God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

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.

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?

"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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

^ 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoogles

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypercrit Htd

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

I can't argue with that.

How does one 'suppose an argument ?

This argument is never ending!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoogles

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

What suffering could possibly exist? I think we really do risk going off topic here, so I'll just refer you to this. 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.

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.