Anselm's second proof

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see what argument roigam was offering in the dispute. I just saw a lazy ad hominem-like-thing that sought to circumnavigate or perhaps stifle debate. 🙂

edit: [b]He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.

Well, he has had some exchanges of views with me and I am a non-believer when it comes to his religious faith.[/b]

In fairness to Anselm he was writing in the late 11th Century and logic was not very well developed. There was Aristotle's Organon and that's about it.

Originally posted by Doward
discredit Anselm's second proof from the Proslogion if you can:

That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist

If you are genuinely interested in this, I recommend this course:
https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-philosophy-mitx-24-00x

It is a free course, and covers Anslem's argument quite rigorously. I am sorry to say that it turns out not to be a convincing argument.

Originally posted by divegeester
But in reality the world of unbelievers are "looking" you josephw; they look at what you believe, why you believe it and what impact it has on your attitudes and behaviour. Adopting an unpleasant religious belief and then saying "don't look at me, it's in the bible" is not endearing nor edifying for anyone.

Worry about your own image geester, and I'll worry about mine. In the mean time you and the unbelievers can keep your personal views about me out of the topic of discussion.

Originally posted by josephw
Worry about your own image geester, and I'll worry about mine. In the mean time you and the unbelievers can keep your personal views about me out of the topic of discussion.

It's interesting to hear you say this. Are you now also going to keep your personal views about other posters out of the discussion in future?

Originally posted by FMF
It's interesting to hear you say this. Are you now also going to keep your personal views about other posters out of the discussion in future?

Are you?
What's the topic of discussion now FMF, our personal views about other posters or our personal views about the topic of discussion?

Originally posted by josephw
Are you?
What's the topic of discussion now FMF, our personal views about other posters or our personal views about the topic of discussion?

Well, if I may unhelpfully point out that obviously the topic of discussion can't be our personal views on the topic of discussion. 🙄

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, if I may unhelpfully point out that obviously the topic of discussion can't be our personal views on the topic of discussion. 🙄

It may be a recursive thread ... lemme check ...
Nope, it's just a plain old thread ... you were correct :]

Originally posted by josephw
Are you?
What's the topic of discussion now FMF, our personal views about other posters or our personal views about the topic of discussion?

I'm responding to something you said.

Originally posted by FMF
These kinds of snippets of text can be used ~ perhaps ~ to urge or coerce conformity and compliance in a group or cult consisting of people who already hold Bible based beliefs, but they are of no relevance to people who do not subscribe to that particular literature. So your post is a variant of 'preaching to the choir'.

As is yours, as usual.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see what argument roigam was offering in the dispute. I just saw a lazy ad hominem-like-thing that sought to circumnavigate or perhaps stifle debate. 🙂

edit: [b]He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.

Well, he has had some exchanges of views with me and I am a non-believer when it comes to his religious faith.[/b]

Well, it's been shown that you can't see much at all when confronted by those that do not believe as you do.

Not that that excuses it, mind.

Originally posted by divegeester
But in reality the world of unbelievers are "looking" you josephw; they look at what you believe, why you believe it and what impact it has on your attitudes and behaviour. Adopting an unpleasant religious belief and then saying "don't look at me, it's in the bible" is not endearing nor edifying for anyone.

And so is labeling all believers with the tag "religionists".

Not endearing. Not edifying. Not true.


DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that YOU said this (although you might not disagree). I'm just 'throwing it out there'.

Originally posted by FMF
I rather thought it was an ad hominem about being "foolish" rather than a genuine "reply" to the OP poster. But maybe you're right, maybe it's legitimate "advice". The question of what it actually is has been highlighted then. Good.

It's only an ad hominem if it's fallacious. In other senses it is a valid observation if it advocates a course of practical reason.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I haven't noticed roigam ever respond to any posts except ones made by Christians. He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.

Sorry, my frame of reference is the Bible and Bible understanding. I took philosophy in college and found it to be a lot like cotton candy, that is fun to eat but not very substantial and of very little value as far as nourishment goes.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I haven't noticed roigam ever respond to any posts except ones made by Christians. He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.

I was busy over the wknd so I'm just catching up on this thread.
To finalize my thought, the Bible offers superior understanding when compared with the musings of man so that is my preference.

Originally posted by roigam
Sorry, my frame of reference is the Bible and Bible understanding. I took philosophy in college and found it to be a lot like cotton candy, that is fun to eat but not very substantial and of very little value as far as nourishment goes.

That's unfortunate. Do you remember what you studied? Was it an introductory survey course?