God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I'll just leave this here...........
"Anyone who has read Anselm would have understood this argument."
Anyone familiar with Anselm's argument would be familiar with all the fallacies he commits.
1. Greater is not defined. After all a nonexistent maximally great being that made you think it was existent would be greater that one that actually was existent. A maximally great blue creator bunny is greater than a maximally great creator god for no other reason than I imagined it to be the maximally greatest of all maximally great things.
2. One can conceive of a maximally great being greater than that of the Abrahamic god because one can conceive of a god that does not create genocide. kill babies. invent entire places of torture and the rest.
3. A fallacy of definition / equivocation. The brain does not think of maximally great beings. The brain has conceptions of maximally great beings. The conclusion is therefore, "Conceptions of maximally great beings exist." You do not get to switch definition mid stream.
4. Anselm's ontological argument engages in the Question Begging Fallacy.
The conclusion of the argument is contained in the premises. You are attempting to cause something to exist by adding existence to its definition, the same ploy you tried with "Necessary." Both existence and necessary must be demonstrated.
Someone else can try and remember some of the other fallacies in the argument. I'm tired. I don't need to point out the fallacies. All I need to know is how do you know. What evidence do you have?
Anyone can find out about the fallacies contained in various forms of the ontological argument with a simple search.
When one can substitute any fantastical being for the pre supposition in Anselm's argument it ,makes it a meaningless exercise. In sophistry.
@ Lee, I simply don’t believe your assertion as I see no compelling reason to do so.
@CyberLN: EXACTLY We never even get off the ground.
Yes, Cog, it’s that simple but I don’t see many theists accepting it as such. I might guess that their belief in their own gods seems so sane to them that they just cannot conceive of a different view. They seem willing and able to accept inadequate and rather flimsy reasoning and often don’t understand and ask why an atheist will not accept it. That all seems certainly on the side of egocentricity.
Hey, Old Man! I think one of your missing socks has returned! And it smells very much like it has been worn by Figgy and/or one of his buddies.
All I am seeing here is a badly stated version of an Ontological argument.
Defining a god into existence, does not actually mean the god exists. Especially with the extremely flawed and fallacious Ontological argument.
Cognistic in post #50 pretty much covers it.
Sorry to inform you, but none of the so called, philosophical arguments for a god (Kalam, Ontological, Teleological, TAG, presup, etc) are both valid and sound. They all rely on fallacies and unevidenced premises.
WTF was that about??? We don’t know what we don’t know and maybe, just maybe, all of our understanding of the universe is skewed by only what we currently believe to be true.
What objective evidence do you have any god is real? Which god are you claiming exist?
The bible is the claim, not the evidence.
EVERYBODY, SING ALONG!...
(To the tune of: "The Boys Are Back In Town", by Thin Lizzy)
Guess who just got back today
Them braindead Trolls that had been away
Haven't changed that much to say
But man, I still think them cats are crazy
They were talkin' in circles goin' 'round
Tellin' us all where God could be found
Wish we could just leave 'em gagged and bound
They're drivin' all the atheists crazy.
The Trolls are back in town
(The Trolls are back in town)
The Trolls are back in town
(The Trolls are back in town again)
**Edited to correct one word in the lyrics**
My mind sing-along for the day. Thanks Tin.
BTW, I had a couple down days and made it a long weekend. Just felt like being a couch potato so viewed a digital steam of, you guessed it, "The Wizard of Oz". It had been many years since I'd seen it, and every time Jack Haley was on screen, I couldn't help but think of your humor on this here forum.
@NewSkeptic Re: Wizard of Oz
Ahhhhhhh, yes... *dreamy look*... Certainly does bring back some memories. Yep, those were the days.... *wistful sigh*... Oh, a bit of trivia, if you are interested, regarding my favorite scene. As you might imagine, it is the scene where Dorothy and Straw Boy first find me in the woods all rusted stiff.
Speaking of "stiff", that brings us to the trivia info. It took almost a WHOLE DAY to shoot just that one scene, because certain "biological functions" kept "popping up" during certain parts of the shooting. For instance, when Dorothy first noticed my foot and started making her way up my leg. The director had to yell, "CUT!", so many times you would think we were making a slasher film... *chuckle*...Got to the point where they had to have somebody in a baseball uniform behind the camera beating a kitten with baseball bat to get me through that shot. (Don't worry, it wasn't a real kitten.)
And then there was the part where Dorothy asked me, "Where do you want me to oil you first?" Yeah, every single member of the cast and crew would totally lose it in a fit of laughter every single time she tried saying that line. Hell, even the director chuckled a couple of times, despite being pissed about the delays. And it certainly didn't help when Dorothy said the line that one time doing an impression of Marilyn Monroe. Oh, lawrdy!... *shaking head in amusement*... Anyway, if I recall correctly, I believe they finally just had her move her mouth without actually speaking the words, and then dubbed her voice in during editing.
Yep, good times... Good times...
Wow, really touching story.
Since Hillary Clinton wasn't yet on the national stage, couldn't you have instead concentrated on a photo of Eleanor Roosevelt to solve your, ah for lack of a better word, stiffness?
I also wasn't aware that Dorothy knew the 13 year old Marilyn Monroe in 1939. Maybe they went to the same prep school in Kansas.
Uhhhh... *rubing back of neck uncomfortably*.... Hmmm... Uh, about the Eleanor Roosevelt pic idea. Probably would have made things worse. I, uh, sorta had a bit of a crush on her back then... *awkwardly adjusting crotch*...
So, uh, anyway, as for Marilyn (or N.J., as I prefer to call her), make no mistake, she was practicing that whole "sultry/sexy" persona long before she ever became famous. Just sayin'...
I apologise if my response here is crude. You seem to be a thoroughly educated man. I am not a student of formal logic or semantics, just a mug who simply can't accept what others merely tell me without scrutiny.
Oden claims to know this infinite 'idea', beyond just being infinite in all respects, possesses a fabulous compendium of additional superlative human characteristics, as well as the quality of being 'necessary' and three seperate identities. How he actually knows this is not explained, moreover. I am forced to believe he got this information from his reading of the bible. If so and he was being truthful, why did he not include the traits of evil, cruelty or jealously? The bible uses these traits to describe god and in that book your god even confesses to them. I sense some preconditioned bias.
I own that I am the fool Anselm mentions. I hear, I understand the idea. I am just reasonably unable to accept it. He must have known a few people like me in his day.
Anselm says "And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone." Assuredly I doubt there is enough logic or christian apologetics to cover this howler.
"For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater."
It certainly could "be conceived to exist in reality", but how something can become a reality because reality is greater than mere understanding, leaves this as just a form of wishful thinking.
What I see is a base desire for his god to exist, because back in the 1100s what alternative did anyone have? Other than to be a fool like me?
I won't comment on Paul's Corinthian quote. After reading his letters, I honestly doubt he was saintly, chosen, or even mentally stable.
If your god is truth, and he wants all to be saved, I might accept the assurances of Pope Francis and Origen and others that despite perceived shortcomings we will all end up in Paradise, which is a pleasant little hypotheses, though I am compelled, probably by the devil, to be honest enough to admit, I just can't prove.
So, just to be clear.... this idiot in the OP makes another claim which starts with an assertion that cannot be proven.
Still zero evidence of any god(s) from any of the theistic muppets that have posted on here.
I get the idea, that every theist who discovers an atheist forum, figurers we are all atheists because we haven't heard their pet argument, haven't read their holy book of choice, or haven't heard their magical interpretation of it, will convert if we do.
Sorry theists, just because you may be credulous enough to believe for bad reasons, doesn't mean we're going to be. If you want to convince those of us with a modicum of critical thinking skills, of your theistic claims, you better come with something better than long refuted arguments.
Seriously Leeuwenhoek, were you an atheist, then you heard the Ontological argument, and became convinced by it? I doubt that is the case. I would guess you were already a theist, and you use this argument in an attempt to make your theistic beliefs sound more rational. Please correct me if I am wrong...
Since the thread author can't demonstrate any objective evidence for the deity he believes in, I can conceive quite easily of a greater deity, since obviously a deity that is demonstrably real is greater than one that is not.
So, nothing greater can be conceived than this god-being?
Well that should be easy to test.
List all the qualities that (you think) this being has, and if I can come up with something greater, then your version of this god-being is not the right one.
@LostLocke Re: "List all the qualities that (you think) this being has, and if I can come up with something greater, then your version of this god-being is not the right one."
Nope-nope-nope... No-can-do! Obviously, you totally fail to understand that the powers and qualitues of that god-being are so incredibly inconceivable that it is not even possibly conceivable to be able to conceive those powers and qualities to be able to list them. Therefore, if it is not even conceivably possible to imagine and list such inconceivable qualities and powers, how the heck could you even remotely think you could possibly conceive powers and qualities GREATER than the powers and qualities that are already beyond any type of conceiving? You should really start paying better attention. There may be a test afterwards.
So you're arguing that your god must exist because it's the best and greatest in concept and therefore in reality?
The character in the Bible certainly doesn't qualify under this definition. Everything it touches turns to crap. Everything it does is profoundly evil. Take the flood: Did every man, woman, child, and baby deserve to die horribly? Take the story of Job: Did he and his family deserve to suffer because god made a bet with Satan? What about Jesus? What kind of deadbeat father makes an underage girl pregnant and then arranges for the resulting child to grow up and be tortured to death?
If any of this had happened, and if god existed, it deserves to go on trial for crimes against humanity.
Anselm's argument is more applicable to Superman than Jehovah.
What if I can conceive a greatest possible being not existing ?
I can conceive of a building taller than the greatest skyscraper in existence. So I'm curious, does this make it real? If you set an arbitrary condition for belief, then of course you construct rational arguments to satisfy those beliefs.
As I said earlier, all the deities humans have invented are unevidenced, thus all I'd have to do is conceive of a deity that was sufficiently supported by objective evidence, and it would by definition be "greater than" all the deities in theistic religions. Thus those deities would be falsified by the criteria Anselm has set for us. The problem all arises from Anselm's arbitrary and unevidenced definition of "god" as the greatest conceivable being. The deity he conceives is imaginary, thus he's defining a deity he doesn't believe in, an objectively evidenced or real deity.
To bad the "god" ideas are all obviously lies to anyone that care to look at the whole picture. Sure the whole concept works in fiction land, but in reality, ALL the evidence in thousands of years with billions of people trying... points strongly to no god (of any kind!) That could fit even the loosest commonly accepted definitions of the word "god."