Conquer Club

comic boy wrote:I assume that was an April fool post

Frigidus wrote:

Neutrino wrote:You are not destined to become Protestant. Your Protestantism is the result of a long chain of events. Take any of them out and you become non-Protestant. Therefore, all your examples where you become Protestant no-matter-what fail.[/size]

He probably feels that he was destined to become protestant after becoming an athiest or something, which brings up the question of just how much "free will" is supposedly prescribed to us. After all, there are only two ways to look at it:

A: Your religion was chosen by a decision at some point in your life largely due to various social conditions you were raised into, or

B: Your religion was predestined, whether scientifically or divinely.

Assuming choice A is true, the heavy majority of non-Christians are condemned to burn for reasons beyond their control. Assuming choice B is true, all non-Christians are for reasons beyond their control. Tough call there.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

comic boy wrote:I assume that was an April fool post

Bursting your bubble: It isn't April Fools until April 1, so, no.

AlgyTaylor wrote:We have a concept of unicorns, so therefore unicorns exist/have existed.


Oh wait a second. That's a shite argument.


Point disproven.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ontological argument IS pretty much that statement. Descartes (roughly) put it as

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is exactly the same as saying

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of unicorns.
3. Therefore, unicorns exists.

Or in other words, I think unicorns exist so therefore they do.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ontological argument IS pretty much that statement. Descartes (roughly) put it as

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is exactly the same as saying

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of unicorns.
3. Therefore, unicorns exists.

Or in other words, I think unicorns exist so therefore they do.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

Axiom S5 is far from uncontested, you know.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Look, if wikipedia says its "widely" accepted, that basically means that apart a few fundamentalist atheist nuts like comic_rentboy, snorrarse and Dicky Dorkins, its universally accepted.

comic boy wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

comic boy wrote:I assume that was an April fool post

Bursting your bubble: It isn't April Fools until April 1, so, no.

Ah yes but as usual things are less clear cut than you pretend
I dont know if you have heard of time zones but when you posted it was April 1st in the land of the Comic, and as the post was addressed to me.....

Jenos Ridan wrote:
I've heard of time zones, but I had no intention of doing an April Fools post. Again, sorry.

I've heard the "no black or white, all grey" argument before and it is sickening. I ask people who think that why one question, "What shade of grey is murder?"

I never get an answer.

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
I've heard of time zones, but I had no intention of doing an April Fools post. Again, sorry.

I've heard the "no black or white, all grey" argument before and it is sickening. I ask people who think that why one question, "What shade of grey is murder?"

I never get an answer.

One of the darker ones.

That is, however, excluding all other variables. What if the person you murdered was an active pedophile or murderer in turn? With your "evil" action, you have prevented much "evil" from occuring. Therefore you action is both good and bad, simultaneously. Therefore grey.

Jenos Ridan wrote:
My point is, most of the "all's grey" types that I've met are flakes who don't like dealing with any sort of absolute. For me, murder is always wrong, putting such people to death is justice. Life may have areas wher navigation is difficult, but there are some things that are never acceptable.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Yes...and as I said, you'd therefore recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith? The idea that humanity needs to imagine infinity, is just wrong, which I tried to explain a little more tactfullu earlier on.

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Yes...and as I said, you'd therefore recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith? The idea that humanity needs to imagine infinity, is just wrong, which I tried to explain a little more tactfullu earlier on.

I say: "Ontological arguments are not valid."

You say: "Your athiesm is based on gut feeling"

One hell of a non sequitur.

Hell, I already explained whre my athiesm comes from (God = sadistic bastard). What relivance does this have to the argument here, which is the validity of ontological aguments? I acknowledge ontological arguments are fine for minor things, well inside human experience. When it comes to God, they fall appart completely.

Rebutt... now.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
1/You proudly proclaim that "Ontological arguments aren't valid" without offering the slightest in terms of intelligent analysis of their content.

Napoleon Ier wrote:2/This proof, if you don't believe in a Christian God, is entirely compatible with Deism, or another religion of your choice.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Look, if wikipedia says its "widely" accepted, that basically means that apart a few fundamentalist atheist nuts like comic_rentboy, snorrarse and Dicky Dorkins, its universally accepted.

Wikipedia once claimed that Vin Diesel has a 10 inch black cock.