Wouldn't that make a god, bipolar?
Offline The god that's talked about in the bible certainly is manic, and prone to severe mood swings.
He comes off as a petulant tyrannical infantile.
What's with all his out of control rage issues?
He'd get arrested in this world.
And he would be a piss poor designer of anything practical.
Is that why he's supposedly jealous of other gods?
Because he just couldn't measure up in comparison?
So he'd create a band of fanboys and groupies that elect him #1?
Ya, that's some champ.
Whadda hero!
If he wanted his creations to follow a pattern, why would he design in a mechanism that could arbitrarily override his original pattern?
Just so he could get pissy over something?
That's retarded.
Ya, talk about working in 'mysterious' ways.
Is that an apologists euphemism for being drunk, or retarded?
What a drama queen.
Who would want to put up with that ch1t, let alone sign up for that?
And why is it that he wouldn't be able to control his emotions, and just 'get over it', when we do what we like?
What would have been his issue?
We didn't ask to be born, and we certainly didn't ask for free will. So why get pissy over something he would have been responsible for making us have?
As Hitchens says, "Of course I have free will. I had no choice!"
And if he gave us a gift (life), why would he want something in return?
Isn't "It's better to give than receive" supposed to be a virtue ?
Why justification for being petty, and wanting something in return, would he have?
That's not doing something out of the goodness of your heart.
It doesn't sound like he would actually have much heart at all.
The dude sounds like he'd have a lot of anger, some real dysfunction going on, and severe control issues.
And where would he get off on hurting people that aren't strong enough to put up a fight?
He'd be beating up on women and children?
Real tough guy.
Sound like he'd be a complete fcuking douchebag.
It sounds like this dude would be completely out of control, of his emotions, and actions.
Things that we humans are supposed to learn to control.
Sound like he would have been able to learn to be more 'human', and that he should take guidance from us.
And apologize to all of us for being so despicable, and all the insane ch1t he'd have done to us.
I don't think he'd be man enough.
He really would need to piss off, and leave the minions alone, if he were real. And I'm glad he's not, and just a fairy tale.
They could use some better role models.
Why aren't those minions looking at how we (humans) are infinitely better 'beings' than a freak like that would be?
WTF?
Glad he's not real.
That would be a nightmare...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
I have no practical use for many truths--for instance, I have no practical use for the truth that some people in Norway are bald headed--but it does not change the fact that they are true.
You list yourself as an 'atheist'; hence, I was under the impression that your belief was that 'God exists' was not true. Evidently, your belief is that 'God exists' is true, but it's just inconsequential to your life. Note, however, that premises which are 'vacuously true' (not that this term has any real meaning--you obviously just made it up) are nonetheless true; therefore, I will assume that you are not actually an atheist, but a deist.
By their reasoning, magic is truth.
The church used to burn 'magicians'.
The problem with 'truths' in the eyes of theists, is, some 'truths' are more equal than others.
And they've been overthrown, as rulers.
Because it was 'practical' and 'sensible'.
And they're angry and bitter.
But, then again, look who they worship as a role model...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
'Non-existence' does not imply 'limited'.
It is a category error to use existence/non-existence as an attribute of an entity in the same sense as power, sentience, magnitude, extent, capability, etc.
That is the Anselm fallacy.
'Limited/unlimited' refers to the extent, magnitude, range of actual capabilities, etc.
The argument does not prove that God exists.
If God does exist, then he is consistent with the definition, including the understanding of 'unlimited, therefore the argument would conclude that He exists.
If God does not exist, then he is not consistent with the definition, therefore the argument would conclude that He does not exist.
The argument is not a proof that God exists, it is stating that if an entity consistent with the definition exists, then it exists, if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
You are using the result of the argument as part of the premises. An undecidable, as per Godel.
"If this sentence is true, then it is true" is a related form.
This is basically what Platinga was saying in his commentary on his version of the OA.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Anselm never makes this mistake, and I do not make it either.
Nonexistence is not a limitation, but the possibility of nonexistence is a limitation.
Don't kid yourself.
You made a ton of mistakes.
I busted you on numerous counts of equivocation, and sidestepping.
You're just a slick BS'er.
I asked you one simple question, 'according to whom?'
Because your premises are based on claims that have been communicated through language.
And you can't overcome that obstacle.
You won't accept that I defeated your claim.
It doesn't matter.
I defeated you, because you failed to answer 'who'.
You just don't have the integrity to accept defeat, or forfeit.
So your 'victory' is not universal accepted, as a 'complete' victory.
You're just an intellectually inferior scam artist.
Not bright enough to compete on the world stage, so you search the internet subculture, looking for places to give yourself false positives to indulge in your fantasies.
Brilliant...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
We could falsify the claim about bald Norwegians though, and if someone wanted to base their life philosophy about what bald Norwegians thought we could verify their existence, or show it to be false. You've just made a claim about invisible, immaterial, 'ultimate' bald Norwegians.
And no, I don't care about invisible, immaterial, 'ultimate' bald Norwegians either. I'd like to know why you think they matter.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
And I ignored you.
Ain't life grand?
And you could falsify claims about God. For example, if you can show how the concept is internally contradictory, then you will have proven that God does not exist.
The argument does not purport to prove that God matters; it only proves that God exists.
Most definitely.
You couldn't persuade me, or coerce me into your rabbit hole, of circular reasoning.
So, I'm not bound by your conclusions.
I'm stronger than you.
I didn't rely on deception and magic.
I win.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Do you like hot dogs?
My question to you was insurmountable.
Because your premise has an Achilles Heel.
It's man made.
Your equation is fine.
But is subject to a simple reality:
Garbage in=Garbage out
I win.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
The world doesn't move to the beat of just one drum, but what might be right for you may not be right for Gary Coleman.
That's why we have democracy, and not theocracy.
Or has that eluded you as well?
Your demonstration of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' is infantile.
You're not educating. You're lecturing.
Who is going to give you a dime for your 'theory', or your 'research'?
The government?
The Judical system?
The scientific community?
Economists?
The Vatican?
Who's going to buy your strawman?
Who's god?....
There are 'many' premises for many different 'gods'.
Based on 'who's' premise?
Yours?
Your personal god?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
No you can't falsify that claim, because it relies on its own definition to exist, the whole thing is circular, correct?
The argument proves that you can define anything you want into existence as long as you define it with the proper traits. It means you can create a definition. Why is that valuable?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
From Wikipedia:
He seems to be saying that existence in reality makes something greater than merely as a thought - his whole argument there depends on the assumption that if something exists both in reality and as a thought, it is greater than if it exists only as a thought, which is my point.
For the 'possibility' of non-existence to make something lesser, non-existence itself must be assumed to be a lesser state.
What you are referring to is the status of the argument for the existence of the entity, not the entity itself. IOW if the argument does not conclusively prove God existes, it is indeed a lesser argument.
I notice you didn't address the substance of my remaining arguments, which were not conditional on this assumption.
He is still making existence in reality part of what he conceives as 'greatness', and then uses that to argue for that very existence.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
This is three threads with this exact same question. I'm not trying to 'beat' you, I'm honestly trying to understand why you think this is a valuable exercise. In the other thread you seemed to agree that this is valuable because it supports your pre-existing belief system, which is based on your emotional attachment to God and dualism. Is that it? Is there something else? That seems very hollow to me, but if that is good enough for you then I'll leave it alone.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
That's why I asked the question as to 'who's' god as we plugging in to his equation.
Is it 'his' god?
Spinoza's God?
He's avoiding that qualifier.
Because he doesn't want to debate.
He wants to assert arbitrarily, and wants acquiescence.
In that context, he can have his 'personal' god.
He's got 'free will'.
And now (if we're stupid enough) we fall into the rabbit hole of circular reasoning.
Atheists don't have personal gods. They have their own individual reality. And there are no gods there.
Therefore, gods do not exist, in reality.
There is no god in my reality.
I win.
Yay me!
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Right. He is not saying that existence is a predicate; he is saying that concrete existence is a predicate. While it is illogical to say that an existing God is greater than a non-existent God, it is not contradictory to say that a concrete God is greater than an abstract God. (I myself do not agree with this, but I'm simply clarifying his position.)
Obviously, you read Kant's objection to the argument. But he is not objecting to Anselm; he was objecting to Descartes. Nobody knows if Kant even read Anselm's Proslogion.
That's true to a degree; existence is greater than non-existence--however, that is not the same as claiming that an existent Bob is better than a non-existent Bob. For the purposes of the argument--with respect to the attributes of the two beings in question, it's a dichotomy between contingent existence and necessary existence--not between existence and non-existence. Assume that you exist, and also assume that God exists; what makes God's existence greater than yours? The answer is that he does not depend on anything else to sustain it, whereas you depend on various things for your existence. God is like a car that runs perfectly and requires no maintenance whatsoever; you are a car that requires gas, tire rotations, oil changes, and regular cleanings.
I don't quite follow you. I did not make an argument for the existence of the 'greatest conceivable argument', so what are you talking about?
So?
I have a long time friend since the 6th grade who is like a brother to me. He was mentored under Plantinga. In fact his books and articles are introductions you read to understand Plantinga. He calls it the “Argument Triumphant” in that it triumphs over all the objections that are launched against ontological arguments. He even says that the argument is sound. His only contest against it is that it is still not compelling – even though there seems to be no flaw in the argument. He calls it victorious as well. And there are several versions but even about the Triumphant:
The Argument Triumphant
[51] Using this idea we can restate this last version of the ontological argument in such a way that it no longer matters whether there are any merely possible beings that do not exist. Instead of speaking of the possible being that has, in some world or other, a maximal degree of greatness, we may speak of the property of being maximally great or maximal greatness. The premise corresponding to (25) then says simply that maximal greatness is possibly instantiated, i.e., that
[52] And the analogues of (27) and (28) spell out what is involved in maximal greatness:
and
[53] Notice that (30) and (31) do not imply that there are possible but nonexistent beings -- any more than does, for example,
[54] But if (29) is true, then there is a possible world W such that if it had been actual, then there would have existed a being that was omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, would have had these qualities in every possible world. So it follows that if W had been actual, it would have been impossible that there be no such being. That is, if W had been actual,
would have been an impossible proposition. But if a proposition is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world; what is impossible does not vary from world to world. Accordingly (33) is impossible in the actual world, i.e., impossible simpliciter. But if it is impossible that there be no such being, then there actually exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, has these qualities essentially and exists in every possible world.
[55] What shall we say of this argument? It is certainly valid; given its premise, the conclusion follows. The only question of interest, it seems to me, is whether its main premise -- that maximal greatness is possibly instantiated -- is true. I think it is true; hence I think this version of the ontological argument is sound.
[56] But here we must be careful; we must ask whether this argument is a successful piece of natural theology, whether it proves the existence of God. And the answer must be, I think, that it does not. An argument for God's existence may be sound, after all, without in any useful sense proving God's existence. Since I believe in God, I think the following argument is sound:
[57] But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise. The ontological argument we've been examining isn't just like this one, of course, but it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -- that the existence of a maximally great being is possible -- will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not thetruth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I think these contradictions are driven by phenomenological issues like those resulted in theodicy arguments. ..the question of omniscience in relationship to freewill and those category of things. And these have to do with an unlimited or unbounded being. These may be what creates the dialectic. But image a person who is ideally agnostic. The dialectic stalemate of the two arguments could be his mental state. Could either ( yours and your antithetical ) move the ideal "agnostic" one way or the other. That is what I would want from an ontological argument. I like Godel's. What do you think is the weakness in his "Completeness Theory as I kiddingly call it? But back to point. If evangelism is a purposeful thing then it presupposes that there are some who start with an atheistic view. The aurgument against ( an ontological made negative) would reinforce the position??? The ontological would not move such a person to belief. The information needed seems to precursory to the premise. I assume that would be definitions of unlimited as positive properties. That would in turn require a means to determine what is positive. Unlimited could include the capacity to do absolute evil unless evil in turn be defined for example as the lack of good etc.;
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
My theism has nothing to do with apologetic arguments. My theism is based on my own personal experiences, and I understand that they are neither provable nor falsifiable. For precisely this reason, I am not using my own experiences as proof that God exists, because I realize that it is impossible to prove my experience of reality. But this is the Atheist vs. Christian discussion board, and it calls upon me to defend my belief system. If I cannot do it with my experience, then my only option is to do apologetics.
What else would you expect me to do on a discussion board?
So you did not define it at all.
You left it ambiguous.
Which is why the question was raised as to where the premises had originated.
You deliberately ignored the question as to who's premise you were using in your equation to prove the existence of god.
So, who's god was in the premise, and who's god is it that you believe logically exists?
Not really.
There's no pressure on you to defend your belief system, unless you start thumping about your beliefs, or getting bent about people criticizing yours.
I don't go to christian discussion boards. Because I'm not a theist.
Same reason I don't go to church.
WTF would I?
I don't care about their cause, or their feelings about me, or my non theism, or their feelings on atheists.
Be straight up.
Have the balls to answer simple questions, if you want to debate.
Have some integrity.
This isn't about you, it's about your methods of proof.
You want to arrive at a robust conclusion?
Let's analyze your data.
You say you can bend spoons with your mind?
Whose spoons can you bend with your mind?
Can we analyze the spoons you claim you can bend with your mind?
Ignore the question?
It's logical to assume you're a fraud.
So you can mind bend all the spoons you want. No one will think it's reality.
Deal with it...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You just don't quit, do you?
Look, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. I attempted to engage you, but you just continued to insult and hand wave; you couldn't even answer a simple question regarding a sound argument for God. All the while, you continued fabricating, lying, misrepresenting, and being verbally abusive.
I have no interest in dealing with such people. I seriously think you have some sort of mental issue.
I've responded to several people here, and I addressed all of their points. Yet you ignore that and say that I'm dodging, and that I have no integrity. Do you really expect me to respond to that?
Maybe you aren't being serious. Perhaps you are posting this tripe, printing the posts, and then for a laugh showing them to your colleagues at work; nobody could seriously act like this.
From here on out, I will be ignoring your posts. If I see a long-winded post from you, I am just going to scroll right through it; I'm not even going to read it. Do not bother. Do not waste your time--I have no doubt that hours upon hours of your time goes into this. Those are hours that you are never going to get back.
Take care, and tell your psychiatrist that he is a brave, brave man.
Mr. M, I do not make stuff up.
Wiki goes on to say this is a valuable concept in mathematics (which is why I'm stuck studying it) and in classical logic.
So, Mr. M, I have a number of conclusions / assumptions I could make about your lack of knowledge on this subject - if I wanted to be snotty. And I am real close to losing my temper enough to be snotty enough to get myself kicked out of here.
My belief is that there is no evidence for any entity that is unlimited. No matter how you choose to define "unlimited". None. Therefore, no such entity exists in any reality that I can conceive of.
Playing word games about how conceiving of such an entity necessarily means the entity exists, doesn't make it exist - not in this reality and not in any other reality that is within my comprehension.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Okay, you didn't make the term up. But the Wikipedia article says that this only applies to material conditionals; I made it clear early on in the argument that the first premise is not a material conditional. Go back and read it.
Actually, I am quite good at propositional logic; I just never heard the term 'vacuous truth'. Again, it cannot apply to my argument--at least to the premises where I specify that they are not material conditionals.
Again, in order for you to justify this, you need to disprove my argument. Otherwise, my argument is evidence for an unlimited being--whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I have disproved your argument - a limitless being is inconceivable and has no basis in reality. And IMNSHO the entire argument is nothing more than playing with yourself to get the answer you want. In science, this is called a career breaker.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Just proclaiming 'a limitless being is inconceivable' does not make it true.
What contradictions are inherent in the idea, specifically?
It is not the first time that I have encountered someone that believes some sort of semantics word game somehow makes them some great thinker or some brilliant visionary and it certainly won't be the last.
At the bottom of it all, it's just another unproven assertion that is not backed up by any hard evidence other than ferverent wishful thinking and a desire for something to be there and a refusal to accept they have nothing to go on. It's an old trick, an attempt to baffle people with B.S.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The conclusion of the argument (it's not actually mine--it belongs to Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm) is not that I am a brilliant visionary. The conclusion of the argument is that God exists. If the argument is sound, then that is hard evidence that God exists.
For any sound argument, either you accept the conclusion or you are illogical; the choice is yours. Or perhaps you can be sensible and actually address one of the premises in the argument--just proclaiming that it's a 'trick' does not refute the argument.
Why?
Because of my zeal?
Because I love to expose liars?
I spent most of my life ignoring anything that didn't affect me directly.
Things changed when I had kids.
And I saw the deception your 'kind' (theists) engages in, when they attempt to tell the 'truth' to innocent children.
So, ya, now it's 'game on'.
Religion has got one less tool at their disposal, to just walk in to children's minds, and fill it to the brim with BS disinformation.
Your indignations are meaningless.
There's no room for petulance in science and technology.
It's an adult game.
We deal in reality.
So, if you want to compete with reality, bring your big boy boxers on, and let's see who's in the reality game, and who's out to lunch.
Don't try and get in the back door with Intelligent Design rebranding.
You're not in the 'truth' business, you're in the business of 'franchising'.
Don't care.
I'll carry on with, out without you.
I learned that from your 'kind'.
Oh, eat me.
You ran your mouth the moment you got into this thread, you POS.
I answered your question.
Twice.
What you weren't able to do, was box me in to your rabbit hole.
You think you're the only one who has experience debating?
You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
Call the wahhhhhmbulance.
Don't allege I did something, when you can quote me, and rebuke it.
You were abusive from the moment you got it this thread.
If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it, boy.
So stop telling me that you have no interest in dealing with people like me.
You're not much of a philosopher, or intellect.
And now you want to take a stab at psychology do you?
Physician, heal thyself.
For thyself has a delusion.
I don't expect anything.
Don't you get it?
I don't assume anything. It's not practical.
I don't expect anything from you.
I don't expect honesty and integrity from people like you.
Especially after they come in running their mouth, talking 'at' me, lecturing me on how I 'need' to be more this, and less that.
At that point, they've already told me, much about themselves, and I have a pretty good idea where they're convinced they have the authority to attempt to 'scold' me, for my freedom of expression.
I have a hard time thinking that you're serious.
I can't believe you walking away from this, and not wondering how delusional you sound, if you think you've proved that there is a god.
I say that, because I analyze people. It's part of what I do, for a living.
Actions speak louder than words.
Why haven't you blogged your 'proof' of a god's existence?
There are millions of people who are question their faith.
Mother Teresa couldn't believe that a god was really there.
Why not share your 'proof' of a god?
You'd make history!
I know why.
Because it doesn't even truly convince you.
Hey, that's my line!
I'm not like someone who actually cares, y'know.
Thanks for the tip, Sparky.
Awwww....
It's called 'being generous with my time', and 'giving something back'.
It's my pleasure to bust BS'ers like you, here, in writing. So others can have see what BS antics and tactics your 'kind' uses to mindfcuk people into drinking the koolaid.
You're not going to bury my comments with your drivel. I'm going to keep my posts close to yours, so everyone stays up to date on your status.
Deal with it.
Drop dead.
Why don't you publish your 'work' and let the scientific community analyze it?
How brave, brave are you, Mr_Mega BS'er?
Since you ignore questions that will cast you in a bad light, I'll just have to postulate the most 'logical' theory.
My theory is, because you know it won't stand up to scrutiny, and no one would take you seriously, in the academic world.
A world that I know well.
The world where I excel.
You know....the real world...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
And yet, there are still Atheists.
You did not have to tell me that the argument was not yours as I have seen these types of equations and read about them before. Nothing you have said has been proven to be original nor hard evidence.
You did not have to tell me that you are NOT a brilliant visionary, I concluded that very easily with the first couple of posts that you have made.
Now to be honest, some people may wish to play word games with you about limited and unlimited, but I do not feel the desire to waste my time with your nonsense.
I am done fooling with you.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
It looks like there are "problems" with your argument :
http://books.google.com/books?id=MNZqCoor4eoC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=refuting+the+arguments+of+charles+hartshorne+and+norman+
malcolm&source=bl&ots=TThSTt4Ruv&sig=NfJ5sjaXuo57CO2-8AGrF39yVmA&hl=en&ei=s0FfTf-6I4KKlwe1sZmhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I know you didn't, but I am saying that the only thing which is 'lesser' if God is not necessary is the arguments itself.
You are taking the conclusion of the argument as part of the input, making it by definition circular and self-referential, therefore of questionable validity at he very least.
This means it is NOT a sound argument.
Platinga acknowledged this, that it only 'proves' God if you accept the definition of God it assumes.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I'm sorry, but I still don't follow what you mean.
Nowhere is it assumed that 'God exists'; however, the conjunction 'God necessarily exists if he exists, and it is possible that God exists, and God exists if he possibly exists provided that he necessarily exists if he exists' strictly implies the conclusion--this is not begging the question anymore than 'It is cloudy if it rains, and it rains' begs the question with the conclusion 'It is cloudy'.
If you can show that one of the premises is inferred from the conclusion, or that it is possible that at least one of the premises is actually false, then you can rightfully advance this objection.
What he says is that the only way someone will accept the possibility premise is if s/he already believes in God; he does not say that the premise requires the prior assumption that God exists. Many people who believe in God nonetheless believe that it is possible that he exists; however, Plantinga recognizes that no atheist is going to accept the possibility premise once s/he realizes how the argument works.
"God necessarily exists if he exists" is the assumption.
"and God exists if he possibly exists provided that he necessarily exists if he exists"
The conclusion is that "God exists".
But this is dependent on God existing, as per the underlined, otherwise the conclusion fails.
So you only get the conclusion "God exists", if "God exists".
Do you seriously not see that????
If your only other justification is your personal experience, then you have nothing, since the personal experience of a finite, mortal brain cannot grasp directly a transcendental being. It only has the capability of experiences that can also be generated by finite brain mechanisms, and no way to determine what would really be manifestations of a transcendental experience as distinct from a hallucination or act of imagination, without reference to empirical data.
IOW, you have no justification for your belief system.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You could argue that George has an idea that "the Perfect Being exists entailing Its Own ideal ontological argument" in his mind but fails to exist so in reality. This idea itself presents to George an idea of a more perfect being than "the idea of a perfect being that exists only in his mind" which is thus limited by being just an idea in his mind. It presents to George the idea of a Perfect Being that exists who is not limited as an idea in George's mind whose idea of Himself entailing his Own ideal ontological argument supervenes the the perfect being that entails the ideal ontological argument in George's mind.
TO posit some wild ass Platonic-like ideas: Being is boundless and potential. Existence is the actualization of being. An existent comes into and goes out of being. Being is transcendent but supervenes existence. Existence is manifest. Number and ideas are transcendent but manifest as conditionals or limiters in existence. God does not exist since he is absolute Being. He Is.
Or not.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
thread spooling up for a while without ever opening it to see what all the fun was about. Hilarious. Surely this must be Red's Opus?
Personally, I can understand feeling a sense of vitriol towards monotheistic religious faith. I have moments of rage so heated I feel I could grind all churches and mosques into fine powder and throw them into the sea. Mr Met, however, is no Jean Chauvin and understanding the epistemologist's position better would be advantageous to us.
Foolishly I've recently been reading Fred Copleston's history of philosophy and his rampant confirmation bias not withstanding, you can see the dawn of the immaterial with Plato. In his defence, Plato had no comprehension and little interest in empiricism. I wonder whether he'd maintain the position of inherent immaterialism given our knowledge of particle physics?
Were you a christian before you studied philosophy, Mr Met? I assume you were.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
property how?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yes but Hartshorne's interpretation of God is panentheisitc and not the classical theistic god.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Just proclaiming 'a limitless being is conceivable' does not make it true.
What contradictions are inherent in the idea, specifically?
See how easy that is? I can not conceive of a limitless being. Therefore, I can not believe the rest of your argument is true. I don't really care that you can conceive of said being. It is obvious that you can conceive of it and for some reason you believe your belief is sufficient reason for absolute truth.
It is only a reason for relative truth. Truth for you and for the rest of the people who need an invisible friend. I out grew the need years ago.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Which is why he would try and sidestep, and change the subject, everytime, when I asked 'According to whom?'
Garbage in = Garbage out
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive" : Shakespeare
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
The premise in my argument is 'it is possible that God exists'.
By declaring that God is 'inconceivable'--inasmuch that 'inconceivable' means 'possible' (Collins English Dictionary, 2009)--I take it that you mean that God is 'impossible'. Therefore, in order for you to refute my argument, you need to tell me how the premise 'God exists' logically implies 'A & ~A'.
If by 'conceivable', you mean that you cannot understand 'God', then the only thing you prove is that you cannot grasp my argument, and therefore you should not respond to it unless you need clarification; God does not stop existing as soon you declare that you do not understand the notion.
The soundness of my argument does not stand or fall upon one's belief. I could very well declare, 'I cannot conceive of a cheeseburger', but this will not prevent people from making them. Or if I say, 'I cannot conceive of Canada being our neighboring country', Canada is not going to magically start floating away.
Relative truth? Awesome! From now on, it is only true for you that drinking cyanide will kill you; for me, however, it's true that drinking cyanide is healthy. I out grew the need for that years ago.
This is perhaps the worst refutation to an argument that I've ever seen, i.e., 'I don't need God; therefore, your argument is not true for me.' I also do not need you.... and perhaps I should ignore you.... in which case, by your logic, you no longer exist!
You are a paradigm example of the sort of illogic that atheism leads to.
You're equivocating.
The only place that needs to happen, is during a formal philosophical debate.
Your little 'rabbit hole'.
Outside of that, the onus is on the one putting forth the claim, to work to substantiate what they put forth. Not for others to work on what you put forth.
Welcome to the world outside your rabbit hole.
The onus is on the one who puts forth the claim, to demonstrate that it's 'workable' before anyone will engage.
Your claim doesn't simply 'default' to a reality, because someone fails your scrutiny of them.
Monkeys flying out your butt doesn't become a reality simply because no one can logically disprove it.
It only means you feel it's 'logical' (compared to another) to espouse, or adopt the premise as a reality.
Fool's Gold.
False.
False allegation.
Equivocation.
Logical fallacy.
non sequitur.
You are in default.
You're a complete fraud.
That's been your whole 'game'.
Your intention was to test people, to qualify or disqualify them as being logical or illogical.
Your motive was to be able to make the determination/conclusion that atheists are illogical in their decision, and irrational in their decision to not adopt an ancient folklorish legend known as god, as a reality.
The 'proof of a god' was a red herring.
Problem is, you disqualfied yourself by being illogical, and equivocal.
Because your premise (god) is an equivocal legend, rumour, fable, fantasy.
Here's your chance to demonstrate your pure logic.
God exists, because (x).
Define x
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You, Mr M, are a classic example of the misunderstanding of science and logic that leads to Theism.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So what you are arguing here isn't even your reason for belief? Why should any of us care if it isn't even convincing to you?
How do you expect to be honest with yourself if your best internal defense for belief is personal experience?
What I'm asking, and what you're not answering, is why anyone should care about this argument...it is pure navel gazing, distilled into a word game. Can you *please* make an effort to explain to me what value this thought process holds? Please?
Every time this shit comes up I go and Google around and I see hundreds of philosophers and none of them can agree on any of this stuff. *That* is the core problem with an unfalsifiable claim like this...your field can't even agree on it, *your* discipline has been arguing about this shit for literally thousands of years and it still hasn't come any closer to a resolution. *You've* found one variation personally convincing. You can list philosophers that agree. You can list philosophers that disagree. We could lock all of them in a room and there would literally be no way for them to resolve the dilemma...they'd all say "I'm right!" and no minds would change.
You don't seem to be able to even make a statement about why the outcome of your semantic game even makes any difference....you acknowledge it doesn't have anything to do with your belief in deity, it doesn't impact anything...and another philosopher can spend their whole life studying this question, come up with the opposite answer, and guess what, it doesn't matter to that person either. I'd really like to know what the point of this exercise is, how it helps us understand reality, how we can use it to better ourselves, how we can answer questions in a consistent manner...anything.
It seems obvious to me that there is no way to actually resolve this question logically, otherwise everyone who took philosophy 101 would get a little diagram that proves the idea and this whole debate would be mute, every serious philosopher would be a deist by default. Obviously this is not the case. So since the question can't be answered, maybe there is some value in the journey?
Can you help me understand why logic divorced from empiricism has merit? Please?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Mr. Metaphysics,
I could find not refutation by Anselm of Guanilo's Island. I did find that commentators indicate that he alluded to the reason but never presented it. Plantinga obviously presented a refutation.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
http://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-gaunilo.html
You should care because it proves that God exists, and it shows belief in God is not irrational.
You are an atheist, and I have proven that atheism is false; does that not concern you?
If I was an atheist, I would care very much about any argument which proves that God exists.
So belief for you is based on a general consensus? That does not seem logical.
The point is that it proves the existence of God; the fact that this was not the reason that I became a theist is irrelevant.
Mellestad, do not take the brevity of my answers as disrespect. It's just that you are asking really softball questions, and you simply couch them in all of this emotion (at this point, I'm not sure whether or not it's feigned) as if the points you are making are somehow germane to the central issue. At the end of the day, my personal history does not matter nor does the consensus of the scholarly community nor does the utility of a particular belief system; can you give ma good reason why I should not believe in God, or why the arguments for God are unsound?
Mr Met? I've haven't seen any actual proof yet, just assertions based on no proof at all.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck