Anselm's Ontological Argument

[ThaG]

Anselm's argument creates a lot of skeptics (myself included), although the logic is sound. So even if you aren't buying it, you have to stand in awe to the structure of the argument itself.

I stand in awe to the ignorance of whoever doesn't see how inconsistent such an argument is in the 21st century

Please, realize that this was formulated in 11th century, if you try to prove anything this way today, you will be only laughed at (for the reasons I cited above)

 

[thatguy]

no argument has ever proven that god exists no matter if it is an a priori argument (like rene descartes') or an a postenori argument (like george berkeley's)

and no argument ever will...any argument that tries to prove that god exists cannot have premises that are indubitable

people just need to be more skeptical about what they are told and what they read

show me an argument that proves god doesnt exist, with premises that are indubitable

 

[thatguy]

I stand in awe to the ignorance of whoever doesn't see how inconsistent such an argument is in the 21st century

Please, realize that this was formulated in 11th century, if you try to prove anything this way today, you will be only laughed at (for the reasons I cited above)

being that everyone now days needs evidence they can observe, just like the other guy said. people these days are just more narrow minded

 

[ThaG]

being that everyone now days needs evidence they can observe, just like the other guy said. people these days are just more narrow minded

So you wanna say that requiring evidence in order to believe something is being narrow-minded

WOW

 

[Home-E]

Anselm's argument creates a lot of skeptics (myself included), although the logic is sound. So even if you aren't buying it, you have to stand in awe to the structure of the argument itself.

Right on. I agree. thanks for saving this thread

 

[thatguy]

So you wanna say that requiring evidence in order to believe something is being narrow-minded

WOW

well in that case, im about to commit mass homicide and rape some toddlers, i have no proof such things are wrong, being that theory, personal experiences, and what people say isnt "evidence", you should have no qualms with these actions im choosing to take

 

[JLMACN]

being that everyone now days needs evidence they can observe, just like the other guy said. people these days are just more narrow minded

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man
invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only
to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an
invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible
claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.” - Sam Harris

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I stand in awe to the ignorance of whoever doesn't see how inconsistent such an argument is in the 21st century

Please, realize that this was formulated in 11th century, if you try to prove anything this way today, you will be only laughed at (for the reasons I cited above)

The logic is as valid today as it was in the eleventh century. You have not shown an inconsistency with the logic.

 

[ThaG]

I did, points 5 and 6 don't make sense at all

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Actually, they do follow.

How can you argue that real things are not greater than things in the mind? Even if you find some wonderful Utopian ideal, such a thing would be greater if it were actually existing in reality. The fact that we can't pull it off is irrelevant. The point is that the reality of X is always greater than the mere idea of X.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Maybe your problem was with how points 5 and 6 were worded by the OP.

 

[ThaG]

Actually, they do follow.

How can you argue that real things are not greater than things in the mind? Even if you find some wonderful Utopian ideal, such a thing would be greater if it were actually existing in reality. The fact that we can't pull it off is irrelevant. The point is that the reality of X is always greater than the mere idea of X.

I argue that defining things as "great" doesn't make any sense in the real world

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Your argument boils down to nitpicking over the word "great." 56 is greater than 19. Cry about that while you're at it.

 

[ThaG]

Your argument boils down to nitpicking over the word "great." 56 is greater than 19. Cry about that while you're at it.

it's not about the word, it's about how you measure things

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Case in point - a thing that dwells merely in the mind has no dimensions to measure. A thing that exists in reality does.

 

[thatguy]

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man
invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only
to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an
invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible
claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.” - Sam Harris

apostles of christ, who was a MAN, arent deity's, so killed that, and many of the people in the bible actually met or knew christ, and believed him to be the messiah, the theory of there being a creator sounds more logical than the big bang theory

tell an atheist that asians can fly, or that ice tea contains mashed up pieces of bull testicals, and he will require as much proof as the next man.
tell him/her that a big bang happened that made everything that is life as we know it, while this is less likely than a hurricane hitting a junk yard and making a functional boing 747 plane, and an explosion on a paint factory making a comprehensive novel combined. all he knows is that prayer doesnt work, so there is no creator.
~thatguy~

 

[ThaG]

apostles of christ, who was a MAN, arent deity's, so killed that, and many of the people in the bible actually met or knew christ, and believed him to be the messiah, the theory of there being a creator sounds more logical than the big bang theory

why?

tell an atheist that asians can fly, or that ice tea contains mashed up pieces of bull testicals, and he will require as much proof as the next man.
tell him/her that a big bang happened that made everything that is life as we know it, while this is less likely than a hurricane hitting a junk yard and making a functional boing 747 plane, and an explosion on a paint factory making a comprehensive novel combined. all he knows is that prayer doesnt work, so there is no creator.
~thatguy~

This is so horribly wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start...

1. An atheist thinks that the Big Bang happened because there is a lot of evidence backing his up - red shift, theoretical considerations and so on. Moreover, scientists didn't believe in the Big Bang until the red shift was discovered, they thought the Universe was eternal

2. Life didn't begin with the Big Bang, life evolved gradually over the last 13.5 billion years. quite possibly at numerous places, although certainly rare all over the universe. And it did not assemble itself right into multicellular eukaryotic organisms with all their complexity.

More info:

 

[ThaG]

3. we think that prayer doesn't work because all the evidence points precisely that

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=501045&md5=482cc1ecbec88c993d55a9c2ffd9054b

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer.

American Heart Journal, Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 934-942

H. Benson, J. Dusek, J. Sherwood, P. Lam, C. Bethea, W. Carpenter, S. Levitsky, P. Hill, D. Clem, Jr., M. Jain

 

[thatguy]

^ problem is, its like your playing a game without the rules, saying you cant seem to even see how its called a game. you understand next to nothing about prayer

 

[ThaG]

^ problem is, its like your playing a game without the rules, saying you cant seem to even see how its called a game. you understand next to nothing about prayer

See, I am not making the extraordinary claim that prayer works, I say that I don't believe you, you have to show me it works, and you can't

And still, I (representing the scientific community) have done the necessary and showed you it doesn't work, because you (representing the superstitious) are so stubborn in you belief, that it actually starts to harm people around you