Shake
Senior Member
A Picasmo that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.
A debate that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.
A Picasmo that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.
A debate that Wiploc won over Picasmo in reality...A Picasmo that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.
A debate that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.
Pizza is the most excellent thing ever.
The only thing excellenter than pizza is pizza that is in my hand right now.
Therefore, there is pizza in my hand right now.
If you say pizza is not necessary, you are wrong. The excellence of pizza makes it necessary. Didn't you read my previous argument?
To begin this conversation, I will lay out what Wiploc and I have have come to agree on in our discussion:
1. Greatness is not a quality in and of itself but the sum of many different qualities that deem a thing as great or greater than something else
2. Existence in reality does not make qualities greater as opposed to only existing in the understanding
3. There must be some degree of objectivity to the term 'greatness', or else there could be no true way to deem something as greater than another thing
4. We are not speaking of 'greatness' as in size or quantity (not specifically, at least). We are referrng to greatness in a way that is similar to the title 'Great' in the name 'Alexander the Great'
Please comment on whether you agree with our baseline understanding of greatness or add upon our baseline understanding if you agree with it.
Step 2 strikes me as sleight of mouth. If a god exists only in understanding, then it does not exist. It doesn't exist in understanding; rather it does not exist.
Now a days, this is all known to theologians as perfect being theology. We exchange such words as greatest for perfect. That is, not lacking in any powerful ability or attribute to its greatest possible extent. This has several major problems. The well known problem of contradictions that occur when examining how these perfect abilities interact with each other. And the fact that the Universe does not resemble a Universe with an all powerful, unlimited, perfectly good God. The Universe in fact most resembles a universe with no God at all. Trying to square all of this with the nature of the Universe becomes a problem of saving appearances for perfect being theologians.
Step 2 strikes me as sleight of mouth. If a god exists only in understanding, then it does not exist. It doesn't exist in understanding; rather it does not exist.
Personally, I feel that my understanding is very real and that the ideas I have do exist. Therefore, I think it's not absurd to say that I have an idea of God and that this God does exist in my understanding.
EB
And this is the weakness of the argument. "Perfection" and "Greatness" are a set of jumbled scribbles we call letters. Scribbles have absolutely no value in the universe. Trying to argue whether a bunch of scribbles can have any implications on the universe is utter nonsense. Scribbles put together in science have viability because they can predict outcomes and indicate at least a minor understanding of a behavior of the universe.Now a days, this is all known to theologians as perfect being theology. We exchange such words as greatest for perfect. That is, not lacking in any powerful ability or attribute to its greatest possible extent. This has several major problems. The well known problem of contradictions that occur when examining how these perfect abilities interact with each other. And the fact that the Universe does not resemble a Universe with an all powerful, unlimited, perfectly good God. The Universe in fact most resembles a universe with no God at all. Trying to square all of this with the nature of the Universe becomes a problem of saving appearances for perfect being theologians.
Perfection is not necessarily greatness.
Perfection necessarily has a moral value, implying a subjective perspective.
Personally, I feel that my understanding is very real and that the ideas I have do exist. Therefore, I think it's not absurd to say that I have an idea of God and that this God does exist in my understanding.
EB
You (i.e., we) have the understanding of an ant, which places Anselm's God at about the level of a cockroach.
And this is the weakness of the argument. "Perfection" and "Greatness" are a set of jumbled scribbles we call letters. Scribbles have absolutely no value in the universe. Trying to argue whether a bunch of scribbles can have any implications on the universe is utter nonsense. Scribbles put together in science have viability because they can predict outcomes and indicate at least a minor understanding of a behavior of the universe.Perfection is not necessarily greatness.
Perfection necessarily has a moral value, implying a subjective perspective.
Philosophical "proofs" are just a collection of scribbles that are designed only to presume to know something. While the scientific method requires the initial hypothesis to be tested, there is no test for the philosophical proof. It ends at the hypothesis (if we even dare call it that). What is worse is that the philosophical hypothesis pretends to have undergone some rigorous process to come up with the conclusion... which in fact was the sole reason for the "proof" to even be developed in the first place.
No one starts with Point 1 independently, then flows to 2, then 3, and then Eureka!!! No... it starts at the end and works backwards, which is utter folly. Philosophical proofs have some level of usefulness, but generally only in the world of understood concepts. To try and use presumption to prove truth, however, is embracing ignorance as evidence.
When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.And this is the weakness of the argument. "Perfection" and "Greatness" are a set of jumbled scribbles we call letters. Scribbles have absolutely no value in the universe. Trying to argue whether a bunch of scribbles can have any implications on the universe is utter nonsense. Scribbles put together in science have viability because they can predict outcomes and indicate at least a minor understanding of a behavior of the universe.
Philosophical "proofs" are just a collection of scribbles that are designed only to presume to know something. While the scientific method requires the initial hypothesis to be tested, there is no test for the philosophical proof. It ends at the hypothesis (if we even dare call it that). What is worse is that the philosophical hypothesis pretends to have undergone some rigorous process to come up with the conclusion... which in fact was the sole reason for the "proof" to even be developed in the first place.
No one starts with Point 1 independently, then flows to 2, then 3, and then Eureka!!! No... it starts at the end and works backwards, which is utter folly. Philosophical proofs have some level of usefulness, but generally only in the world of understood concepts. To try and use presumption to prove truth, however, is embracing ignorance as evidence.
Are you going to tell me that you don't do anything unless it's properly vetted by a comprehensive scientific investigation?!
We're merely discussing Anselm's argument here. I don't think one needs to deny value to all beliefs which are not scientific to make the point that this particular argument is wrong.
EB
When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.Are you going to tell me that you don't do anything unless it's properly vetted by a comprehensive scientific investigation?!
We're merely discussing Anselm's argument here. I don't think one needs to deny value to all beliefs which are not scientific to make the point that this particular argument is wrong.
EB
That isn't true. The universe... to the best of our awareness, does exist. And if god exists, then that means there is some medium in which that god exists. So science is in the ballpark.When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.
Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB
When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.
Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB
Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB
And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.
It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.
...
And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.
...
Where the term "logical possibility" means nothing. There is an old Vulcan saying, "Shut the fuck up and listen!"And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.
It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.
Uh-ho.
There's a whole tribe of you, then!
Still, it's important to point out that there's a difference between positively believing some fantastic tale and just observing that it is a logical possibility.
And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.
It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.
Uh-ho.
There's a whole tribe of you, then!
Still, it's important to point out that there's a difference between positively believing some fantastic tale and just observing that it is a logical possibility.
And your tale is in fact less fantastic than the God one, if you want my opinion.
EB
How about this:
...
And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.
...
Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. Doesn't even come close. So although if there is a God it must exist by definition, the argument obtains no support from whatever may exist conceptually in our imaginations. Like what Tom Sawyer said in the parable about his aunt.