An interesting question

Originally posted by David C
I think he's saying if it wasn't for God, lightposts would move around on their own.

Ah of course. I should have remembered that dj can't even concieve of a non-literal metaphor.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So you need God to give your life meaning is what you are saying?
What about people who don't need God to make their life meaningful?

Anybody can create their own meaning in a reality which does not make sense.

Originally posted by dj2becker
God is the only being that can provide us with an unchanging absolute point of reference, by which we can make sense of the world around us, since by definition there is not a moment in time that God did not exist

I am an unchanging absolute point of reference to me. My 'seat of conciousness' will always reside in exactly the same place and orientation to my head. The problem with your absolute point of reference is that if something comes between you and the lamp post you will have trouble.
Peoples definition and description of what God is are as changable as the weather and thus 'God' could never provide an absolute point of reference that would be of any use to me. Besides, I drive quite well on roads without lamp posts.
The theory of relativity actually implies that there can never be an absolute point of reference within the universe and yet animals and many people seem to get along just fine without a belief in God.
Driving along the highway does not mean that "a lamp post must exist".

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody can create their own meaning in a reality which does not make sense.

So reality doesn't make sense? Really, because I would have assumed that by existing it has to make enough sense to exist.

Originally posted by rwingett
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of god claimed his existence could be known a priori. The Cosmological and the Teleological arguments are a posteriori arguments for the existence of god.

St. Anselm's is the oldest form of the Ontological argument. There are other modern versions (e.g. Godel) which are not refuted by Kant's arguments.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
St. Anselm's is the oldest form of the Ontological argument. There are other modern versions (e.g. Godel) which are not refuted by Kant's arguments.

They nevertheless can be refuted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
They nevertheless can be refuted.

Are you saying that because you are personally aware of the existence of refutations or because you have "faith" they can (eventually) be refuted?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you saying that because you are personally aware of the existence of refutations or because you have "faith" they can (eventually) be refuted?

Since you have not given an exhastive list, but only one example then I have no choice but to go with "have 'faith' they can be refuted?"

It is my belief that if a solid arguement for the existence of God is ever made then it will gain considerably more press than Godel.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since you have not given an exhastive list, but only one example then I have no choice but to go with "have 'faith' they can be refuted?"

It is my belief that if a solid arguement for the existence of God is ever made then it will gain considerably more press than Godel.

Given the proclivities of the MSM, absence of coverage of philosophical proofs of God does not surprise me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
St. Anselm's is the oldest form of the Ontological argument. There are other modern versions (e.g. Godel) which are not refuted by Kant's arguments.

That is true. Descartes and others expanded upon the ontological argument, but as St. Anselm was the first to propose it it's typically associated with him. Just as the teleological argument is associated with William Paley, even though he undoubtedly had some more sophisticated followers who refined the argument more.

But in any event, the ontological argument, whether it is St. Anselm's version, Descartes', or Gödel's, falls short of its objective.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Given the proclivities of the MSM, absence of coverage of philosophical proofs of God does not surprise me.

Do you have any links to any such arguements (proofs of the requirement for God etc) so I can have a look?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have any links to any such arguements (proofs of the requirement for God etc) so I can have a look?

Here are links to the three I mentioned that are typically employed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Originally posted by rwingett
Here are links to the three I mentioned that are typically employed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

You implied they were already known to be unsatisfactory. lucifershammer implied there were others which had not been refuted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You implied they were already known to be unsatisfactory. lucifershammer implied there were others which had not been refuted.

Are you going to trust anything Lucifershammer says?

But seriously, the arguments are all ongoing. They are neither proven nor disproven.

Edit: when I say they are unsatisfactory, it is because they set out to prove the existence of god, but have obviously failed to do so.

Edit 2: you can go over more arguments for and against the existence of god at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you going to trust anything Lucifershammer says?

Because I am an "ignorant, dogmatic, superstitious, christian freak" who wouldn't say anything worth reading?