God's Argument! (Atheist Please Read)

[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. 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. 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.