God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

[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!

[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 .

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?

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.