Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Except we have no reason to believe the abstract idea of God "attaches" to anything in the physical world.

 

Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
※→ yardmeat, et al,

What does this mean.

(QUESTION)

When addressing 'the notion of a Supreme Being (SB) / Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC), by definition we are talking about a supernatural entity that is undefined (except by religion) and having characteristics that are NOT concrete; ambiguously interpreted.

How did we determine that the SB/UCC does NOT "attaches" (entangle) to anything in the physical world (materialism?

Who is qualified to define the SB/UCC and cite its characteristics (or limitations - if any) and attributes?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Actually quantum physics has more or less shown us that reality changes when it is perceived.

 

When it is measured, not percieved. And it doesn't change. The system collapses into a unique reality. Before that the system exists in a superposition of states or is undefined.

Beyond that, your comment has nothing to do with the argument.

 

'

If it is abstract it isn't physical. You are contradicting yourself.

It is an abstract model that can be used to quantify the physical world.

 

No, it was measured in both cases. When it was perceived, and when it wasn't, with different results.

 

Oh, well thanks for letting me know that math is a figment of all our imaginations and does not exist. brilliant.

It does not reduce the fact that is an abstract that attaches to the real world, regardless of any alternative opinions or applications.

 

this may be true with regard to 'your' perspective of how God exists. Who knows the scope and breadth of how God exists?

 

God doesn't exist in my mind, therefore the argument is invalid.

 

Fact. Most everything you 'know' is from experience, mostly second hand at that. You personally have 'reasoned' almost nothing on your own relatively. You can't even be sure you're sane in the first place. Your comments here indicate you're not.

 

already established this to be nonsense.

 

As for Anselm's argument, it became less fashionable after Aquina's Summa Contra Gentiles became available as a teaching text, and posited its own critique of Anslem's argument in Chapter 13. as insufficient. Chapter 13 is the 'long version' of the Five Ways'. The entire book is free at this site, but you may have to download the chapters separately. This is my link, and I've never looked for the complete book, but it's available at archive.org, no doubt, for a pdf version or some other formats for e readers.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm

 

In your mind, not anybody else's that matter.

 

Rubbish. You want to claim you're all knowing and thus capable of making only rational decisions and choices, go ahead. You'll be putting your name on a long list of idiots, maniacs, fools, and psychos, you just won't be as famous as many of them.

 

no, to everyone, including you.

 

It's merely necessary to establish what you mean by the word 'God'. The rest will be easy after that, since the faux 'atheists' here will just babble along oblivious as usual, and tell us all how brilliant and rational they are, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

No, you're just delusional, i.e. normal for you.

 

already showed your posts to be nonsense.

 

Where exactly did I claim that?

 

Fair enough, but if maths is just a perspective and doesn't really exist other than as a shorthand for humans, then the maths example is of no use.

 

Who said math is 'just a perspective and doesnt really exist'? Not me. I said math is abstract, hence you cannot touch or feel it, yet it exists and is very real.

 

Mathematics is just a system of logic, and relies on circular logic; all logic is just circular reasoning as an inevitable function of definitions, an artificial construct, and only works within a closed system, as does empiricism itself, where 'repeatibility' is the ideal, and thus is artificial. Very useful within a limited set of definitions and data, and just as dependent on a higher morality to work as any other value system.

As we've seen for a long time, 'science' is just as susceptible to fads and fashion as so-called 'superstition' based constructs are, and it is easy to pay 'scientists' to come up with anything one is willing to pay for, so claiming it is 'rational' is just ridiculous noise; there is a website out there devoted to outing fake 'peer reviewed' doctoral theses and 'studies', and they estimate fake data and made up 'results' permeates around 35% of theses. It is probably much higher in the 'soft' sciences', like Economics, Sociology, and most especially Psychiatry and Psychology. 'Rationalism' and 'reason' among modern 'secular humanists' is just a lot of semantic sophistry, rubbish, and pseudo-intellectual dilettantism, not genuine interests in 'reason', much more about politics.

'Constructivist Humanism' of course leads to Marxist style idiocy and right wing idiocy in equal doses, complete rubbish based on vanity, and naturally the numbers killed as a result of 'rationalism' far far exceed any other causes of murder and mass killings, whether via maniacs like Hitler and Mao and Stalin, atheist 'states all, or right wing corporatism driven by sociopathic 'ideals' like 'Social Darwinism' that now holds out Red China as the 'savior of globalism' and the 'new best friends of giant multi-national corporations and international capital; they all share the exact same mentality towards the 'little people', and place only 'economic values' on human life. Abortion on demand alone has killed around 60 million or so.

'Secular humanism' is much more like a regression back to paganism, i.e. neo-paganism, only its craving for human sacrifices is now down via 'medical clinics' and 'rational economic decisions' instead of tossing the bodies into volcanoes or fire pits.

The essence of both 'libertarianism' and frothing hatred of Da Evul Xians who won't 'validate' assorted neurotic sexual fetishists, deviants, and mindless self-indulgence behind the majority of the appeals of 'secular humanism':
.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry

Marxists such as Gramsci loved to manipulate such people; they're huge suckers for such 'logic'.

 

Well, I suppose I shouldn't have added "doesn't really exist". However, consider adding an apple and an apple and finding two apples. It's not that the two apples underwent some physical process, we just first considered them as different groups and then as one group. All the maths took place in our brains. You say it attaches to the physical world, but I would say it's our way of making sense of the physical world, it does not indicate that it exists outwith the mathematician (ourselves).

 

It's circular logic, yes, by design; it isn't total reality', and never will be, no matter how high your opinions of yourself go.

Rubbish; it has its own definitions, and uses those, no different than empirical philosophies do.

So what? I don't see any evidence you can understand the arguments, much less discuss them without re-defining others meanings and inventing the same old strawman 'arguments' you have already.

 

That going out on and over the deep end since nothing exists outside our brains, meaning without our brains there is nothing, meaning it has no relevance. I dont know what the point is behind the assumption the apple has to go through some process? Yes it attaches and does not change the fact that math is real. Nothing what so ever can be perceived without 'ourself', that path makes no sense.