God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

[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. .

[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 .

[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.