I'm sure you've seen this before :)

I'll say only this, an illogical statement that trys to somehow prove that another statment is illogical... is not evidence of god.

An ignorant statement at best. To me it simply saying. 'Suppose god doesn't exist. But god does exist. Therefore God exists'
 
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar
"Even the atheist, who denies that God exists, must be able to conceive of God in order to know what he denies. Suppose that God does not exist. Then the atheist can nevertheless conceive of God as existing and thereby can conceive of something greater than God. But, by definition, God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Hence the atheist's supposition leads to contradiction. Therefore God exists."
Click to expand...
First, there is no known relationship between pure conception and existence without an intermediate agency. One may conceive of any number of non-existent entities. The fact that one can conceive of something does not prove its existence. There is no contradiction.

Second, for anything that can be conceived something greater can be conceived. If I conceive of God as having particular attributes I can always imagine something more, even if it is something as simple as one additional God. This argument simply leads to infinite progression and thus becomes meaningless. One becomes lost in the inconceivability of infinity.

At this point there is a reverse contradiction. God, by their definition, cannot be conceived of. Therefore every conception of God is inherently false.

~Raithere
 
Re: Re: I'm sure you've seen this before :)

Originally posted by Raithere
At this point there is a reverse contradiction. God, by their definition, cannot be conceived of. Therefore every conception of God is inherently false.
Click to expand...
Right on the mark! However, they are not necessary false, but definitely inferior to the inconceivable god. ;)
 
Hint

This is one of my favorites. It is, in fact, whence I derive my definition of God.

The common mistake attributed Anselm, an attribution with which I agree, surrounds the presumption that we know what God is.

Of course God is beyond conception. Why, then, I wonder, does Anselm presume that the Biblical tale is correct? It seems that to employ such a concept in advocacy of a specific theology is paradoxical. Sufis, Hindus, and others have had far less difficulty with this idea, and it is so simple a concept to Buddhism that many Buddhists do not bother with God in any sense Western theology easily recognizes.

The interesting question, then, is What does God represent?

That is, when you accept that God is beyond anything we can conceive, we can no longer say that God is anything. But what does God represent to people? Therein lies a vast treasure that I've only begun to pilfer.

There are certain questions about the purpose of existence or the meaning of life that bring many people to the brink of religious abandon. Anselm answered those questions from that brink, and then proceeded, strangely, to take a flying leap into the abyss. If anyone can show me that he did this because he wished to experience such depravity of mind as a method of search, then I might respect that. But I find it amazing that Anselm managed to blow that one out his hole.

I look at the issue with some hope, since I account for evolution where it appears Anslem does not. It may be that humanity someday evolves to have the intellectual capacity to answer the most puzzling and ineffable of issues. Perhaps, as such, we will eventually get to know God. In the meantime, life should be enough to deal with without inventing God's wrath to bandy about like Tootsie Rolls at a junior-high class election.

A rose absorbs all colors but red; therefore red is the one thing that it is not.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar
"Even the atheist, who denies that God exists, must ..."
Click to expand...
One would think that creating, then defeating, strawmen would get tiresome at some point.
  • I am an atheist, not because I deny that 'God(s)' exist, but because I assert that belief in 'God(s)' is unwarranted.
  • I am a philosophical naturalist, not because I deny that the Faerie Kingdom (for example) exists, but because I assert that belief in the Daoine Sidhe is unwarranted.
 
Anselm's argument assumes that existence is a necessary property of something as great as God. But even if we accept that it would be greater to exist than not to exist that in no way mandates existence.
 
Re: Hint

Originally posted by tiassa
That is, when you accept that God is beyond anything we can conceive, we can no longer say that God is anything. But what does God represent to people? Therein lies a vast treasure that I've only begun to pilfer.
Click to expand...
But is the question of God then any more valuable than the questions that God is so often intended to answer? Why not seek these answers within ourselves? God, being inconceivable, has no answers for us. Or is God just a way to examine ourselves without meeting it head-on.

There are certain questions about the purpose of existence or the meaning of life that bring many people to the brink of religious abandon.
Click to expand...
I think the Buddhist’s and the Taoists answer these rather nicely. My western influenced interpretation has come down to “life’s/existence’s meaning is to be experienced not answered”.

It may be that humanity someday evolves to have the intellectual capacity to answer the most puzzling and ineffable of issues.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that the answer is infinite and beyond conception, no matter how much we evolve. Actually, I would be rather disappointed if it were anything but… perhaps that influences my opinion. ;)

~Raithere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top