Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2014, 05:15:11 AM »
Well, on a totally different subject, we are now stuck with Joni Ernst, the Tea Party whore, for the next six years, as our Senator in Iowa. Ultimately, this state is royally fucked.

And here I thought Romney was winning by a landslide.
Quote from: Saddam Hussein
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2014, 05:20:47 AM »
And here I thought Romney was winning by a landslide.

Well, he didn't, but the Republicans just did. Pretty huge majority in the House and a slight majority in the Senate.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2014, 05:26:54 AM »
Which ultimately means that the Republic is fucked for at least the next two years. The President will get nothing accomplished, because the Congress won't let him, but doesn't have enough people to override a veto. I expect the next thing the Rethugs will attempt to do is to impeach the President, which won't work, but they will try it nonetheless.

Of course, ultimately, to me it doesn't much matter. I won't say it outright, but I am a Maoist, and we all know what a Maoist would prefer over the status quo of things. If any of you say it, I'll deny it straight out, and I would never attempt it, because I don't care to be arrested and shot. But, I am a Maoist, so... follow the dots where that leads you...

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2014, 05:29:22 AM »
As for the Ontological Argument, it only proves the existence of One God. Not necessarily the Abrahamic God, but One God. I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Who said we were talking about any particular understanding of God? Now, I could go from there and try to prove the biblical God, but that is not what I am trying to do with this particular argument. That would be stupid.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2014, 05:33:31 AM »
You're not even using Anselm's argument anymore, at this point you made your own, even worse, argument as to why you think god exists. If I can even call "because I say so" an argument...

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2014, 02:15:07 PM »
As for the Ontological Argument, it only proves the existence of One God. Not necessarily the Abrahamic God, but One God. I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Who said we were talking about any particular understanding of God? Now, I could go from there and try to prove the biblical God, but that is not what I am trying to do with this particular argument. That would be stupid.

I may not be able to conceive of a greater being, but I could conceive of an additional, equally great being.
Quote from: Saddam Hussein
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2014, 02:28:53 PM »
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2014, 02:30:07 PM »
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.

No, it would just go on infinitely, or he would think of another, equally great one again and again and again
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2014, 03:26:51 PM »
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.

Wouldn't this being be constrained by the limits of human imagination? An omniscient, omnipotent being limited by a puny human? To quote Disney's Aladdin: Phenomenal cosmic powers! Itty bitty living space.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2014, 09:16:28 PM »
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.

If there was a greater conceivable being, then how could the first one have been the greatest?
Quote from: Saddam Hussein
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2014, 09:55:37 PM »
Let me get this straight:  This "logical" argument is that because I can think of a perfect being, it must be real because I can't imagine a non-existent perfect being?  Because that's the biggest shit argument I've ever heard.  Why did it take several hundred years to disprove?!


In fact, I can disprove God using it.

Taking the Ham Sandwich example.  A Ham Sandwich is defined as ham between two pieces of bread.  However there are many types of Ham: Smoked, boiled, cooked, honey glazed, etc...
And even bread has many different versions: white, wheat, oats, grain, Italian, French, etc... 

So how could we define the perfect ham sandwich?
Well, the most perfect sandwich is that which is greater than any other and can't be better.  But since everyone has different tastes, what is "best" is impossible as some will find wheat bread less than white while others will feel the opposite.  And what about additions?  Cheese, lettuce, tomato, mayo, etc...

So if we ignore everyone who doesn't like any ham sandwiches, we still have too many people and too many tastes to have one single ham sandwich that is perfect for everyone.  So, it's impossible to imagine such a sandwich.  However, when a sandwich does not exist, it can be everything at once.  An imaginary sandwich doesn't need to conform to any one person but can be any kind of sandwich, based on what the person wants.  This, in fact, is the only perfect sandwich since no other sandwich can be better than every sandwich combination.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2014, 09:57:54 PM »
And then there's dave...

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2014, 10:02:10 PM »
And then there's dave...

Oh come now.  My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2014, 10:05:15 PM »
I enjoyed your argument Dave. 

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2014, 10:22:31 PM »
Oh come now.  My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.

The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2014, 10:28:36 PM »
What if they've got celiac? Then both whole wheat, and white are bad choices.
Quote from: Saddam Hussein
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2014, 10:31:12 PM »
Let me get this straight:  This "logical" argument is that because I can think of a perfect being, it must be real because I can't imagine a non-existent perfect being?  Because that's the biggest shit argument I've ever heard.  Why did it take several hundred years to disprove?!


In fact, I can disprove God using it.

Taking the Ham Sandwich example.  A Ham Sandwich is defined as ham between two pieces of bread.  However there are many types of Ham: Smoked, boiled, cooked, honey glazed, etc...
And even bread has many different versions: white, wheat, oats, grain, Italian, French, etc... 

So how could we define the perfect ham sandwich?
Well, the most perfect sandwich is that which is greater than any other and can't be better.  But since everyone has different tastes, what is "best" is impossible as some will find wheat bread less than white while others will feel the opposite.  And what about additions?  Cheese, lettuce, tomato, mayo, etc...

So if we ignore everyone who doesn't like any ham sandwiches, we still have too many people and too many tastes to have one single ham sandwich that is perfect for everyone.  So, it's impossible to imagine such a sandwich.  However, when a sandwich does not exist, it can be everything at once.  An imaginary sandwich doesn't need to conform to any one person but can be any kind of sandwich, based on what the person wants.  This, in fact, is the only perfect sandwich since no other sandwich can be better than every sandwich combination.

Well, I let the atheists tangle their peabrains trying to resolve the issue. It took several hundred years to refute (and it still hasn't been,really), because ultimately, it is not refutable. Existence is better than non-existence. You see how that works? Its pretty easy, really. If your existence is no better than your non-existence, the next time you and I walk near a cliff, how about I throw you off it? You shouldn't mind. Your existence is not better than your non-existence,correct?

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2014, 10:40:08 PM »
Let me get this straight:  This "logical" argument is that because I can think of a perfect being, it must be real because I can't imagine a non-existent perfect being?  Because that's the biggest shit argument I've ever heard.  Why did it take several hundred years to disprove?!


In fact, I can disprove God using it.

Taking the Ham Sandwich example.  A Ham Sandwich is defined as ham between two pieces of bread.  However there are many types of Ham: Smoked, boiled, cooked, honey glazed, etc...
And even bread has many different versions: white, wheat, oats, grain, Italian, French, etc... 

So how could we define the perfect ham sandwich?
Well, the most perfect sandwich is that which is greater than any other and can't be better.  But since everyone has different tastes, what is "best" is impossible as some will find wheat bread less than white while others will feel the opposite.  And what about additions?  Cheese, lettuce, tomato, mayo, etc...

So if we ignore everyone who doesn't like any ham sandwiches, we still have too many people and too many tastes to have one single ham sandwich that is perfect for everyone.  So, it's impossible to imagine such a sandwich.  However, when a sandwich does not exist, it can be everything at once.  An imaginary sandwich doesn't need to conform to any one person but can be any kind of sandwich, based on what the person wants.  This, in fact, is the only perfect sandwich since no other sandwich can be better than every sandwich combination.

Well, I let the atheists tangle their peabrains trying to resolve the issue. It took several hundred years to refute (and it still hasn't been,really), because ultimately, it is not refutable. Existence is better than non-existence. You see how that works? Its pretty easy, really. If your existence is no better than your non-existence, the next time you and I walk near a cliff, how about I throw you off it? You shouldn't mind. Your existence is not better than your non-existence,correct?

Is an existent Hitler better than an imaginary Hitler? What about the Batterwitch, or Voldemort?
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2014, 10:44:07 PM »
What if they've got celiac? Then both whole wheat, and white are bad choices.

It doesn't matter because we're talking about the perfect sandwich, not your personal preference at the deli market.

Well, I let the atheists tangle their peabrains trying to resolve the issue. It took several hundred years to refute (and it still hasn't been,really), because ultimately, it is not refutable. Existence is better than non-existence. You see how that works? Its pretty easy, really. If your existence is no better than your non-existence, the next time you and I walk near a cliff, how about I throw you off it? You shouldn't mind. Your existence is not better than your non-existence,correct?

Define better.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 1949
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2014, 10:51:52 PM »
Is an existent Hitler better than an imaginary Hitler?

Yes, because he would exist in a world that was created by the perfect being. So everything that exists is the optimal set of circumstances.
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars