God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

[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...tological.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/on...cal-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.