
As such God exists in our understanding. However, that perception is to the understanding and not the reality but because we conceive ideas why not conceive our reality to be in our understanding.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Doing that will be thinking in an absurd manner this takes us to the earlier premise (2) that no other being can be conceived other than God.
Thus, since we are no such beings, then there is an existence of God even in reality.
Part B
“Supposing that God exists in reality but not understanding” a belief of controversy.
An argument based on this premise, the ontological argument, separates these joint experiences since reality and understanding are two quite distinct words.
You have to experience one to imagine the other.
Argument Reconstruction #2
Part A
The mind and the brain are two distinct entities from the dualist position.
The mind and the body are composed of different substances.
The mind lacks the fashion of physical attributes: size, shape, motion and solidity. Thus, comparing a physical to a non-physical substance is a kind of unsound reasoning which is a byproduct of the brain.
It is the brain that perceives and conceives the mind.
Therefore, the brain and the mind are not the same entities
Part B
Countering the mind and brain are not similar argument shall lie in the premise of the future and the present.
Being in the future is similar to the present when we perceive the dialogue of the mind and the brain as distinct features.
Whatever is perceived in the present is likely to be attained in the future.
Further in line with this, any of the features that might be experienced in the future, have similar attributes to whatever it is that we experience in the present; the characters, people, animals, cars among others.
Therefore, from premise (2) the brain executes the mind to conceptualize this as being a part of the same entity.
Argument Reconstruction #3
Part A
Experiences are nothing but a series of transient feelings and sensations.
Similar to what the experiences are, the self is a short-lived opportunity and as such, we can never be directly aware of ourselves from the “selves”.
The habit of the self to link present situations to any phenomena is not natural. Therefore, the self cannot exist over time.
Part B
It is absurd to say that the self does not have the natural capability to link any situation with another.
It is common place for people to preempt their own actions by planning to act in certain ways given circumstances that favor these happenings.
In reality, they cannot try out the same. Not that they are afraid of it, but this is often due to the self not permitting the body.
Therefore, the self can last over time
Argument Reconstruction #4
The external mind can be phrased in the context of the mind and the external world perceived as belonging to this same entity.
The brain has to be triggered to conceptualize the mind.
The mind as a by-product of the brain has to trigger expressions, as one of it by product.
This is to say that, there is no external world to the mind, but the world itself exists if the mind permits it to.
Argument Reconstruction #5
Taxing the wealthy is a solution to the problems of the poor.
Money acquired from taxation can be used to bridge the gap between the rich and poor through provisions such as infrastructure and creating employment opportunities.
The provisions help in attaining better living standards.
Therefore, taxing is a solution to the problems of the financially constrained.
