the analogy illustrates a lack of meeting required existential conditions for knowledge (let me take that out of philosophical or "most modern" language for you - existential conditions for knowledge - how you have to "be" in order to know something)
Your assumption that because I dislike your psuedo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo equates to I have a lack of understanding is your biggest flaw. You state that to understand you requires existential conditions, yet you don't clarify exactly what these conditions are. In Sarte's terms, existential means that "man's existence precedes his essence," implying that people chose their self-identity.
But existentialism in no way implies that one can "know" something about a god that cannot be taught. Its utter poppycock. More than that, its a cowardly cop-out, used by pseudo-intellectuals to avoid having to define their positions and, ironically, their "general principles."
In the opening post, you cite St. Anselm (not even knowing his name) as defining god as "[t]hat enitity to whom no other entity can be be conceived of as greater." The original ontological argument doesn't work, however. It depends wholly on the fact that god must exist in order to work. If god doesn't exist, its just talk.
Anselm's argument amounted to more prayer and declaration of his faith than being able to convince anyone.
St. Anselm in Proslogion said:
For God is that than which a greater cannot be thought, and whoever understands this rightly must understand that he exists in such a way that he cannot be non-existent even in thought
From there he end's his argument with shameless, even groveling devotionals to his imaginary "perfect being." Earlier in his argument, however, he reveals the nonsense as surely as some have attempted in this very thread:
St. Anselm in Proslogion said:
And certainly it exists so truly that it cannot be though of as nonexistent. For something can be though of as existing, which cannot be thought of as not existing, and this is greater than that which can be thought of as not existing. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be though can be thought of as not existing, this very thing than which a greater cannot be thought is not that than which a greater cannot be thought. But this is contradictory. So, then, there truly is a being than which a greater cannot be thought -so truly that it cannot even be thought of as not existing.
But "existing" isn't a genuine characteristic. If I can imagine $100 US in my shoe box and you show me $100 in a
your shoe box, clearly the both have the same characteristics: they're in US funds; they have the same amount of cents. But only the $100 in your shoe box will buy you dinner and a new pair of shoes.
And like the god you can imagine versus one that is real, only the real god is worth anything. Except, that bastard won't show himself.
And if your nonsensical argument (which really isn't yours, but St Anselm's and Descartes') had any "proof" or substance to it, it would have the power to convince those that aren't already convinced.
Thus, the ontological argument is discarded as just so much nonsense and I've just given up 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back troubling myself to refute it. But since this silly thread has gone on 28 pages and none of the pro-god arguments have made any sense, perhaps those that were skeptical of the ontological poppycock will see it in a new light and with a little more understanding.
translation - OK all my atheist buddies!!! come on board and kick a theist in the groin with an array of ad homs while I hold him down with my mod ship powers!!!
Your intellectual cowardice makes the implication that my "mod ship powers" have any influence on the masses here at sciforums. Indeed, you insult "my atheist buddies" with the very words, obviously intended to
poison the well so that if someone
does criticize you, you can accuse them of lining up behind the big, bad mod with his awesome powers.
Your bitching and crying about that is getting old. Either you're able to defend your nonsense or you aren't. If not, no problem. No one with think less of you if you simply fade away from a given argument. Instead, you demonstrate your intellectual cowardice and retreat to the only defensive position you can muster:
"the big, bad mod is ad homing me".
