The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: spoon on June 03, 2014, 03:19:54 AM
-
Yackoff has referenced this quite a few times in his posts, so I decided to read up on it. My first impression upon reading it was that it was dumb...
As was the second impression, and the third, etc.
My main complaint with the argument is his concrete use of subjective words and phrases such as "greater than" or "perfect".
Specifically, at what I consider the pivotal point in his suppositions, he concludes that "something that exists both in reality and in the mind is greater than something that exists in the mind alone." Why is this the case?
Another weak spot is his premise. He makes the supposition that god is simply a being which cannot be improved upon. If that is the case, and the image of perfection is completely objective (as suggested by the argument), we should be able to determine exactly what god is, what he does, and how he does it.
It seems to me that Anselm's argument is nothing more than a flimsy, paradoxical word game with an audacious conclusion.
-
My biggest problem is the premise that something you can think of exists simply because you can think of it.
-
I think you are both missing the point. & Spoon, I've done nothing to earn your calling me out of my name. I have always been polite to you. Anyway, as I was saying, the point of the Ontological Argument is NOT to create something out of nothing. That would be stupid. The point is to prove that God exists already. I'm not going to do so @ this time or on this thread, as I have done so on the other. I recommend visiting there.
-
First of all, "Yackoff" is an endearing term, and yes, I appreciate your politeness.
I never implied Anselm was trying to create something out of nothing. I argued that the logic he used to conclude that god must exist in a physical sense is flawed. I will read the other thread and see if I can figure out where you refuted my points.
-
Fair enough. Continue in that thread if you have thoughts on the matter. I don't multi-task well.
-
I'm going to carry of our ontological discussion hear since it's a thread devoted to it.
Does it matter whether God claims to be jealous? Perhaps the equal entities have accepted that neither may vanquish the other and so rule as one being and they are just stating that man should not worship anything but them. Perhaps each entity has been given it's own world of creatures to rule. Maybe the Mormons have it right in saying God is one among many of his species each with their own world. This is all irrelevant to the ontological argument since it does not deal with any evidence and simply deals with thoughts.
You can imagine a being which no greater exists. I can imagine a being equal to yours. Equal is not greater, therefore multiple gods. End of story.
-
Well, Duck, its a point of view. But I don't think it can stand against 1 Supreme Being ultimately knocking out all 'contenders for the throne', if you will.
-
But all the supreme beings are equal. Their fight would end in a stalemate as neither could defeat the other. Why are you now fighting what the ontological argument agrees is reality?
-
Ok, lets go from the top. In the ontological scenario, I as a thinking being (a la Descartes, who came along later; Cogito, ergo sum) can conceive of a Being a greater than which, or an equal to which, cannot possibly be conceived. As per our earlier example of 'fuck you infinity & one times', the number just keeps going up. My Being is always a step ahead of yours, therefore remaining supreme.
-
If your argument is sound like you claim, so are many other arguments using the same logic.
I am imaging the greatest evil, therefore it exists. This evil kills your God and plunges everyone to Hell. Oh my... Does that mean we're already in Hell?
-
The original argument put forward made no mention that equals were banned, therefore they are allowed due to not being greater.
-
Vaux, I'm pulling your question from the other thread here. Lets continue all discussion here. I don't multi-task well. As per the idea of evil, evil is, per Augustine the Greater, the absence of good. So it is impossible to conceive of evil existing as such, but rather, not existing, which, per Anselm, is not as beneficial a trait as existence. A world w/o a being w/ the 3 omnis would be a mess. Humans can barely follow legal & moral codes now, most of which were based on religious mandate. Imagine that mandate not existing? Of course, you'll say that religious law doesn't prove God's existence. I agree. But it shows that men have thought these matters through that were usually smarter than us. Forgive me. I'm feeling poorly & must rest. I'll be back later. NOTE: Jews don't believe in Hell.
-
Duck, you have chosen to introduce the element of equality, which was not in Anselm's argument. I have chosen to be the asshole that says, 'ha! My God is one point greater than yours!' Ultimately, we're back to the original argument. Forgive me. I must rest, as I do feel ill. TTYL, Group.
-
I have heard many religious people claim "you cannot comprehend the majesty of God" or some such thing. I think you have even said something to this affect a few times yourself. If you cannot comprehend the full majesty of God, how does this argument work exactly?
The argument your using would only be meaningful to someone who completely understands the essence of God. Even then: it still wouldn't prove anything, because this argument is more like elaborate word games and troll bait instead of something substantial.
Regardless, I hope you feel better. Your trolling is always engaging.
-
You had previously asked me to refute the argument, I've been attempting to do so by imagining an equally great being to the greatest being. I feel this loophole invalidates Anslem's argument that God exists and rather validates that gods exist. Using your very logic, I've disproved Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with a single thought.
Also Vaux had made since interesting points.
-
My Being is always a step ahead of yours, therefore remaining supreme.
But it remains supreme in your head. You need to get used to this notion. It's in your head. Being able to think of "great" things does not mean they exist. Any more than thinking of non-great things.
-
Just as Duck's equal beings are in his head? Fap, I'll ask this question a 3rd time: if someone puts a loaded & cocked pistol to your brain & then asks, 'Does your continued existence as a thinking thing mean more or less than your existence as worm-food, what would you say. Is a live Fap better than a dead Fap? NOTE! THE QUESTION IS RHETORICAL. I DON'T WANT TO KILL FAP.
-
Is a live Fap better than a dead Fap? NOTE! THE QUESTION IS RHETORICAL. I DON'T WANT TO KILL FAP.
*face palm*
-
You had previously asked me to refute the argument, I've been attempting to do so by imagining an equally great being to the greatest being. I feel this loophole invalidates Anslem's argument that God exists and rather validates that gods exist. Using your very logic, I've disproved Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with a single thought.
Also Vaux had made since interesting points.
Interesting. What could be greater than a maximally great being? How about an infinite number of maximally great beings?
-
Interesting. What could be greater than a maximally great being? How about an infinite number of maximally great beings?
Great, Shmeggles! Guess what? You just created a whole pantheon of supremely powerful Gods just by thinking about it!
How do you feel now that you're the creator of so many infinitely powerful beings?
-
I dont understand why you're obsessed with loaded guns at peoples heads. It doesn't equate.
The argument is based around ones ability to concieve a great being. It then states that reality is itself greater than the imaginary. And therefore more true. So a great being hops magically from imagination to reality because reality is better.
So if you want to talk about guns you might say "Concieve the best gun". I don't know. You work it out from here.
-
Anselm's argument does not say that things exist simply because you can think of them.
It defines god as "perfect". Then it says that something that exists in reality is more perfect than something that exists in the mind. Ergo, god exists. Thought=reality only when conditions of the thought are only met through reality.
At least, that is my understanding of the argument. Yak-attack, correct me if I am wrong.
-
Good point, but there's still a related problem - people make definitions, and if you're going to define God as perfect and include existence as a necessary condition of being perfect, well, you can do that for anything you can imagine. "The perfect unicorn is one that exists". Nope, didn't work.
-
What about perfect imagination?
*head explodes*
-
Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.
-
lolwut why would one destroy the other? Are they brothers that dont get on?
-
Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.
God is the most perfect being.
God is the most perfect omnibenevolent being who: floods humanity (Genesis 7:21-23), forces people to commit murder to "test their faith" (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8 ), turns people into salt pillars and burns down people's homes (Genesis 19), slaughters every Egyptian firstborn (Exodus 12:29), sends a plague to kill people after they complained to God that He was killing too many people (Numbers 16:41-49), killed 42 helpless children by sending bears to dismember them (Kings 2:23-24), kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow (Genesis 38:9-10), and endowed several groups of worshipers with His holy power to commit mass genocide (Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9).
Should I go on? ::)
Obviously perfect.
-
Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.
That has been my understanding all along, but who are we to say that reality is "more perfect" than thought? Why is perfection at the discretion of seemingly imperfect beings?
-
Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.
God is the most perfect being.
God is the most perfect omnibenevolent being who: floods humanity (Genesis 7:21-23), forces people to commit murder to "test their faith" (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8 ), turns people into salt pillars and burns down people's homes (Genesis 19), slaughters every Egyptian firstborn (Exodus 12:29), sends a plague to kill people after they complained to God that He was killing too many people (Numbers 16:41-49), killed 42 helpless children by sending bears to dismember them (Kings 2:23-24), kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow (Genesis 38:9-10), and endowed several groups of worshipers with His holy power to commit mass genocide (Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9).
Should I go on? ::)
Obviously perfect.
I can imagine a being that didn't do all those things. This being is more perfect. It would be more perfect if it was real.
Ergo: Abrahamic God doesn't exist.
-
Spoon, I think you have it! & there can only be one perfection in the universe, because it created said universe & all that therein exists. God is perfect. & if he didn't exist,There would be a being more perfect. One that is perfect, & EXISTS. Two such can't exist. One would destroy the other.
First, why is it necessary that a perfect being exists in the first place? And what would "more perfect" mean anyway? Is there any reason why there shouldn't be an upper limit to how good, powerful and wise someone can be? Why does there have to be some being that has all these qualities to an infinite degree?
Second, if God is so great, why would he have this pathological urge to destroy his equal? Couldn't they work together? Besides, if there are an infinite number, is it even mathematically possible to reduce that to just one?
-
Hello. I am going to have to exit the debate for a time. In addition to debating about 6 people single-handedly, I am getting married, moving, & dealing w/ my ever obnoxious family of origin. I shall return. This is not surrender, but truce. See you soon.
-
Hello. I am going to have to exit the debate for a time. In addition to debating about 6 people single-handedly, I am getting married, moving, & dealing w/ my ever obnoxious family of origin. I shall return. This is not surrender, but truce. See you soon.
Godspeed.
-
Wasn't there a parody of this ontological argument that "proves" god doesn't exist? I remember reading it somewhere, it goes more or less like this:
1 - The creation of the universe is the most wonderful achievement imaginable
2 - The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive is the achievement
3 - The greatest handicap possible is non-existence
4 - If we imagine that there is a creator for the universe, we can imagine a greater being that doesn't exist and still created everything
5 - An existing god is therefore not the greatest being we can conceive, since a more impressive god would be one that created everything while non existing
6 - God doesn't exist
-
Wasn't there a parody of this ontological argument that "proves" god doesn't exist? I remember reading it somewhere, it goes more or less like this:
1 - The creation of the universe is the most wonderful achievement imaginable
2 - The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive is the achievement
3 - The greatest handicap possible is non-existence
4 - If we imagine that there is a creator for the universe, we can imagine a greater being that doesn't exist and still created everything
5 - An existing god is therefore not the greatest being we can conceive, since a more impressive god would be one that created everything while non existing
6 - God doesn't exist
Amazing
-
Wasn't there a parody of this ontological argument that "proves" god doesn't exist? I remember reading it somewhere, it goes more or less like this:
1 - The creation of the universe is the most wonderful achievement imaginable
2 - The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive is the achievement
3 - The greatest handicap possible is non-existence
4 - If we imagine that there is a creator for the universe, we can imagine a greater being that doesn't exist and still created everything
5 - An existing god is therefore not the greatest being we can conceive, since a more impressive god would be one that created everything while non existing
6 - God doesn't exist
I like this because it uses arbitrary or subjective language, such as "most wonderful achievement", "greatest handicap", in much the same way that Anselm's argument does.