Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
Drlee wrote:If you have a point make it.
Don't waste my time. What is it that I have said with which you take exception?
In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm defined God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived".[5] He suggested that even "the fool" can understand this concept, and this understanding itself means that the being must exist in the mind. The concept must exist either only in our mind, or in both our mind and in reality. If such a being exists only in our mind, then a greater being—that which exists in the mind and in reality—can be conceived (this argument is generally regarded as a reductio ad absurdum because the view of the fool is proven to be inconsistent). Therefore, if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, it must exist in reality. Thus, a being than which nothing greater could be conceived, which Anselm defined as God, must exist in reality.[21]
Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality.
Let me give you Anselm’s magnificent argument in the medieval period for the existence of God. I don’t have it written down here, I’ll have to reconstruct it from memory. Now, you won’t understand Anselm’s argument… let me warn you in advance that many philosophers consider it a trick. But to understand Anselm’s argument, you have to see that it’s an argument between only two interlocutors: the fool who has said in his heart there is no God, and the believer. If you are neither, this argument won’t have any impact on you. In other words, if you are a person who is not either someone who said there is no God or there is [a God] then you are really not a party to this dispute. So in a certain sense I am not, and it gives me kind of the freedom to throw the argument out quickly to you and let you consider it. But I do think that it’s important to point out that as weird as it sounds today to believe in God and to do it seriously – it sounds weird to me too, I am not up here preaching, I don’t… – I am not even suggesting this, it sounds absolutely weird. In the history of philosophical discourse, this argument I am about to give is the one that’s most nearly proved. It’s a very powerful argument, so…
It holds between interlocutors – one of which doesn’t believe and the other does – and the argument goes something like this. It starts with a magnificent definition that is not an attempt to tell us all about what God is, but about how we understand God, and that definition is as follows: “God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived, period”. God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived, period. Now, once you have bought that, you may see where the argument is headed… The second premise is this one: “It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone”. Now, let me say a bit about those two premises, then I’ll quickly give you the conclusion. The first one seems to be a simple definition about how we use the word “God”. Namely, when we in the West say “God”, we mean “A being, a bigger one than which you ain’t got”. So, it’s silly to us to go “Well, my God is going to whip yours, cause ours is the biggest there is”, so He is a being greater than which we can’t conceive. The second premise, however, looks like a trick, but it isn’t. It’s directed at the non believer. Because clearly the dispute between the two is this: the non-believer also must accept the premise that “It’s greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone”, because what the non-believer is trying to argue is that God does not exist in reality. So, if he didn’t believe that, or she didn’t believe it, there wouldn’t be a non-believer. They wouldn’t care about the dispute. So, here Anselm has given two premises that seem to be absolutely acceptable to both interlocutors. But from just those two premises, it follows that God must exist. Must exist – in reality – because if he did not, we could conceive of greater.
Now, if you think that is a trick, I’ll just do it again . This is where we do philosophy like: “Can he pull a rabbit out of a hat?” I’ll do it again. If it’s greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone, and we are conceiving God… if we conceive a non-existent God, that ain’t him. Because we could conceive of greater: one just like that one, plus one that really exists, follow me? So when you use the word, you are committed to belief in God’s real existence. Anselm’s argument is elegant. In a dispute between believer and non-believer, only on pain of absolute contradiction can you get out Anselm’s argument, it’s a bind. Because God being a being greater than which cannot be conceived, if you buy the premise that it’s greater to exist in reality and in the mind than in the mind alone, it follows that God exists in reality and in the mind. So that’s Anselm’s Ontological argument. I won’t pursue what has been pursued for, oh, a thousand years and more since, and that’s the whole series of objections to this argument. I would simply say that in terms of an elegant conceptual argument, it is perhaps one of the greatest in philosophy, and goes to show as Nietzsche once said that: “Aren’t the strangest of things the most nearly proved?”. It looks like a trick, doesn’t it. The argument kind of looks like a trick. I see [some you reacting as though]: “That’s kind of tricky”. Maybe it is, but if it is, it’s a good trick.
Wellsy wrote:Personally I like this argument for the existence of god...
St Anselms Ontological argument for God
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#StAnsOntArg
http://rickroderick.org/102-epicureans-stoics-skeptics-1990/
Hindsite wrote:This would eliminate every god, but the Trinity God of Christianity. No one has conceived of a God greater than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An invisible God that can be everywhere, but yet is visible to man in human form of the One, who can die and become alive again and ascend into heaven in bodily form.
Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
Wellsy wrote:Maybe, though I would make the reminder that the God of Judaism and Islam are the same God for Christians. Also, I have the impression that the Holy Trinity has been a real pain for Christianity to try and make sense of.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/#Tri
Or a more elaborate and extensive examination
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/#ThrSel
That means their god is less than the Trinity God of Christianity, because their god lacks humanity.
Hindsite wrote:The Atheist Delusion
Having to prove the existence of God to an atheist is like having to prove the existence of the sun, at noon on a clear day. Yet millions are embracing the foolishness of atheism. “The Atheist Delusion” pulls back the curtain and reveals what is going on in the mind of those who deny the obvious. It introduces you to a number of atheists who you will follow as they go where the evidence leads, find a roadblock, and enter into a place of honesty that is rarely seen on film.
jakell wrote:And here I sort of expected a rehash of C. S. Lewis' famous quote.
Sort of obvious I know, but potentially more stimulating than another Youtube video. Some of these videos are good but multimedia can become mind-numbing when in excess (multi-multimedia)
ETA: Added link, and have just realised that I am interacting with copypasta again.
29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.”
2But Jesus declared, “It also says, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts by faith.
10Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Hindsite wrote:Francis Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence of Belief
Is there evidence for belief? Are science and faith consistent ways of seeing the world? Join us as Dr. Francis Collins, world-renowned geneticist, physician, and Former Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute shares his journey from atheism to faith, and how a conversation with a suffering patient and his scientific mindset challenged him to examine the evidence for the Christian faith. His talk is followed by a Q&A session. The Veritas Forum at Caltech, 2009.
quetzalcoatl wrote:Faith is faith, and needs no external justification. It is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen. It is enough that you believe, and for those who don't - that is sufficient for them, as well.
Alarm bells should go off whenever you hear a scientist talk about proof. Science deals exclusively with the material world, and our knowledge of it is provisional. Science's conclusions are probability-based and subject to revision. Furthermore, its conclusions' validity is limited to its proper domain: the physical world. It can say nothing useful outside of this domain.
The concept of 'proof' is not a scientific one. It is a logical one. Science advances by challenge and response, and the accreted weight of evidence. There is never a final proof.
Besoeker wrote:OK. Why does god, if he exists, allow thesediseases the presenter cites?
Couldn't your god prevent them?
To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
Hindsite wrote:I believe God allows disease to teach men a lesson for not obeying Him.
Perkwunos wrote:I hope you never need antibiotics.
Hindsite wrote:I have already needed antibiotics and I got them, because I have medical care. But all the medical care in the world will not prevent us from dying.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Wishing Georgia and Georgians success as they seek[…]
- By JohnRawls
Great german commentary: https://www.nachdenkseit[…]
- By Tainari88
Hmm. I took it a second time and changes three ans[…]
- By litwin
- By QatzelOk