Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Lee
You know what presupposition is? Her is Anselm with a different presupposition
Truly there is a Rainbow Farting Unicorn called Eric, although the fool has said in his heart, There is no Rainbow Farting Unicorn called Eric[...]
Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.
Therefore we can assert that a Rainbow Farting Unicorn called Eric, not only exists but is greater than your conception.
Hey, it is YOUR logic Lee....
(Edit: last two lines added)
@ lee
But you negate the definition of God with what you posted, or if you don't, then you are calling God by a different name and my proof stands. Either way, you accept the proof, because you use it, or you negate your own argument, because you neglect to understand how God is being defined.
@Leeuwenhoek: "IT'S INCOHERENT AND IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO SAID IT!" Appeal to Authority holds not weight around here.
"God is that (BEING) than which noTHING (BEING) greater can be conceived (THOUGHT ABOUT)." You are sneaking existence into the premise to prove existence.
PAY ATTENTION NOW - WE ARE REALLY GETTING TIRED OF TELLING YOU THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER....
CONCEIVED: 1. To form a conception of: IMAGINE. A badly conceived design.
A cleverly conceived play. 2. to apprehend by reason or imagination : UNDERSTAND.
BEING: (1): something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing. (YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR THIS.)
(2): something that actually exists (YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR THIS) (3): the totality of existing things (n/a).
You do not get to Being (Existence) through a conception (Thought). You may get to a possibility if you have reasonable evidence or a demonstration.
God(being) is that then which no greater can be conceived (Thought About.) You are asserting THOUGHT'S LEAD TO BEING. Hence the original question you have ducked since you came onto the site. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
This is a Non Sequitur Fallacy, Thoughts do not lead to being. In its original form it's begging the question in that you attempt to sneak existence into the premise to justify existence in the conclusion.
IN SHORT: GIVE UP --- THE PREMISE NEVER GETS OFF THE GROUND.
There is no logical argument in the opening post. There is one assertion followed by many other assertions and none of which have been demonstrated. Please demonstrate your assertion, "God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved." How do you know this?
@ Cognostic
Anybody who reads the title of this post would know exactly what my argument was if they were informed of the different arguments for or against God. The fact that you think there is no argument there is not on me, but you. I have pointed you to the Anselm quote for further clarification and review. Do your homework, and then come back with some solid arguments against "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." I did not want to argue about how we know what we know, when you don't even understand the basis for the argument as seen in the debate title. If you did, you would have understood why there is a potential philosophical/ logical proof at showing how there is a maximally great being. Once you understand that, then lets debate.
I left the title the way I did in order to bring in more informed people, and debate them.
@Lee
Why do think you can "logic" your god into existence? That truly is a fool's errand.
@ lee
I don't think I can logic my God into existence. That would negate the definition of "that which nothing greater can be conceived." because I would have some power over God if what I did brought Him into existence. No, rather I am just stating what is innate about the character of God and who God is. Also, God is a logical God.
@Leeuwenhoek: RE" No, rather I am just stating what is innate about the character of God and who God is. Also, God is a logical God.
How do you know what is innate about god. Brains do not conceive gods. Brains conceive ideas. Either you have an idea of a god, that you can not provide evidence for or you have a real god that you can provide evidence for. STILL WAITING?
@Lee: RE: " I don't think I can logic my god into existence."
And yet, that is exactly what you are doing. "I don't think." (Apparently you do, when you utter the word "conceived.") Into existence? You are literally attempting to "conceive a god into existence." If you understood English better you would be embarrassed for such an idiotic assertion.
@ Lee
Well, I didn't. It read like a load of presuppositional unevidenced assertions to me. Or a preacher trying to be intellectual.
@lee
Anyone who has read Anselm would have understood this argument. Or maybe even the modal argument that is more common nowadays. I however did not want to explain to everyone what a possible world was, or necessity, or contingent, etc.
@Leeuwenhoek
"Anybody who reads the title of this post would know exactly what my argument was if they were informed of the different arguments for or against God."
The title to this thread is "God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved". Yet I can conceive of a god that made yours, and does not turn water into wine but water into aged bourbon. That makes my god greater in every way. My god even has a larger penis.
There, I just conceived of a god greater than yours.
Old Man Shouts... He thinks he can do it because it is logically necessary, but of course he has not demonstrated that either.
We are still waiting for the evidence to his assertions.
@ Cog
Betting no evidence will be forthcoming.
Once again, ascribe what evidence would be evidence for you two?
@ Leeuwenhoek: Once again, ask you god, you said he knows everything.
Why is this so difficult for you? I am waiting to be convinced.
@ co and lee
I've explained how if anyone should speak of a Maximally Great Being as existing that the logic of the argument should hold a view of a Maximally Great Being as necessary and not contingent. If a Maximally Great being were anything less than the Maximally Great Being, through the modal argument, it could fail to logically exist. That is why a Maximally Great Being has to be described as that which nothing Greater can be conceived.
Since the Maximally Great Being, as defined, can have its logical place in reality, it is not presumptive of me to attribute that title to God.
Thus the Logic of that argument acknowledges the characteristics that a Maximally Great Being has to have to truly exist. So when you ask why, I am confused by your inability to see how it could not be any other way. So if we talk about God, or whatever Maximally Great Being, I say that if it were to exist it would be described as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," because everything else would fail to exist via logistical arguments.
@Leeuwenhoek
Maybe your god appearing before anyone?
Is that a reference to God/Jesus (the capitalized word logic)?
@Nyarlathotep
In that sentence, that was a typo.
God is a Logical God, but I would not say that is his only characteristic.
@Leeuwenhoek: How do you know he is logical? You have not yet proved he is greater than that which no other can be conceived. Now all of a sudden he is logical too? When are you going to give us some evidence for these claims.
@co
I'm just arguing for a Maximally Great Being on one front, and then I'm speaking of my view of that Maximally Great being on another front. You are smart, and I know you can follow what I am saying. So I don't think we need the awful banter.
@Leeeuwenhoek: Re: I'm just arguing for a Maximally Great Being on one front,
But you have not demonstrated the front and already you are leaping forward. You are like an oyster diver trying to bring up oysters without getting wet. Please demonstrate that this Maximally great being exists anywhere but in your mind.
Now why do I ascribe the Maximally Great Being from the Modal Ontological Argument to "God," because of the relationship, and visible work of that Maximally Great Being in reality.
@Leeuwenhoek: Please demonstrate that the maximally great being does anything at all in reality.
@Leeuwenhoek
Do you understand that any religion different from christianity can say that too?
Anyways, I've got a three hour drive I have to get ready for and I've been up all night talking to you guys. Thanks for the dialogue. It's been fun, fiery, and a good challenge at trying to explain why God has to be necessary- which I think is the crux of the argument for which I'm positioning myself. Hopefully you see how the argument shows the Maximally Great Beings Character, rather than assuming the characteristics and then trying to fit the argument. A maximally Great being exist, but with our finite minds we are trying to deduce a character, rather than establishing it with our own wants or desires. :) Love you all. Thanks again for the dialogue.
@Leeuwenhoek
I read in other posts that users had asked you for the argument you keep referring too. Could you maybe post a formal version of it so we can know what you are talking about?
Also, could you provide the algorithm you are using to calculate/compare greatness (you know, what you told us should be maximized)?
@Leeuwenhoek: God has to be necessary- which I think is the crux of the argument for which I'm positioning myself.
You never even came close. You have to prove it is an actual option, EXISTS, before you can ever touch NECESSARY. Things that have no existence can not possibly be an option for necessity.
Drive safe, trust in your skills and awareness to make your journey safe. Do not trust your god for a safe passage.
Pages