09 Jun 10
Originally posted by shorbockExistence is not a quality or attribute, it is simply being instantiated in reality. A putative entity either exists or it does not. Positing existence as an attribute, like, say, intelligence, is an error. That is why Anslem's ontological proof fails.
Hey i've thought of a brand new GOD PROVER !
Here it goes :
- An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect.
- Being perfect, he would have ALL the qualities
- Having all qualities, he must have the first one : the quality of existence
- So God exists.
GOD PROVEN
Refute that Mr Kant !
And think about that : all those clever sci ...[text shortened]... ture infaillible.
So, who's refuted?
God is as hard to refute as the Traxler Gambit !
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleto black beetle
Child of a noble family vishvahetu, you did not hurt my feelings in any way. Now listen to me without distraction;
You are one of my Eastern brothers and I am fortunate to meet you here so that I may attain my Perfected Nature and fulfil the wishes of sentient beings by means of letting the karmic misadventure swiftly transformed into compassion. Hap ...[text shortened]... th undivided faith by means of your own evaluation of the mind;
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
Impressive!
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by shorbockStrange kind of reasoning. Using this technique I can also prove that it doesn't exist. For example:
- An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect.
- Being perfect, he would have ALL the qualities
- Having all qualities, he must have the first one : the quality of existence
- So God exists.
-An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect.
-Being perfect, he would have ALL the qualities despite having ALL the handicaps
-The greatest handicap would be the non-existence
-So God doesn't exists
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by whodeyto whodey
If there is a God, such a God could "prove" himself if he so desired. The question then becomes if he exists, why doesn't he prove himself?
Speculations?
god is not the bible god that we hear about, god is everything, and everything you can already see, so there is the proof right in front of you.
cheers vishvahetu
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"You keep making statements without explanation and expect people to simply agree with you."
So it wan't a conclusion, but merely a statement of fact. I guess thats clearer now.
[b]Life is the opposite of death. When I say life I mean life that has no death.
You really need to clarify these things up front when you know you are using such non-standard definitions. Even after I asked for clarification you did not mention this unusual prope ...[text shortened]... agree with you. If they did, then there is no point in the thread in the first place.[/b]
No I don't "expect"! I've given explanations, or at least I tried to.
"If they did, then there is no point in the thread in the first place."
Actually, if everyone agreed with God there would be no need for this debate. I'm not God. I expect to be embroiled in this debate until we're all old men with shriveled up old faces and no teeth.
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by vistesdExactly. and since you know what i'm talking about, you must also guess i was not being serious !
Existence is not a quality or attribute, it is simply being instantiated in reality. A putative entity either exists or it does not. Positing existence as an attribute, like, say, intelligence, is an error. That is why Anslem's ontological proof fails.
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by danielnovacoviciSince when is God supposed to have all the handicaps? i thought he was supposed to have none (hence perfection)
Strange kind of reasoning. Using this technique I can also prove that it doesn't exist. For example:
-An almighty being that we would call God would be perfect.
-Being perfect, he would have ALL the qualities despite having ALL the handicaps
-The greatest handicap would be the non-existence
-So God doesn't exists
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry to contradict you, but it's a definition !
If you call it a proof, and not a joke, then you have to be so stringent that not even I find any flaw in it.
You say 'by definition'. I don't see the definition. It's just a statement that in itself needs to be proven. If you fail with this, then the whole proof has failed.
Again, if you introduce 'by definition', why don't you make the proof as s ...[text shortened]... gious things with scientific methods. You will fail. Science and religion cannot mix.
If i define spiderman as a superhero with superhuman strength that can walk on walls and throw webs, i don't have to prove it,
If santa claus lives on the north pole and brings gifts to children once a year, i don't have to prve it,
the fact that they're imaginary doesn't make the definition less sound !
Nice try, you've obviously felt something was wrong, but you didn't hit the right spot (not that easy considering the people who have tried)
Vistesd just gave the right refutation (but he didn't find it by himself anymore than i did invent this argument)
10 Jun 10
2 edits
To Fabian :
Well you were not my intended target!
I was hoping to trap some theist...so i stop my little joke :
At least we have a PROOF you haven't taken consideration of my hints !
- hint 3 : most of my post on this forum show appalling atheism and contempt for religion
- hint 2 : The traxler, apart from being one of my favorite gambits, is easily refuted :1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7! Ke7 6.Bb3 followed by d3, 00, and Be3, is a simple positionnal refutation (there might exist a more definitive tactical refutation after Nxf7 but that's far from clear)
- hint 1 : No, my quoting Kant was not fortuitous...
In fact this reasoning is one of the most famous and oldest tries to prove the existence of God (or ontological argument), called st Anselm's argument, repeated by Descartes and Spinoza amongst others, and finally refuted by Kant (in a way resumed by vistesd : existence is not a quality)
More about it here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Very interesting stuff !
11 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by shorbockYou should have PM me, and I would sit ack and just enjoy the spectacle. 🙂
To Fabian :
Well you were not my intended target!
I was hoping to trap some theist...so i stop my little joke :
At least we have a PROOF you haven't taken consideration of my hints !
- hint 3 : most of my post on this forum show appalling atheism and contempt for religion
- hint 2 : The traxler, apart from being one of my favorite gambits, is easily about it here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Very interesting stuff !
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by shorbockThe concept of perfection is always linked to non-existing. An example: if we think at the word "sphere", certainly that spheres exists, but perfect spheres, if you extend the measuring of the radius of the sphere at an atomic or even smaller level, doesn't exists. So, an perfect thing is just an non-existent thing which help us to categorize some imperfect things. That's why I said that in order for something to be perfect, it must be non-existent.
Since when is God supposed to have all the handicaps? i thought he was supposed to have none (hence perfection)
12 Jun 10
Originally posted by danielnovacovici"That's why I said that in order for something to be perfect, it must be non-existent."
The concept of perfection is always linked to non-existing. An example: if we think at the word "sphere", certainly that spheres exists, but perfect spheres, if you extend the measuring of the radius of the sphere at an atomic or even smaller level, doesn't exists. So, an perfect thing is just an non-existent thing which help us to categorize some i ...[text shortened]... hings. That's why I said that in order for something to be perfect, it must be non-existent.
Positively obtuse. This kind of thinking is what drives unbelief. If you think [a thing] can only be [perfect] when it doesn't exist, then anything you think is hollow, without substance, and unprovable.
Your mental gymnastics renders you impotent.