gametechmods
Off-Topic => Chatterbox => Topic started by: frezal on April 26, 2011, 02:10:24 AM
-
I noticed that many of you label yourselves as being "agnostic" when it comes to religion. I found this video by Penn Jillette to be very entertaining (though some of you may find it informative). Enjoy (or don't):
http://revision3.com/pennpoint/agnosticssuck (http://revision3.com/pennpoint/agnosticssuck)
-
Turns out I might be an athiest then. :P
And Penn is awesome.
-
I like to think of four possibilities when it comes to faith: gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.
A gnostic theist is your average preaching Christian, who is 100% sure there is a god.
Most of the Christians I know fall under the category of agnostic theists. A whole lot of them just don't think about their faith.
Agnostic atheists are often still unsure about their faith and it's in this category that fall people described in the video.
Gnostic atheists are those who are sure there is no god.
Now here's the problem. While gnostic theists and theists may seem to be as bad when it comes to devotion and extremism, I see a difference between the two. The gnostic theist is gnostic because he truly has faith, and why wouldn't he? It's what faith is about - believing everything their religions tell them, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to be. On the other hand, a gnostic atheist bases his gnosticism solely on the fact that there are simply no evidences showing the existence of a superior being. He is not "following" or "believing" atheism but instead simply relying on rationality and reason (why would the existence of a god be more probable than the existence of an invisible pink unicorn right on a moon of Jupiter?). To me, a case of the latter, it seems completely different than being a mormon preacher...
-
I like to think of four possibilities when it comes to faith: gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.
A gnostic theist is your average preaching Christian, who is 100% sure there is a god.
Most of the Christians I know fall under the category of agnostic theists. A whole lot of them just don't think about their faith.
Agnostic atheists are often still unsure about their faith and it's in this category that fall people described in the video.
Gnostic atheists are those who are sure there is no god.
Now here's the problem. While gnostic theists and theists may seem to be as bad when it comes to devotion and extremism, I see a difference between the two. The gnostic theist is gnostic because he truly has faith, and why wouldn't he? It's what faith is about - believing everything their religions tell them, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to be. On the other hand, a gnostic atheist bases his gnosticism solely on the fact that there are simply no evidences showing the existence of a superior being. He is not "following" or "believing" atheism but instead simply relying on rationality and reason (why would the existence of a god be more probable than the existence of an invisible pink unicorn right on a moon of Jupiter?). To me, a case of the latter, it seems completely different than being a mormon preacher...
Yeah, he essentially cleared this entire thing up. Its just implausible to say there is a god. Even if there was, he'd have to be a cold hearted bastard to say that you only go to heaven if you blindly believed in a being that only an easily changeable book claims the existence of.
-
The problem that I see with agnosticism (that Penn kind of points out using fancy words like "epistemological") is that you can't have agnostic views on whether or not a God or a God-like entity exists. It's not a valid answer. It's fundamentally refusing to answer the question.
There are only two answers to the question of the existence of God and they are either yes or no. Therefore, if you attempt to answer this question, you are either a theist or an atheist. Labelling oneself "agnostic" is just a cop out.
-
I thought you only tell theist you are agnostic just to shut them up. What it really means is that God is stupid and you don't care for such nonsense.
-
But Atheists ARE as bad as fundamentalist Christians. :coolface
-
But Atheists ARE as bad as fundamentalist Christians. :coolface
Because religion defines "Bad" as not believing, and kill you for it.
-
Only Islam.
-
Meh.
-
Only Islam.
Right because all other religions never tried to do just that whenever they gain enough military power to do so.
And look, even the Islam taught in non Islamic states tend to involve a lot more tolerance. Why are they peaceful? Because their own survival depends on it.
Precisely why we needed the separation of church and states.
On a side note, I am not even an Atheist, I am an Epistemological Solipsist.
-
Only Islam.
Actually it's Pakistani blasphemy laws. I don't mind Pakistani people but their laws are way out of whack.
I'm also religious, I just try not to take it seriously.
-
Seriously though, that was an entertaining video, and I actually agree with his main point. That Bible verse he mentioned was totally out of context though. Jesus wasn't telling his followers to go kill everyone who didn't believe in him. He was telling a parable, and in the parable a king says this of those who were trying to overthrow him.
-
Seriously though, that was an entertaining video, and I actually agree with his main point. That Bible verse he mentioned was totally out of context though. Jesus wasn't telling his followers to go kill everyone who didn't believe in him. He was telling a parable, and in the parable a king says this of those who were trying to overthrow him.
THE PASSION
-
Seriously though, that was an entertaining video, and I actually agree with his main point. That Bible verse he mentioned was totally out of context though. Jesus wasn't telling his followers to go kill everyone who didn't believe in him. He was telling a parable, and in the parable a king says this of those who were trying to overthrow him.
But isn't that the problem with quoting religious texts? Either it's so generic that it can fit absolutely any situation (and thus, doesn't really mean anything), or it's being taken out of context to help prove a preconceived point.
-
Sadly, yes. At least, most of the time.
-
I don't take much of the Bible to heart, tbh. However, I do like the verse where the lady rams the tent pag through the guy's head (somewhere in the Old Testament, can't remember where)
When someone mixes religious theory with scientific theory, what are they? (And before you say "stupid", please answer my question sensibly)
-
When someone mixes religious theory with scientific theory, what are they? (And before you say "stupid", please answer my question sensibly)
Stupid.
-
Hey, you can bash me all you like - just AFTER I get a sensible answer that isn't along the lines of "stupid" or "retarded". Because I'm sure there's a name for it
-
Hey, you can bash me all you like - just AFTER I get a sensible answer that isn't along the lines of "stupid" or "retarded". Because I'm sure there's a name for it
"Stupid". Faith and the scientific method do not mix. One relies on blindly believing in myths despite the evidence, the other relies entirely on observable evidence.
-
^ Not sure that you're giving pro-existence of God arguments enough credit there. After all, I'm fairly sure that we can't observe certain subatomic particles directly, but we can interpret their existence through their effects on the observable world and therefore deduce their existence. Philosophically speaking, there are many compelling arguments for God that can made in the same vein as this (ie: the Argument from Design, although I am personally unconvinced by this one). Saying that all theists are merely "blindly believing in myths" is a fallacy.
When someone mixes religious theory with scientific theory, what are they? (And before you say "stupid", please answer my question sensibly)
If the "religious theory" involves God, you're a theist. If it does not, you're an atheist. The "scientific theory" is irrelevant since you can postulate circumstances in which both God and science can coexist. Darwin, for example, was not an atheist despite his findings and observations.
-
Ah, so I'm a theist then :3
Thanks for answering my question :D
-
^ Not sure that you're giving pro-existence of God arguments enough credit there. After all, I'm fairly sure that we can't observe certain subatomic particles directly, but we can interpret their existence through their effects on the observable world and therefore deduce their existence.
We observe and test to theorize the existence of subatomic particles. There is no way to test the existence of god. There are far too many variables.
Philosophically speaking, there are many compelling arguments for God that can made in the same vein as this (ie: the Argument from Design, although I am personally unconvinced by this one). Saying that all theists are merely "blindly believing in myths" is a fallacy.
The problem with asserting there is a god is the same as asserting there is a Santa Claus. Sure, you could explain the presence of presents by saying that Santa did it, but is that really a logical conclusion, or is it blind faith?
Darwin, for example, was not an atheist despite his findings and observations.
You're not talking about that bullsh** bed side conversion, are you?
-
Scientists having a religion does not imply that their faith comes from the scientific method.
The Scientific and Religious approach differs in 1 major aspect. One involves observation, therefore falsifiable, the other involves faith, therefore not falsifiable. Although in practice, many religion evolves to match contradicting observations over time, while many scientific dogmas resist contradicting observations for long periods of time.
Note that this has NOTHING to do with being right or wrong. Both the scientific method and religion uses "inductive reasoning" and "inference to the best explanation". And for most people who simply accept the "facts" without taking the time to understand, science is no different from religion.
The problem with asserting there is a god is the same as asserting there is a Santa Claus. Sure, you could explain the presence of presents by saying that Santa did it, but is that really a logical conclusion, or is it blind faith?
God is actually very unlike Santa. Many features of Santa, such as a factory in the North Pole, can be falsified. You just have to look for the "Made in China" somewhere on your toys.
-
God is actually very unlike Santa. Many features of Santa, such as a factory in the North Pole, can be falsified.
Just because you don't see the factory, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there. (Just because nobody has seen a god, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.)
You just have to look for the "Made in China" somewhere on your toys.
What if that's Santa covering his tracks? What if he subcontracts to the Chinese? Sure, it's evidence against the Intelligent Presents Theory, but it doesn't rule it out with 100% certainty.
-
God is actually very unlike Santa. Many features of Santa, such as a factory in the North Pole, can be falsified.
Just because you don't see the factory, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there. (Just because nobody has seen a god, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.)
It contradict the properties of Santa. He does not have the power to make his factory, himself, and all the elves and reindeer invisible. So such a large factory will most certainly be detected by satellite. So at least the conventional version made by Coke Cola is falsified "until new observation shows otherwise".
Of course, you can create a version of Santa with this ability, but doing so to explain such a small phenomenon contradicts "inference to the best explanation", where the "best" implies simplest.
Note that there are no reason why the simplest explanation is necessary true, it is just something scientists used with faith.
You just have to look for the "Made in China" somewhere on your toys.
What if that's Santa covering his tracks? What if he subcontracts to the Chinese? Sure, it's evidence against the Intelligent Presents Theory, but it doesn't rule it out with 100% certainty.
Science never rules anything out with 100% certainty. Induction only covers all observed and interpreted information.
-
It contradict the properties of Santa. He does not have the power to make his factory, himself, and all the elves and reindeer invisible. So such a large factory will most certainly be detected by satellite. So at least the conventional version made by Coke Cola is falsified "until new observation shows otherwise".
Whether or not Santa can make things invisible isn't touched by the popular Santa mythos. Therefore, an invisible North Pole doesn't contradict anything.
Of course, you can create a version of Santa with this ability, but doing so to explain such a small phenomenon contradicts "inference to the best explanation", where the "best" implies simplest.
And throwing in a layer of "god" complicates everything.
Note that there are no reason why the simplest explanation is necessary true, it is just something scientists used with faith.
Faith isn't the right word, unless you are one of those people who thinks it's impossible to know anything.
Science never rules anything out with 100% certainty. Induction only covers all observed and interpreted information.
Of course it doesn't.
-
It contradict the properties of Santa. He does not have the power to make his factory, himself, and all the elves and reindeer invisible. So such a large factory will most certainly be detected by satellite. So at least the conventional version made by Coke Cola is falsified "until new observation shows otherwise".
Whether or not Santa can make things invisible isn't touched by the popular Santa mythos. Therefore, an invisible North Pole doesn't contradict anything.
Actually Santa cannot be invisible, which is precisely why he has to sneak into your house at night when you are asleep.
"choosing not to be invisible" does not work because the tales specifically mention Santa does not want to be seen, and therefore sneaks in, and occasionally gets caught.
Of course, you can create a version of Santa with this ability, but doing so to explain such a small phenomenon contradicts "inference to the best explanation", where the "best" implies simplest.
And throwing in a layer of "god" complicates everything.
"God made the universe in 7 days and that's that" is quite simple. It only becomes complex when it stop fitting the observed data and religion makes up a bunch of nonsense like omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient in hope to match, creating a self contradicting paradox that doesn't require facts to disprove.
Random chance, infinity, and it's implications are far more complex. Most theoretical physicists can not understand the theories that they themselves created beyond the mathematical construct. Leonard Susskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind) for example are quoted for saying "nobody understands the holographic principle. And just how many of us can even do any of those math to begin claiming we understand any of it?
Note that there are no reason why the simplest explanation is necessary true, it is just something scientists used with faith.
Faith isn't the right word, unless you are one of those people who thinks it's impossible to know anything.
Faith is the right word given there are no reason why the simplest explanation is true.
In the physical world, time and time again we end up with monstrosities such as the standard model of quantum mechanics and the human genome project. Each layer unfold only ends up with far more complexity then anyone would have imagined.
-
Just so we're clear, I'm an atheist, Frezal's an atheist, and what's 123STW? I like how we're arguing about the merits of the side of the argument we think is wrong.
ANYWAYS:
@123STW: The generally accepted definition of God when debating its existence is:
- a personal being
- that created the universe
- that is all-powerful (has powers outside of the natural laws)
- that is all-knowing
- that is perfectly good (entirely against all evil)
- that loves ALL of us
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
-
the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
You sure the Chicken and the Egg is a paradox?
-
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
-
Just so we're clear, I'm an atheist, Frezal's an atheist, and what's 123STW? I like how we're arguing about the merits of the side of the argument we think is wrong.
ANYWAYS:
@123STW: The generally accepted definition of God when debating its existence is:
- a personal being
- that created the universe
- that is all-powerful (has powers outside of the natural laws)
- that is all-knowing
- that is perfectly good (entirely against all evil)
- that loves ALL of us
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
-
I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
Pretty sure that's beside the point. The point there was: I do not think that presenting a paradox is a valid argument. Do you agree with this?
-
I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
That's why it's such a great troll argument. :coolface
To be fair though, it actually only assumes that the CONCEPT of god (as the greatest possible being) exists.
-
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
But even the evolution theory states the chicken came first =/
-
No, the evolution theory says the egg came first.
-
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
But even the evolution theory states the chicken came first =/
If you think evolution consists of animals just popping up into existence, then you're a complete dumb ass.
-
I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
Pretty sure that's beside the point. The point there was: I do not think that presenting a paradox is a valid argument. Do you agree with this?
Clearly you don't understand what a self contradicting paradox is.
Chicken "can" lay eggs, other animals can also lay egg,
eggs "can" spawn chicken, it can also spawn other animals
No where in the logic does it say only chicken lays eggs, or that eggs only spawn chicken. There are no paradox and evolutionary theory fits just fine in this.
In the case of God however
Only God "must" be omnipotent
Only God "must" be omnipresent
Only God "must" be omniscient
A simplest paradox is, can God destroy himself? Under no condition can he hold both omnipotent and omnipresent when faced with this dilemma.
Self contradicting paradox IS nonsense, when "sense" is define as the use of logic. Because it invokes the logically impossible.
An very uninteresting question would be "why must the world follow logic"? Which is not worth thinking about as the truth of this will undermined any use of thinking.
-
People believe in God cause they want afterlife.
The rift between non-believers and believers is also the rift between those who are content with the life they are given and those who are not.
Then there's the third type who are miserable because they logically can't believe in God, yet still don't think ~80 years is long enough. For this group, abandoning science to find solace in the comfort of even a make-believe afterlife is justified, and I don't see the point in trying to persuade anyone one way or another.
-
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
-
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
-
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
The first argument is only true "by definition"
And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.
There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process. I can even use "by definition, a dog is a cat" and it will be the same thing. If you think this definition, or any definition, is somehow more logical, that is simply an illusion.
-
he beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition;
I disagree. The definition of the word "greater" throws away the objectivity of the argument (what is greater to one person might not be greater to others.) And I would love for them to show where God is defined as the greatest thing imaginable.
-
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
The first argument is only true "by definition"
And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.
There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process.
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
The first argument is only true "by definition"
And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.
There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process.
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
he beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition;
I disagree. The definition of the word "greater" throws away the objectivity of the argument (what is greater to one person might not be greater to others.) And I would love for them to show where God is defined as the greatest thing imaginable.
Interestingly enough, this is the reason one of the counter arguments to this fails. The statement holds true for the greatest conceivable being because you cannot imaging a being that is greater than Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent, since you cannot be more than all-powerful, or have more knowledge than all knowledge. Thus, a being that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, AND that exists. Is the greatest being that can be imagined. If you can imagine one greater let me know. ;)
-
Siding with MNB here a bit, it is accepted to used the word "infinity" as a legitimate concept, even though is does not necessarily exist.
-
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
Not true. I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.
So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".
No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite. It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it. Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God. Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.
I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time. Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another. And those that think they could can try answering a these 5 simply questions.
1. Can God kill himself?
2. Can God imagine?
3. Can God forget?
4. Can God create being with free will?
5. Can God think?
-
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
Not true. I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.
So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".
No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite. It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it. Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God. Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.
I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time. Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.
I'm actually somewhat offended that you would think so little of me as to assume I'm just copy-pasting Wikipedia. The only thing I've copied and pasted so far was the original form of the ontological argument. The rest is my own brilliance (and stuff I learned in Philosophy 101). You underestimate me considerably.
Also, just because you can't comprehend infinity does not mean the concept does not exist. As you said, we do math with it. You cannot completely conceive of such a being, but you can still grasp the concept of such a being.
The answer to your questions are:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (in fact, ONLY an omnipotent god COULD create a being with free will)
Yes
Otherwise, it wouldn't be God.
There is no contradiction because this being's infinite power transcends your finite logic. :coolface
I told you this was the ultimate troll argument.
-
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
Not true. I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.
So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".
No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite. It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it. Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God. Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.
I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time. Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.
You underestimate me considerably. The only thing I've copied and pasted so far was the original form of the ontological argument. The rest is my own brilliance (and stuff I learned in Philosophy 101).
I only intend to suggest you copy that 1 sentence I quoted
"there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived"
Which means it doesn't prove you can conceive it.
Also, just because you can't comprehend infinity does not mean the concept does not exist. As you said, we do math with it. You cannot completely conceive of such a being, but you can still grasp the concept of such a being.
And now we are running in circle with 1. If you cannot completely conceive, then any person who can conceive a more complete being will have a "greater" being then your. Your being is therefore cannot be all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere. And due to the gaps in comprehension, all being we can conceive will end up with limited powers.
And the 5 questions I give are clearly loaded.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (in fact, ONLY an omnipotent god COULD create a being with free will)
Yes
Otherwise, it wouldn't be God.
There is no contradiction because this being's infinite power transcends your finite logic. (https://gametechmods.com/forums/Smileys/default/coolface.gif)
And here I will prove someone else imagined being is more epic then yours.
If God at least have the power of the Schrodinger's cat, then he can be BOTH yes and no at the same time so he can meet the requirement of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient all at once. Which is greater then yours version.
Because of this, God is God and a worm at the same time. God is and is not the universe.
Schrodinger is the ultimate troll, that probably makes him is and isn't God at the same time.
-
Yet, I answered all of them. It's easy when you use troll logic. :mrgreen:
-
Lol I responded, someone else out troll you though. Proving you cannot imagine the greatest being.
Now you just have to top Shrodinger's cat with something even more epic.
-
Well, that's my fault for not saying both yes and no in the first place, but yeah I think this has gone about as far as it's gonna go. The ontological argument isn't the type of thing that will actually convince anyone, but I like it because it's rather difficult to disprove, even though it feels like a total cop-out. Attacking the first premise is really the only way to dispute it, as you figured, but even then, all your saying is that it's wrong because you aren't smart enough to get it.
Also Pinkie Pie is not both at once, she's all at once, but only if she wants to be, which makes her both god and not god AND cupcakes. ;)
-
Well, that's my fault for not saying both yes and no in the first place, but yeah I think this has gone about as far as it's gonna go. The ontological argument isn't the type of thing that will actually convince anyone, but I like it because it's rather difficult to disprove, even though it feels like a total cop-out. Attacking the first premise is really the only way to dispute it, as you figured, but even then, all your saying is that it's wrong because you aren't smart enough to get it.
Also Pinkie Pie is not both at once, she's all at once, but only if she wants to be, which makes her both god and not god AND cupcakes. ;)
#6 can also be attack, because that's a second given.
You can disprove it as not comprehensible through incompleteness. Therefore God under those definitions does not exist as a concept in people's mind, what is imagined is but a weak, lame, incomplete being. This can be done either with logic (your version of omnipotent is limited by your imagination, so your version isn't God) or examples of even greater beings (Schrodinger's Cat or Pinkie Pie).
I find #6 a lot easier to attack then #1, because then I get to be on the offensive in telling them how lame their imagined God is.
-
Proud agnostic atheist here.
1-By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2-A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
Alright, so answer me this, you filthy sophist.
1-If God is "a thing that which none greater can be imagined", then how can he fit in the universe, being greater than anything else existing ? As we can imagine the universe ?
2-How is the probability of a thing existing directly linked to it's greatness or not ?
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...
"Nothing exists in the mind as an idea, therefore, nothing exists in reality".
Obviously this is false. Therefore, I have enough of one counter-example to trash your theory.
-
Proud agnostic atheist here.
1-By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2-A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
Alright, so answer me this, you filthy sophist.
1-If God is "a thing that which none greater can be imagined", then how can he fit in the universe, being greater than anything else
existing ? As we can imagine the universe ?
>Implying God has to exist within the confines of this universe.
It would be utterly illogical to even think such a thing.
2-How is the probability of a thing existing directly linked to it's greatness or not ?
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...
"Nothing exists in the mind as an idea, therefore, nothing exists in reality".
Obviously this is false. Therefore, I have enough of one counter-example to trash your theory.
You aren't following the logic. Something that exists is intrinsically greater than that which does not because it possesses an important property that the other lacks, namely existence. Thus, if there is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived it exists necessarily. Your counter argument does not hold because existence is not a necessary property of everything, only that which is greatest.
-
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein
-
>Implying God has to exist within the confines of this universe.
It would be utterly illogical to even think such a thing.
Not if you think that there is only one universe, and not a multiverse.
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein
Fine, fine, common sense wasn't the best word choice, therefore I will correct myself: LOGICAL sense. He shortens a theory to a statement and it's "logical" conclusion when it can be proven wrong.
-
Not if you think that there is only one universe, and not a multiverse.
If there is a multiverse, there must be at least one universe where Twilight, Fluttershy, Applejack, Rarity, Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash exist!
-
Does god have parents?
-
Enough.
Eric Clapton is God and Kerry King is Satan. Makes far more sense.
-
the universe is an experiment in the basement of some mad scientist
-quantum physics
-
the universe is an experiment in the basement of some mad scientist
-quantum physics
Pretty much this.