God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

[Smoogles]

This is a repost of a post I did just a little while ago I would like to see what people think, how they could prove this wrong logically and with reason. Do not post unless you have concrete evidence, or if you don't even understand it (good luck because it has been tried and tried again and never contradicted for decades).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also a word to all atheists, this is the perfect argument that proves God's existance... if you're intellectually gifted enough to grasp it then you will understand, but open your eyes...

Anselm’s ontological argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum, which means that it takes a hypothesis, shows that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications, and so concludes that the hypothesis is false.

In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist. Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.

If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist.

The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God. There is, because it’s possible to imagine a God that does exist. There isn’t, because it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.

A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; God exists.

A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2) is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being. (3) follows simply from (1) and (2).

Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God.

(5) follows simply from (3) and (4).

Also if you believe that non-existence was greater than existence then you would've woken up today and shot yourself in the head, no questions asked; so everyone seems to agree that Existence>Non-Existence.

No one can disprove this because it is a Definition of what God is, not an observation or theory, just concrete knowledge. If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?

And if any atheist... I mean ANY atheist would like to debate me please disprove the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments and then we may speak. If you have nothing but beliefs as so many christians seem to then please do not bother with my time if you have nothing other than a good definition and concrete evidence. Because so much of Atheism seems to be based on belief also, and here are some arguments that prove God's existence. Now please show me what disproves God.

This proves that there is a God and nothing further, it is satisfying in that aspect but dissatisfying in that it gives no further detail into how God 'is', it doesn't take any "chances".

[Charles Darnay]

You are right in that it is hard/impossible to argue with the argument because it is not an argument - it is a very good, solid, logical construction. However, it is incomplete in that it does not REALLY prove that God exists.

To over-simplify things I will begin thus: Anselm's argument suffers the same fate as Thomas Aquinas' theory and that is that you can remove the word God and replace it with "weird plate of banana mush" and get the same results. By this I mean that it is a logical argument to prove that anything exists - it does not address the religious concept of God. In order to accept this theory you must first believe in God and that is what is absurd.

I will agree that it addresses the fact that existence is better than non-existence, but not existence of God....atheists are not nihilists....atheists believe in existence as much as theists, just a different form.

If you want to really play with logic, even nihilists believe in some existence, the existence of non-existence and this non-existence existence, according to Anselm, is better than non-existence - essentially, non-existence dose not exist - if you catch my logic....but once again, this has nothing to do with a religious proof

[jgweed]

From a philosophical and perhaps neutral point of view:

One might argue that Anselm's proof rests solely on a definition of god as necessarily including actual existence as a predicate; but while this might tell us much about how we conceive of god, it does not tell us whether god actually exists or not.

A stronger argument could be made that to predicate what we understand as existence may not be appropriate to god's existence; existence is only applicable to the universe, but we also understand god to be "outside" "or beyond" this universe. Thus. even it be argued that our definition of god must necessarily include existence, then this existence is unique to God.

Yet another argument is that while "everyone agrees" that to exist is better than not to exist, that remains a human value. To apply this human prejudice to God is unwarranted.

[aeroport]

Interesting thread.

(good luck because it has been tried and tried again and never contradicted for decades).

Seriously? I don't think it was ever properly accepted as 'proof' in more than the nominal sense, for the very reasons you mention. David Hume, Kant, and Bertrand Russell (that I know of) have all contradicted it - I couldn't really tell you with what degree of success, but the ontological argument shouldn't be treated as something as widely accepted as your post makes it sound.


Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.

This has always been my beef with the OA. I don't know how he came up with the idea that God can actually be 'conceived'. God has always seemed to me essentially to be defined by his 'inconceivable'-ness. Rather than 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' it would be 'that which is greater than all that can be conceived'. Catch my meaning here? This would make the whole argument rather pointless, though... The idea, I'm thinking, is that God should be impossible to prove, thus necessitating faith.


No one can disprove this because it is a Definition of what God is, not an observation or theory, just concrete knowledge. If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?
Sounds like a theory to me.
If humans can indeed 'conceive' of God (here the word becomes rather suggestive), it seems to me that this argument can go both ways.

[Smoogles]

I respect all of your lovely opinions I really do, I love to see the mind at work and everyone's reasoning behind the theories out there; I can sympathize with the Atheists' point of view towards God and religion and general trust me I had a lot of doubts also. I have questioned even the 'Problem of Evil' in relation to God and found myself stuck. But let's see what the Atheistic side of the problem brings to the table... something more sensible and believeable?

Maybe one has Feuerbachs' point of view or maybe Marx, whoevers it is it has weaknesses worse than the Ontological Argument (Yes, argument not proof). The theory that we are all born to want to be the best of our ability (Feuerbach) and in that be perfect; is solely saying that let's suggest that there was a Robber (considering this is generally seen as wrong, maybe more can sympathize?) which wanted to be the perfect robber and never be caugh and go down in history. Does it make him right that he is robbing others? But who am I to say what is wrong is wrong so lets say that someone morally and ethically incorrect did something to the best of their ability it would there too seem that he is infact doing what Feuerbach suggested but if that were true there would be endless backstabbings and hunger for power, so in a way God (even if he doesn't exist) does help settle things in that one cannot be perfect but one can achieve while keeping in mind one's 'morals' and 'truth'. So the idea of it would be gratifying. This is just a small explanation as to how even Atheist beliefs (If there is such a thing) can be disproven to even exist, and if there wasn't Theist people then why would Atheist even exist into being except in the rational mind? Why not just be a non-believer? There has to be something that strikes a cord with them.

To Charels

This is an argument not proof, the only proof in this world is 2+2=4 because in that you can also do 4-2=2 and it will still be true. You can contradict it and it will still hold. And your "bannana mush" topic just helped me prove my point in that God does exist but maybe not to the extent that is referred to in the Bible but his existence is unquestionable none-the-less. I am just showing an argument up for debate, from my perspective, that shoes the existence of God. Atheism just seems to be the contradiction of what philosophy was created for (To root out the bad answers) unless this argument is proven untrue, then there is no such thing as Atheism.

To jgweed

It is the definition of God, yet to be disproven and it is not a proof rather a , again, definition. Which proves the existence of God and disproves Atheism. Desecrates, the person whom rewrote this and proved it to be logical proved that existence > non-existence because God infact must exist if it can be concieved in thought, if there is something greater than what you can concieve then THAT being must be God.... In the end the most-perfect being one can concieve. And if what you understand exists within your understanding then you should surely understand why God exists and so on and so fourth. It is pointless to refute this argument. Even if I were 'Atheist' I would question the validity of my non-belief. Even though it doesn't go far, it doesn't mention anything about what/how we believe God to be from the bible it still argues that there must be a God.

To Jamesian: (You are a the most educated out of you three, and I respect your insight, thank you for your time to post. :])

It is not proof, rather a valid argument in which cannot be disproven thus making God exist. I have too read Hume (We have not experienced enough in the natural world to come to a conclusion), Kant, and Russell and what they are saying is that there is no "First Cause" (surely you should understand what I mean by that) and we are here merely as rocks, made from earth, we have the understanding and reasoning of rocks, we provide carbon dioxide to plants and plants provide oxygen to us, it seems too perfect don't you think? This is the only planet (that we know of) that con host us, that has a magnetic field that repells meteors, with an Ozone, and we can have the so-called (free will). There must be some being that has set this world up so perfectly.

Yes I 'catch your drift' I can see how you think one may not even be able to concieve a God but you must be able to concieve the most perfect being in theory right? You must be able to picture or at least attempt to picture absolute perfection, that is less perfect than that of the God in Reality. I can see your predicament though, and it is well thought of.

The domino theory my friend is the Cosmological Argument to God's existence.

There, the only thing that is missing from this argument; that makes it so weak is the fact that it doesn't describe the God we want to hear, is he loving? Is he the creator? It falls very short in that it just says God Exists, Atheism to me seems pointless with this out.

All of your comments were very thoughtful by the way. I enjoy a good argument, especially on such an important matter as this.

[NickAdams]

Maybe one has Feuerbachs' point of view or maybe Marx, whoevers it is it has weaknesses worse than the Ontological Argument (Yes, argument not proof). The theory that we are all born to want to be the best of our ability (Feuerbach) and in that be perfect; is solely saying that let's suggest that there was a Robber (considering this is generally seen as wrong, maybe more can sympathize?) which wanted to be the perfect robber and never be caugh and go down in history. Does it make him right that he is robbing others? But who am I to say what is wrong is wrong so lets say that someone morally and ethically incorrect did something to the best of their ability it would there too seem that he is infact doing what Feuerbach suggested but if that were true there would be endless backstabbings and hunger for power, so in a way God (even if he doesn't exist) does help settle things in that one cannot be perfect but one can achieve while keeping in mind one's 'morals' and 'truth'. So the idea of it would be gratifying. This is just a small explanation as to how even Atheist beliefs (If there is such a thing) can be disproven to even exist, and if there wasn't Theist people then why would Atheist even exist into being except in the rational mind? Why not just be a non-believer? There has to be something that strikes a cord with them.

We have a burgler with high work ethics and low social ethics; do these two ethics have to be in agreement? But, Feuerbach says we want to be the best of ability; the abilities that would make someone a promising burgler, could also be utilized to another end.


Why not just be a non-believer?

It would still have a connection to what is not believed. It would be best not to acknowledge anything in that regard. All religious inqueries should be answered with, "I don't think I understand what you mean." Identify with anything but theism. Labels like atheist and non-believer should be applied by theist and believers. Alternately, one not having a belief in god does not exclude the alternatives. Even non-believers believe in something.

In the end it is better to know than to believe, so find me lodging with the former.

[Smoogles]

To Nick Adams
I can see you have done your homework and I can see your point, but there is knowing in the points risen in regards to my last post. And your thoughts on non-believers believe in something is quite true, but then that would contradict itself in some form or another. And that Burgler comment was in reference to someone with bad intentions that will go to any ends to complete a task, which means a perfect someone. But your points do seem to logical in that they have reason to back them up, sadly to say you cannot account for all posters....

Please keep posting your intellectual thoughts on this matter, people of the public, this is a most interesting debate on the reality of God. No one likes a Religious Pragmatists.

[AimusSage]

Link:Hundreds of proofs of God's existence (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

Who could possibly argue against those heaps of proof?

[Smoogles]

That's the last attempt to prove his non-existence? Parody's? Lol, I guess but yea anyone with a REAL opinion on this matter please post your thoughts and your reason behind those thoughts.

[Charles Darnay]

ouch.


Anyway, my biggest problem with your argument right now is your treatment of atheism. As already stated, atheism is a belief that goes beyond "against theism" - this is certainly what the belief is predicated on, but not limited to. My "banana mush" analogy was simply to demonstrate that Anselm's argument (as already stated) proves existence and can be used by any group to argue existence: theists can use it to argue the existence of God and atheists can use it to argue the existence of (whatever is not God). So my question to you (anyone really) would be:

What is the purpose of this argument - what good is it? Surly Anselm was not the first to argue that existence is better than non-existence - this has existed since antiquity - so what can we really take away from it if it seems generally agreed here (by both sides) that the argument does not prove the existence of God (as seen in the Bible)?

[Jeb0092]

All the argument proves is that God is imaginable.

Substitute "FSM" for God in the Argument and I am on Board!

[Smoogles]

To Charels:

I am sorry if I come off as rude toward Atheism, to put it lightly. See the only reason Anselm created this argument was to convert people (Barbarians, and Vikings, etc) into believers. He lived in an age where he and his homeland were under constant attack from outsiders from the borders, he believed that by converting them then they should stop, makes sense right? I mean if you were muslim you wouldn't attack the Taj Mahal. One might ask, what if the Viking asked: "What makes you so sure that, that God is your God and not mine?" and Anselm would reply "Well if your God is so great then why didn't you come up with this first?". And if you were a Barbarian, being a rational being (as all humans are) then you would accept it. So all in all this argument is meant to prove God's existence, nothing more, nothing less. I feel like starting a post on The Problem of Evil, I would probably be put down, and down again. And you should stop your idea of "Bannana Mush", it just proves my point even further right, but you can use it to prove Non-existence is less perfect than existence in future referense like so: It is as if I have the greatest bannana mush in the world and you can have it for 10$ the only problem is it doesn't exist, wouldn't you rather have real bannana mush? I can see how atheist can use it to explain the existence of whatever is not God, but sadly for atheist God is Defined in it therefore he exists whether anyone likes it or not, until proven otherwise of couse. And just fyi, I am undecided if I am Theist or Deist.....

To Jeb:

Go to sleep.

[jgweed]

It certainly seems that the validity of St.Anselm's argument, found in the Proslogicion, can be questioned simply on the philosophical grounds of logic, and that one does not have to be one of those horrible and despicable atheists to do so.

Would one want to turn the coin around by suggesting that to be a non-atheist, one must accept invalid arguments?

[Smoogles]

To jgweed:

Could you please enlighten me on how logically it can be questioned? This is new to me.

[jgweed]

"...the only reason Anselm created this argument was to convert people (Barbarians, and Vikings, etc) into believers."

I am not sure at all that reducing the Archbishop of Canterbury's reason for making the argument to his desire to covert the barbarians to Christianity and to save Merry Old England is either historically accurate, given his dates (c.1033-1109) or sufficient to explain the intent of his writings.He was probably more interested in fusing Aristotelian logic with his own, sometimes Neo-Platonistic, theological beliefs, than leading the troops, as it were, against William the Conquerer.

[Smoogles]

Well forgive me if I am wrong, I believe I got that information from my Professor Dr. Pearson. How dare he lie to me.

[jgweed]

Surely Prof. Pearson was not guilty of propagating such reductionism. Perhaps he said that one of the reasons, or words to that effect, was..... and your class notes do not reflect that.

[Smoogles]

No I remember quite clearly he stated that Anselm created this purely to convince people to his beliefs and conversions. But whatever back to the topic, does anyone else have any views on this matter? I would like to see how different peoples points of view are and reasoning, everyone has unique reasoning, but reasoning nonetheless. :]

[jgweed]

To Smoogles:
I was thinking here primarily of Kant's discussion of the problem with predicating existence, but there are other discussions. Some of the more interesting---if sometimes abstruse--- of these that are readily available can be found at the following:


http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=13

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

[Smoogles]

Very interesting insight of Kant, very insightful thank you for this link. It crossed my mind that maybe some people need God to exist. In that if he didn't what would they look forward to? Becomming new fertilizer? How else would thy explain their purpose and reasons for doing things? And the image of God as a perfect being in himself is the image of what every man desires, in that brings the assumption that religion is a crutch for the weak. But that is Marxs'? (I believe) theory. How ever I have a theory of my own, at the beginning of time every natural phenomenon was explained through the super natural, if you got a fever, you must've done something to deserve it! But then came a man who thought natural explanations for natural phenomenon, and then the world was changed on how it was viewed. Slowly more logical and scientific explanations were comming about then it started competeing with religion in evolution, the big bang, etc. What if, eventually, we come up with more and more explanations to natural phenomenon and thus resulting in no room for religion to take up. Logic and reason being the keys to understanding the universe, and no time for 'beliefs' and 'faith' just cold hard facts..... It's the Smoogle's prediction.

[ShoutGrace]

Do not post unless you have concrete evidence, or if you don't even understand it (good luck because it has been tried and tried again and never contradicted for decades).

I would not leave you to judge whether someone has an understanding of the ontological argument.

Can you explain to me why Hume's refutation of the ontological argument is fallacious?


Also a word to all atheists, this is the perfect argument that proves God's existance... if you're intellectually gifted enough to grasp it then you will understand, but open your eyes...

So . . . Bertrand Russell’s problem was a lack of intelligence?

“It is difficult to overstate the extent to which Russell's thought dominated twentieth century analytic philosophy: virtually every strand in its development either originated with him or was transformed by being transmitted through him. Analytic philosophy itself owes its existence more to Russell than to any other philosopher.” – Nicholas Griffin

“Its enduring value was simply a deeper understanding of the central concepts of mathematics and their basic laws and interrelationships. Their total translatability into just elementary logic and a simple familiar two-place predicate, membership, is of itself a philosophical sensation.” – W.V. Quine on the Principia Mathematica, which Russell coauthored with Alfred North Whitehead.

Your dismissal of atheists as intellectual failures is ridiculous.


Also if you believe that non-existence was greater than existence then you would've woken up today and shot yourself in the head, no questions asked; so everyone seems to agree that Existence>Non-Existence.

This is nonsensical. Deciding whether or not to continue living (which amounts to the most fundamental question of all, according to Camus) involves a number of different factors besides a belief concerning an abstract philosophical notion. In order to show that a person who thought non existence was better than existence is necessarily suicidal, you'd have to show that a person couldn't possibly have any over riding reason for wishing to continue to live despite their intellectual convictions – i.e. a sense of duty towards their family or country, a mild interest in whether their favourite team will win their next match, etc. Not everybody does what they think is best for themselves at every moment.

Why is Gasking's idea of a non existent God being greater than an existent God faulty? Wouldn't it be more difficult to create while not existing, and wouldn't the being capable of doing that be greater than an existent God?


If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?


The first is profound, the second seems to be based on ignorance.



And if any atheist... I mean ANY atheist would like to debate me please disprove the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments and then we may speak.


But disproof is not necessary. Criticism is sufficient – your case for God’s existence depends on such arguments. As long as there are reasonable naturalistic explanations for the things we encounter in this world, atheists will continue to be justified in their viewpoint.



Now please show me what disproves God.

The atheist is not required to disprove God – atheism originated as a reaction against theism. Why would one postulate that there were no gods if the concept of gods didn’t already exist?

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” - Bertrand Russell

It is very difficult (though obviously not impossible) to prove a negative. We cannot say with certainty that there is no teapot so small that it cannot be detected - but we have just as little reason to believe that, the atheist would say, as we have to believe in gods. The burden of proof weighs upon the one who shifts away from skepticism (the default position), because at that point a positive knowledge claim is being introduced.

[Remarkable]

What is perfect,in the end?Isn't it just the imagination of human mind:a value set from society?When you say God is perfect,what do you mean by it?

Right now I wouldn't like to go into discussions of God's moral,since it is,in the end,the institution's moral(the church or the mosque or every other kind of religious organisation).However,I would like to say that I find Anselm’s ontological argument simply a hypothesis (not even a theory because for a hypothesis to qualify as a theory,it has to be proven by at least a couple of experiments).

I find your post a very harsh one,Smoogles.You seem to have decided what is right and what is wrong while none of us ever knows it.You seem to have made up your mind that God exist and that this “theory” of yours is right.Your invitation isn’t even a challenge;more like an attack on all non-believers.Because,you have to understand,Atheists do not follow a doctrine.Atheists are not organized.Atheist are people that find religious doctrines untrue and choose not to believe them.Sometimes they attack,but they have plenty of respect of everything surrounding religion.

As for the hypothesis you say the whole world hasn’t contradicted,I think that some of my pre-writers made the point.Since God exist,then Santa Clause,fairies,trolls,giants,Cinderella,Snow-White,Harry Potter,Frodo,flying carpets,zombies and mermaids all exist.I might find a pretty small fairy with dusty wings,little feet and a lovely red head the most perfect and adorable being in the whole universe:does that make it God?

Today believers have a more original way for expressing their belief.When attacked,they claim that this is their choice and no one has the moral or natural right to judge them.Then again,it’s not about being judged,it’s about feeling good,isn’t it?…

[jgweed]

"...at the beginning of time every natural phenomenon was explained through the super natural, if you got a fever, you must've done something to deserve it! But then came a man who thought natural explanations for natural phenomenon, and then the world was changed on how it was viewed."

In this respect, the difference between the Pre-sokratic philosophers and their predecessors seems pertinent; philosophy began with their rejection of the varied traditional traditional mythological explanations for the phenomena they saw around them in favour of more rational explanations in which events could be explained by natural causes and the workings of a set of unified laws instead of the interventions of gods.

[NickAdams]

To Nick Adams
I can see you have done your homework and I can see your point, but there is knowing in the points risen in regards to my last post. And your thoughts on non-believers believe in something is quite true, but then that would contradict itself in some form or another. And that Burgler comment was in reference to someone with bad intentions that will go to any ends to complete a task, which means a perfect someone. But your points do seem to logical in that they have reason to back them up, sadly to say you cannot account for all posters....

Please keep posting your intellectual thoughts on this matter, people of the public, this is a most interesting debate on the reality of God. No one likes a Religious Pragmatists.

Would it be safe to say that we begin our lives neutral and that the introduction of theism is what defines us in this subject, either by embrace or repulsion?


And the image of God as a perfect being in himself is the image of what every man desires, in that brings the assumption that religion is a crutch for the weak.

This is a very interesting subject; you should read Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, if you havn't already.



The atheist is not required to disprove God.

I'd like to support this with Russell's teapot:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[Hypercrit Htd]

Religious people knows because
1. they read in book
2. they received message from earth or sky using religious methods
3. they can heal the sick because God taught them how

Nonreligious people disbelieve because
1. they read in book
2. they receive message from earth or sky using scientific methods
3. they can heal the sick because science taught them how

[Forelan]

I found this thread through a random google search, and I made an account just to post this.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

-Dr. Carl Sagan

Smoogle, why do you care so much? What would it prove to find god?

[NickAdams]

I found this thread through a random google search, and I made an account just to post this.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

-Dr. Carl Sagan

Smoogle, why do you care so much? What would it prove to find god?

It would prove that God exists.


Religious people knows because
1. they read in book
2. they received message from earth or sky using religious methods
3. they can heal the sick because God taught them how

Nonreligious people disbelieve because
1. they read in book
2. they receive message from earth or sky using scientific methods
3. they can heal the sick because science taught them how

2. A message is sent from a concious effort to communicate, which could be applied to religion, but I don't think that nature is sending smoke signals to man. Even if you were to liking the earth to the body where signs of pathology manifest, it would be accurate to say reactions and not messages etc.

3. In the literal sense, a professor teaches medicine; a science that was learned through trial and error was developed and then passed down for expansion and correction. God gave man religious doctrine, not in all cases, which also went through expansion and "correction", again not in all cases. Man taught himself to heal.

A man, or woman, is ill and they are rushed to the hospital. The diagnosis is made and the illness is minor. Pills are subscribed for pain, but only rest is needed to restore theur health. Time goes by and the family prays daily. Then comes the day of full recovery, as expected; the religious may, I don't want to generalize too much, attribute it to prayer and the nonreligious ascribe it to the bodys immune system. We can not split how one approaches health as religious and non-religious, because there are far to many people paying their hospital bills aswell as their church donations and others who become religious during times of crisis.

This goes to the survival instinct, where all options become acceptable that were once personally restricted. When it comes to religion as tradition, you can include science, I wonder what you guys think about it in relation to cognitive dissonance.

[kevinthediltz]

All that thesis proves is that god is the greatest thing we can IMAGINE! if we think of something more it is only our minds.
I think god is a tool that some of us use to keep us in line and give us hope.
And i think you should either have faith or not and KEEP QUIET about it!
arguing does nothing.
And yes i know that was somewhat hypocritical.

[Smoogles]

To ShoutGrace:

Hume didn't disprove anything, he just goes on to say that he believes that it is just "fiddleing with names and definitions" but it is proof that even atheists whom have the perfect argument still choose to believe that God doesn't exist. We gave you proof within the english language and reason, now what else do you want? Unless you are backing what you are saying by sheer belief because you are stubborn...

I stated if YOU were intellectually gifted enough, meaning everyone. And I respect Russell's opinion and he believes that we must "Stand on our own two feet" as man, but I recall a very very famous american philosopher who stated "I Would rather use a crutch that fall flat on my face". Meaning that maybe people do need religion, look it up. And Russell became a theist when he realized that this was a sound argument. But atheist again when he believed there to be faults. He was also suicidal and depressed when he would write on the beach, so there isn't much this individual is willing to open his mind to in terms of eternal happiness it seems.

Ok so what you're saying about Non-existence>Existence is that if I said "I have the most cheesy, melt in your mouth, hand tossed, crunchy breaded pizza that costs 10$ but all that's wrong with it is that It doesn't exist" would you buy it or would you rather have a real pizza? Exactly, read up on desacrates.

And about my rock comment it was based on Palmer readings, where it speaks of a watch and a rock in which the watch is too intracite to be made by the earth whereas the rock isn't, so in turn human beings are too intracite to be just here made by a couple of bacteria evolved there had to be some divine intervention right?

Well then if you are denying the existence of God still after this is shown to you; then you need to recheck yourself on your viewpoints, in that do you really want to just disbelieve in God or are you a logical atheist whom accepts when the very definition of God is layed out in front of you? Other than that you in turn are just being stubborn? Unless I am being stubborn lol.

To Remarkable:

Perfection in the eyes of Feuerbach is truth, widsom, beauty, virtue, and etc. That is what I am basing this off of... yes an atheists point of view on perfection.

I am sorry about the original post sounding harsh, it's just that when I wrote it I was blinded by a temporary fury that Atheist still defy the existence of God even though they got what they asked for, the perfect argument that God exists and they still don't believe in him.... And yea you can do whatever makes you feel good, but if it comes down to that look up Pascals wager and then believing in god will make you feel even better... lol

In General:

I would like to bring to the table another way in which this argument is immune to Kant's criticism about linguistic weakness, or logical error. Anselms argument has proven tremendously versatile and elastic:

Norman Malcom (American philosopher)

1.) If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible (because by definition God is eternal and independent so he cannot come into being or be caused to come into being).

2.) If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary (because he cannot have come into existence [for the reasons given above] or cease to exist, for if he did, he would be limited, and by definition God is unlimited).

3.) Hence, either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

4.) If God's existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self-contradictory.

5.) The concept of God is not self-contradictory.

6.) Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

7.) Therefore, God exists.

[Smoogles]

I found this thread through a random google search, and I made an account just to post this.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

-Dr. Carl Sagan

Smoogle, why do you care so much? What would it prove to find god?

Possibly another persons' soul saved, who doesn't care about another person in some fashion? And it is the sense that if I were wrong about a topic I would like to be pointed out for that fault; rather than believe something that is false, or not believe something that is true.

[Beautifull]

i've heard this story, and i'll make it short:

an athiest professor taught a class that lots of college students were required to take, even christians.

he would ask the class at the end of every semester,"does anybosy in here still believe in god? stand if you do."

when he started off teaching, there were some who would stand.

then he would say,"if there is a god, then i would drop this piece of chalk and it will not shatter."

and every semester, he would drop it and it would shatter.

years by with no one standing up.

one year, a strong believer of God took the class. his friends and comerades told him about the professor, but there was noi way he could escape taking the class. he needed it to graduate.

so, like every semester, the professor asked the same question." does any body still believe in God?stand if you do."

the student stood, shocking everyone in the classroom.

the profeesor laughed at him, and replied,"you believe in God?"

the student answered,"yes, i do."

the professor laughed once more and said "you fool! if there was a god, then i would drop this piece of chalk and it would not shatter."

even as the professr spoke, the piece of chalk slipped from his fingers, rolled down his cuff, avoided his pockets, and past the fold at the bottom of his pants, and rolled, unbroken, on the floor.

the professor looked at horror at the piece of chalk, then at the student, then ran out the room.
__________________________________________________ _____

i was amazed the first time i read this story.
is anyone else?

[dramasnot6]

I found something in my PSYCH101 textbook similar to the GUITAR MASTERY "argument" I thought some of you may enjoy ;)


God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Ray Charles is God

[jaywalker]

I still don't believe.

[Chester]

I dreamed about Ray Charles last night,
and he could see just fine...

[Ohmyscience]

I would like to jump in here and just to point out that the OP should clarify his definition of God before arguing for his existance. When I hear God I think of a personal God and a Christian one for that matter. Then there are those who are deist in which case its impossible to disprove that gods existance. It easy to prove that a personal is improbable. There just isn't enough empirical evidence to support it. A belief in a personal God requires the universe to an open system. I don't there has been any scientific testing that has proved relativity or thermodynamics flawed. They might be incomplete theories but has not been disproved yet. The fact that people need a purpose is not evidence for God but that is proves we are genetically inclined to be comfortable.

[Smoogles]

The definition of God: "God is that than which nothing greater can be convieved."

Now any real arguments to help clarify things? I seem to be lost in a pile of B.S. :sick: .

[JCamilo]

No real Argument, it really seems that Santa Claus Exists.

[NickAdams]

The definition of God: "God is that than which nothing greater can be convieved."

This definition of God is not absolute, which is confirmed by the second part of the argument:



2. If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.

The use of the word "if" makes the argument circumstantial, leaving the remainder of the argument valid only if the first can be confirmed. You would have to justify and replace "if" with "since".

Others have said that by exchanging "God" with any other noun would show that the frame works with or without God, but because of "if", I disagree. It doesn't work with or without.

If it were to succeed in defining God as that than which nothing greater can be convieved, or symbolizing: that than which nothing greater can be convieved as God; than God becomes nothing more than a word to explain the abstract concept "that than which nothing greater can be convieved".
Climbing a mountain would become God; sky-diving would become God; an orgasm would become God; a new born would become God etc. It would be hyperbole. Instead of thinking the real ambitious, like Einstein, would be said to be Godding.

[jgweed]

There is also the objection to the ontological argument that it leaps from one about having a conception (of) to one about affirming an existent; that is to say, from a definition of god to its actual existence. One might argue that there is, in a sense, a circularity in the proof.
As mentioned earlier, it also depends on an unstated premise that "to exist" is more perfect than "not to exist" without any substantive warrant for this assumption.

Another perspective might be that "is" is used in different ways in many places in the argument; it is used as a logical copula asserting identity, and as an existential quantifier asserting---in a way---that such an entity actually exists (either in the mind or in the universe).[But it cannot be in the universe since that is what is to be proven, so it must be in the mind, and so forth...].

As I was refreshing my mind about the argument before posting some links with philosophical discussions about the argument earlier in the thread, it did seem striking that most philosophers understand or "sense" the argument is not correct, no one has been able to absolutely refute it and the proof continues to be debated in the journals.

Naturally, the best refutation is to say that it presupposes human conceptions, meanings, and definitions are at all applicable to god. Whereof one cannot speak......

[Smoogles]

The use of the word "if" makes the argument circumstantial, leaving the remainder of the argument valid only if the first can be confirmed. You would have to justify and replace "if" with "since".


If it were to succeed in defining God as that than which nothing greater can be convieved, or symbolizing: that than which nothing greater can be convieved as God; than God becomes nothing more than a word to explain the abstract concept "that than which nothing greater can be convieved".
Climbing a mountain would become God; sky-diving would become God; an orgasm would become God; a new born would become God etc. It would be hyperbole. Instead of thinking the real ambitious, like Einstein, would be said to be Godding.


Thank you NickAdams for replying with reason behind your opinion. You're a winner in my book :) .

But what Anselm means by "nothing greater" is the most perfect being. Surely you can imagine the most perfect being right? Not the greatest thing emotion wise, or any other context of the word. And the most perfect being you can imagine inside your head is less perfect than the one in reality. Palmer readings, help a lot in this clarification.

And to replace God with any noun, that itself would be God just with a different name. That concept is silly, just replacing the name of God with something else makes that noun God just in a different word.

Thirdly the use of 'if' is to make a point. As in 'If' 2+2=4 then 2-2=0 (Which we know to be certain in our minds, thanks to Desacartes) Thank you for your insight, any other points would be greatly appreciated. Btw am I the only one here on the side of God? I guess that's what I get for putting Atheists please read :bawling: .

[Smoogles]

As I was refreshing my mind about the argument before posting some links with philosophical discussions about the argument earlier in the thread, it did seem striking that most philosophers understand or "sense" the argument is not correct, no one has been able to absolutely refute it and the proof continues to be debated in the journals.

Naturally, the best refutation is to say that it presupposes human conceptions, meanings, and definitions are at all applicable to god. Whereof one cannot speak......


Thank you jgweed, that's what I was going for. I would like to see how Athests, or just Non-believers take this into account. Proving this wrong is just silly it's the use of the English language in perfection to prove the existence of an abstract being. People are not satisfied with this remark (including myself) it doesn't do anything but arrange the english language to make God possible. It is impossible to disprove this argument it is too versatile and elastic. I just brought this up to see how people come to the knowledge that something defined is not true from my philosophy class we had to take account for peoples opinions on this matter and see if this most unsatisfying definition could be settled in the mind of an Atheist or non-believers alike. I chose this forum because, well it had "Ask here" all over it. And I really do appreciate everyone who participated in this debate, but anyone who thinks they can disprove it is welcome to post but I will not type out long arguments to oppose your view anymore. My next thread will be something on Truth and Reason, Plato and Descartes will be the head haunchos. Please don't be afraid to post.

[kilted exile]

I have another issue with the argument:

God is supposedly omnipotent, limitless etc. Surely the idea of God being the greatest thing that we could concieve is in effect putting a limiting framework around the guy?

[jgweed]

"Btw am I the only one here on the side of God? I guess that's what I get for putting Atheists please read."

I hope you are not supposing my arguments---and perhaps other's here presented--- from strictly philosophical grounds, indicates in any way whether or not I or anyone else belong in fact in the camp of "atheists." This seems as unphilolosophical as it is unwarranted.

[Comment:Since the question in the original post is in a "philosophical" and not a "religious" forum, one would expect the arguments either way to have a philosophical ground, without the digression to religious dogma or personal beliefs].

First, to subject an argument to skeptical criticism is to do just that, to put the argument itself to the test to determine if it requires assent. From a philosophical view, the argument is questionable, to put it mildly.

Second, it is certainly possible, on the grounds I mentioned last, for a serious Christian to reject the entire argument as anthropomorphizing the ineffable by defining god in a certain meaningful (to us) way.
Cheers,
John

[JCamilo]

Quite frankly, I haven't see you (smoogles) argument against anyone answer except gloating for putting "atheists"in danger. Lots of people here pointed what is falacious about this argument...

either that you only proved that you can imagine something as great, so it is a testimony of human's imagination power, in other words, Imaginary beings also exist altough not real.

The circular logic of this argument, since it must accepts that god's exist in first place (not to mention that God is the greatest thing, I can imagine a decrepit ridiculous god that was overuled by far great humans too).

The notion that Imaginate God may be even blasphemous for religious people, so we can not even imagine it as the first line asks us too.

The idea that your concept of God is vague thus this logic can apply to Loki, Thor and Odin or Batman, after all Batman can be most perfect being one individual can imagine.

Or even the silly idea that one argument alone is not enough evidence of existence, just a cleaver (not so cleaver in this case) rethorical construction.

Either way, you just come with something old and old this stills.

[Smoogles]

I am sorry you see it that way JCamilo. You seem to be more intellectually gifted than me.

[Beautifull]

^ Wait, so the idea was that God would 'prove' himself by defying the laws of physics...and did not do so? I'm not sure what's so amazing about this.

EDIT:
But, to be fair, this professor sounds rather too silly for me to believe this actually happened.

hey..i just heard this was true...it's kinda weird that the one time that a real christian stands to defy the athiest professor, he goes and drops the chalk...and he never did any of the other time he used it as an example!...that's all i'm saying!

i'm not persuading, but more of...putting it out there! :p

[Hypercrit Htd]

It would prove that God exists.



2. A message is sent from a concious effort to communicate, which could be applied to religion, but I don't think that nature is sending smoke signals to man. Even if you were to liking the earth to the body where signs of pathology manifest, it would be accurate to say reactions and not messages etc.

3. In the literal sense, a professor teaches medicine; a science that was learned through trial and error was developed and then passed down for expansion and correction. God gave man religious doctrine, not in all cases, which also went through expansion and "correction", again not in all cases. Man taught himself to heal.

A man, or woman, is ill and they are rushed to the hospital. The diagnosis is made and the illness is minor. Pills are subscribed for pain, but only rest is needed to restore theur health. Time goes by and the family prays daily. Then comes the day of full recovery, as expected; the religious may, I don't want to generalize too much, attribute it to prayer and the nonreligious ascribe it to the bodys immune system. We can not split how one approaches health as religious and non-religious, because there are far to many people paying their hospital bills aswell as their church donations and others who become religious during times of crisis.

This goes to the survival instinct, where all options become acceptable that were once personally restricted. When it comes to religion as tradition, you can include science, I wonder what you guys think about it in relation to cognitive dissonance.

Nature talk loud and clear. Ask anyone living near volcano.Please not take my message about healing as being affirmation of Chrisitian Science letting children die. My statement meant to acknowledge that humans have power but they must be as powerful as Jesus if they want to have use of it but who could know if they were like that? Without doubt, they would need him to come knocking at their door and saying to them in clear words how they had power to heal or else they could be in danger of damnation for trying to play God.

[NickAdams]

Thank you NickAdams for replying with reason behind your opinion. You're a winner in my book :) .

But what Anselm means by "nothing greater" is the most perfect being. Surely you can imagine the most perfect being right? Not the greatest thing emotion wise, or any other context of the word. And the most perfect being you can imagine inside your head is less perfect than the one in reality. Palmer readings, help a lot in this clarification.

And to replace God with any noun, that itself would be God just with a different name. That concept is silly, just replacing the name of God with something else makes that noun God just in a different word.

Thirdly the use of 'if' is to make a point. As in 'If' 2+2=4 then 2-2=0 (Which we know to be certain in our minds, thanks to Desacartes) Thank you for your insight, any other points would be greatly appreciated. Btw am I the only one here on the side of God? I guess that's what I get for putting Atheists please read :bawling: .

I don't have to imagine the most perfect being, becuase she already exist and her name is Natalie Portman.;)

No being greater = the most perfect being, but nothing greater = the most perfect thing.

If God is that than which no being greater can be conceived, is a more developed God the true God? What establishes greater development? Is a God of many attributes, but death falls upon those who hear or see Him the true God; or is a God of many attributes and a physical form visible to man the true God?

I was saying the word God could be assigned to anything the is the greatest thing a person could imagine and that with the trend of knowledge the term would be used as hyperbole.

2+2=4 only if we are using 2 to represent two units, which might be the greatest one can imagine, but does the concept work better in the material world?

Is there a God for everyone? The material world is the source of our imagination, so if we can imagine God does it mean we must have seen him in the world?

I am godless and soulless.





Surely the idea of God being the greatest thing that we could concieve is in effect putting a limiting framework around the guy?

:nod: :lol:


Nature talk loud and clear. Ask anyone living near volcano.Please not take my message about healing as being affirmation of Chrisitian Science letting children die. My statement meant to acknowledge that humans have power but they must be as powerful as Jesus if they want to have use of it but who could know if they were like that? Without doubt, they would need him to come knocking at their door and saying to them in clear words how they had power to heal or else they could be in danger of damnation for trying to play God.

Are these people living near the volcano part of the variety that believe a spirit lives in the volcano? Personification doesn't equal true talk.

[jgweed]

I have a conception of god being that which no greater can be conceived; therefore my conception of god must include his existence. But this is only talking about a particular conception, and if anything exists, it is that conception. We can conceive of many things and define them so as to include their existence, but that does not mean that these things (say unicorns) have any real and independent existence outside of my thinking about them.

[NickAdams]

I have a conception of god being that which no greater can be conceived; therefore my conception of god must include his existence. But this is only talking about a particular conception, and if anything exists, it is that conception. We can conceive of many things and define them so as to include their existence, but that does not mean that these things (say unicorns) have any real and independent existence outside of my thinking about them.

I have little imagination; could you write a book, so I might then worship you conception?;)

[Hypercrit Htd]

About cognitive dissonance

it has existed on both sides:

Intellectuals who've ignored new theories in favor of what they studied over long period of time.

Religious people who refused to advance their knowledge in favor of remaining in 'comfort zones'.


"What in the Classical period, was offered as the medical knowledge of diseases of the mind occupied a very small place in the knowledge of madness...

M.Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge

[NickAdams]

About cognitive dissonance

it has existed on both sides:

Intellectuals who've ignored new theories in favor of what they studied over long period of time.

Religious people who refused to advance their knowledge in favor of remaining in 'comfort zones'.


"What in the Classical period, was offered as the medical knowledge of diseases of the mind occupied a very small place in the knowledge of madness...

M.Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge

I can't argue with that.

[jaywalker]

How does one 'suppose an argument ?

[blazeofglory]

This argument is never ending!

[RichardHresko]

This is a repost of a post I did just a little while ago I would like to see what people think, how they could prove this wrong logically and with reason. Do not post unless you have concrete evidence, or if you don't even understand it (good luck because it has been tried and tried again and never contradicted for decades).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also a word to all atheists, this is the perfect argument that proves God's existance... if you're intellectually gifted enough to grasp it then you will understand, but open your eyes...

Anselm’s ontological argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum, which means that it takes a hypothesis, shows that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications, and so concludes that the hypothesis is false.

In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist. Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.

If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist.

The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God. There is, because it’s possible to imagine a God that does exist. There isn’t, because it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.

A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; God exists.

A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2) is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being. (3) follows simply from (1) and (2).

Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God.

(5) follows simply from (3) and (4).

Also if you believe that non-existence was greater than existence then you would've woken up today and shot yourself in the head, no questions asked; so everyone seems to agree that Existence>Non-Existence.

No one can disprove this because it is a Definition of what God is, not an observation or theory, just concrete knowledge. If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?

And if any atheist... I mean ANY atheist would like to debate me please disprove the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments and then we may speak. If you have nothing but beliefs as so many christians seem to then please do not bother with my time if you have nothing other than a good definition and concrete evidence. Because so much of Atheism seems to be based on belief also, and here are some arguments that prove God's existence. Now please show me what disproves God.

This proves that there is a God and nothing further, it is satisfying in that aspect but dissatisfying in that it gives no further detail into how God 'is', it doesn't take any "chances".

Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 2 addresses this argument. Without going into what many would consider a tedious rehashing of medieval philosophy the problem with the argument is that God's essence is existence, a statement about God existing is akin to stating that a bachelor is unmarried. To say that a bachelor is married and that God does not exist is a logical fallacy because it contradicts the definition (essence), however it does not prove that there is either a bachelor or that there is a god. The best one can say is that if something does not exist then it can't be god.

Kant approached this same question from a different angle, which I believe was handled in an earlier post.

[blp]

I can see how you think one may not even be able to concieve a God but you must be able to concieve the most perfect being in theory right? You must be able to picture or at least attempt to picture absolute perfection, that is less perfect than that of the God in Reality.

This is exactly the problem. I can't conceive of a perfect being and I don't believe anyone can. As, I believe, Kant's antinomies show, I believe (still haven't got to this yet, so apologies if I get it a bit wrong) all attempts to imagine absolutes such as an all-powerful creator or the limits of the universe lead us into logical contradictions. If God is the First Cause, what caused him? If he's all-powerful, can he make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? and so on.

But even without logic, it's pretty difficult to imagine absolute perfection because a) the whole idea's subjective and b) even my own conception of it is likely to change over time. Of course you could imagine that there is something or someone absolutely perfect, we're just not able to conceive of it while we're caught up in the illusory world of multiple imperfect possibilities and relativism. Yeah, well, maybe, but your argument and Anselm's depend on one being able to conceive of this absolute perfection.

[NikolaiI]

Anselm's idea is a simple one, but the idea of God is perfect and complete and needs no addition. Anselm was simply trying to share his faith, with arguments if that would work.

blp God is the infinite. The word God doesn't mean anything, God is infinite, but we see Him through our filters. He has unlimited transcendental names. He is the most worshipful and loveable object or being-- obviously He is not tyrannical for we are not forced to love Him, but we are allowed to use our own understanding in this material universe to come to understanding about Him.

[jgweed]

One might argue that much of our knowledge of the Godhood, outside of direct revelation or authority, is largely apophatic (the via negativa); thus, humans cannot understand what absolute perfection might be except by positing antitheses of common experience. The statement "God is infinite", is thus turned into" God is not-finite", since infinite life is meaningless to a selfhood knowing only life in time.

Now, doesn't Anselm's argument rest on the assumption that our conception of God (as that which nothing greater can be conceived) is positive? If our conception of God turns out to be one of negations, and God's nature is one of ineffability, then isn't his argument seriously weakened?

[blp]

Anselm's idea is a simple one, but the idea of God is perfect and complete and needs no addition. Anselm was simply trying to share his faith, with arguments if that would work.

blp God is the infinite. The word God doesn't mean anything, God is infinite, but we see Him through our filters. He has unlimited transcendental names. He is the most worshipful and loveable object or being-- obviously He is not tyrannical for we are not forced to love Him, but we are allowed to use our own understanding in this material universe to come to understanding about Him.

Except that we don't have any reason to even start the process.

It's less hard to imagine an infinitely lovable being than it is to imagine a 'perfect' one. The two things are rather different. The argument being presented and discussed here is about a perfect being. That's what I was responding to. Does this idea of an infinitely lovable being have any relevance to the alleged proof being discussed here? I can't see that it does. With all due respect, you're off topic.

[blazeofglory]

No arguments or discussions can substantiate or can prove whether God exists or not. Go logically and leaf through all scriptural or sacred texts, or any other spiritual writings. If you want to realize it or god's existence you should take a different course.

God, if he really exists, is not describable or he is something that can not be manifested through your words. God is something which is known through deep meditations and living the course of life that has little to do with your intellectualism.

God is something that can not be theorized or framed or restrained. God is something that can be wordlessly and speechlessly understood.

[RichardHresko]

One might argue that much of our knowledge of the Godhood, outside of direct revelation or authority, is largely apophatic (the via negativa); thus, humans cannot understand what absolute perfection might be except by positing antitheses of common experience. The statement "God is infinite", is thus turned into" God is not-finite", since infinite life is meaningless to a selfhood knowing only life in time.

Now, doesn't Anselm's argument rest on the assumption that our conception of God (as that which nothing greater can be conceived) is positive? If our conception of God turns out to be one of negations, and God's nature is one of ineffability, then isn't his argument seriously weakened?

Excellent point. If god cannot be grasped intelligibly then he can not be "that which nothing greater can be conceived" since he is no longer part of the set of conceived objects.

[NikolaiI]

Except that we don't have any reason to even start the process.

It's less hard to imagine an infinitely lovable being than it is to imagine a 'perfect' one. The two things are rather different. The argument being presented and discussed here is about a perfect being. That's what I was responding to. Does this idea of an infinitely lovable being have any relevance to the alleged proof being discussed here? I can't see that it does. With all due respect, you're off topic.

Infinite means perfect and supreme-- God has to a supreme degree the positive qualities of wealth, beauty, power, knowledge, renunciation, and so He is perfect as well as all-attractive. But that, you are right, is beside the point in a way. The reason it is relevant is so we can at least make progress and learn from each other. If we're not allowed to discuss God at all when we're inquiring about Him, then we would never make progress. I mean my idea of God is obviously not the same as everyone else's. And it also seems reasonable to assume loveable is one of the perfections God has, that Anselm would include, if not necessarily in that terminology.

The reason to start the process is simply this-- if God exists, then it changes everything. If God is the Source, the Creation-force behind reality, then things are quite different from any other paradigm. There exists both reality and higher reality. If there exists reality and higher reality, what suffering could there possibly exist? Anselm had his own particular paradigm which was made up from his surroundings and experiences, and he tried to express what he felt was important, God and faith, in the best way that he could.

[blp]

The reason to start the process is simply this-- if God exists, then it changes everything. If God is the Source, the Creation-force behind reality, then things are quite different from any other paradigm. There exists both reality and higher reality. If there exists reality and higher reality, what suffering could there possibly exist? Anselm had his own particular paradigm which was made up from his surroundings and experiences, and he tried to express what he felt was important, God and faith, in the best way that he could.

What suffering could possibly exist? I think we really do risk going off topic here, so I'll just refer you to this (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26883). I know you've read it before and I'm aware of the way your faith has changed thanks to the influence of Dawkins, but still, can't help feeling that Hitchens' point about religion and suffering still seems pertinent. The point is, in looking for a higher reality as a way of avoiding or negating suffering, we neglect so much suffering here in our 'lower' reality. And, frequently, religion even becomes collusive in that suffering.

Anyway, apologies all, this is really not what this thread is about.

[NikolaiI]

What suffering could possibly exist? I think we really do risk going off topic here, so I'll just refer you to this (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26883). I know you've read it before and I'm aware of the way your faith has changed thanks to the influence of Dawkins, but still, can't help feeling that Hitchens' point about religion and suffering still seems pertinent. The point is, in looking for a higher reality as a way of avoiding or negating suffering, we neglect so much suffering here in our 'lower' reality. And, frequently, religion even becomes collusive in that suffering.

Anyway, apologies all, this is really not what this thread is about.

Religion of course has caused suffering. When I said, "What suffering could there be?" please ignore it. Perhaps I was under the impression that every person exists as Brahman, and that at some point, there will be no more people who are not fully enlightened in the self. I was under the impression that the self is not destroyed but wind or fire or cut by blades. This is the idea that even many Christians and even Hindus share.

I do not mean to belittle anyone's suffering, or say that it is belittled too much. I am not considering anyone's suffering in saying this.

In fact, I am the person here who is saying that there is light at the end of the tunel. Actually, there is; actually what the different religions say about the different states of consciousness are valid. There are many different realms of consciousness, and they can be traveled with meditation. One of these states of consciousness is knowledge, or peace, or wisdom; where one is not suffering because of any affliction. Or if one is suffering, one bears it quickly. If we are suffering beyond any possible means of coping, then we must bear that too.

But if a person-- a subject-- forgets his natural, pure consciousness position; there is still hope because when the subject ceases to exist, there is nirvana.

These are just ideas, I know they are not speaking of Anselm's argument or even of God now. God is related to these ideas because He is the Supreme. Of everything we can discuss, of all that is possible to know, it was all created by this God. This means that there is reality, everything we can know, but beyond tha there is God, whom in this life, we cannot fully know. So there are two places-- here, and higher reality. What I am saying then is that we are not pulled by anything but the higher reality. People say sometimes that we are still on the path of evolution; being pulled toward a perfecting of the human form, body, mind and spirit-- being pulled towards a reconciliation of the shattered ego of the Oversoul.

[blazeofglory]

we are overtly obsessed with this God thing, but we are really far and in fact we have furthered ourselves from realizing god. Your logicality does not take you where God is.

If you really want to be close to God, take a different course. Do now follow the usual course of arguing and seeking for evidence both logical and scientific.
Your richness or mastery over intellectual persuasions does not take you where god resides.

God realization is understanding his creation. God loves his creation the way we love our children. One of the paths to God realization is by living through humility, and humility and egos do not go together, and both are mutually exclusive things and one opposes the other, a kind of feudalism exists between the two.

Try to understand everything in nature or that enables your self to feel at one with the universe.

You must feel something when you are in a jungle when you watches a dreadful beast. But you are not different with all your knowledge and riches than the tiger without all of these things.

God is manifested through his creation and if you really want to see God in all sizes and shapes see just his manifestations into all these entities in nature . There is no any other thing on this planet than his own manifestation.