THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly! (page 4)

unsure

EDIT

Good gravy. Way to necro an old thread.

blondie

What's a TLDR

Googled it but no good answers.

John_Mann

Good gravy. Way to necro an old thread.

LOL

I was thinking to make a topic about the ontological argument but this OP are so well written by Terry.

Old but gold.

unsure

Edited my previous post when I realized this thread had been necro'd by the previous poster (old thread being resurrected; a NO-NO in most discussion forums)

TLDR means "Too long, didn't read" as was the OP of this resurrected thread. Having to filter through walls of text to get to the main argument is usually not well received by many forum readers.

"Good" is not an intrinsic property that things have. Rather, it's a label that we apply to desirable states and outcomes. This is why different people can have different opinions on whether or not something is "good" or "not good".

We can say things are big. But that doesn't mean there's something out there with "ultimate bigness". Likewise, we can say things are good. But that doesn't mean there's something out there with ultimate goodness.

Jehovah witnesses do this all the time with their label of "perfection". God is going to make a perfect world. God is going to make you perfect. Etc. Without ever defining by what is meant by perfect.

kepler

If there is no higher consciousness in this universe than our own, then how is it that ours so spontaneously came into existence? It's an inference I don't see a trail toward in, say, particle physics, kinematics or entropy. Complicated structures occurring in certain circumstances. But why consciousness? Where does that come from in a system where everything is either conserved or transformed - unless there is a reservoir of it in creation?

John_Mann

@ Coded Logic

I don't know why you're using the term "good" or "perfect" or "biggest" when the term used in the argument is "greater".

"Good" and "perfect" only adds unnecessary complexity to the argument and "biggest" adds limitations because "big" can only be applied to material things.

Anyway we can and really do judgments of value upon everything. It's a trivial thing for humans.

Are you arguing that we can't judge some thing being greater than other thing?

Being pierced by a nail or caressed with silk makes no difference to you? Really?

And the argument it's not built upon empirically detectable properties of things because it's a deductive argument.

If it relied upon empirical conditions perceived in things then it would be an inductive argument.

And we can say we perceive value in things by using pure deduction.

deegee

It is possible that God could exist but if he does, does he speak to anyone? does he intervene in the natural world?

I think God's existence & whether he communicates with persons or intervenes in the natural world are two separate issues.

The evidence shows that God does not communicate with persons or intervenes in the natural world and if he exists, he is evil.

cofty

Anslem has been refuted so many times in antiquity and in modern times.

One objection is that he is guilty of equivocation. A real god is not greater than an imaginary one it is a completely different class of thing. He slips between one definition of the word god and a totally different definition.

Another objection is that the argument doesn't get us to the god of Christian theism. The sort who is active in the physical world.

Thirdly something that can be argued for through deductive argument is useless unless it can then be shown to actually exist in reality.

These are only three very brief objections. Many more detailed refutations can be found with a little research.

THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!

Share this