Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Yes math is a system, morals form to create a qualitative system, hence religion, all of which are constructs, each with different levels of reliability. Taking it further, something that is artificial is still exists, if it did not there would be no way to convey and communicate substance of the artifice to another. All morality is the composition of ones religion.

 

There is plenty of evidence of God....just because you say there isn't, doesn't make it so, except in YOUR mind. Everything in YOUR mind is real to you.

 

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/756870/proof-of-god-kurt-godel

http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=73163

How Quantum Physics Proves God’s Existence
http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/galleries/how-quantum-physics-proves-gods-existence.aspx

Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!


Look before you show your ignorance.

 

Like I said, when it stops working, let me know. Until then you have nothing.

 

Apologetic nonsense.

 

You are what you think. Ignorance is your bliss, so you don't have to think.

 

I find it to be a pretty lame argument.. as if the ability to think abstractly proves the existence of the supernatural. I do not see a compelling correlation to that.

I find the existence of 'Angst' a much more compelling argument, as well as the universal observation of morality & Natural Law, among human cultures.

But just because this argument lacks compulsion, does not mean that it is an argument against the existence of a Deity. That would be a 'some, therefore all', fallacy.

It is perhaps the greatest of human mysteries, IF there is a God:

Why has He hidden Himself so? Why is His existence not more evident?

But that is also a philosophical question, that nobody can answer. And to presume atheism because of this obvious reality, is no more compelling than concluding the supernatural because we are here.

 

There is zero evidence and that is fact not my say so.

you are also wrong we all have things in our minds which are not real

 

Well, if God does exist, then he/she/it/mutant isn't 'supernatural'.

 

Wonderful, the discussion has degenerated into solopsism, false equivalencies, false attributions, and outright lies, as is inevitable when wanna-be theologian fundies try to defend the ontological argument.

There is a reason that the great religious philosophers have always recognized that arguments for this or that god are for bolstering the faith of those who already believe, rather than converting those who don't. They're inconclusive and as independent of verifiability/falsification as religion itself, every last one of them, and it's as simple as that.

 

Well said. Some other questions worth asking: How many gods are there? What is their nature? What are there interests and goals? What do they expect of us, if anything? There are a zillion questions that can be asked.

 

Prove it.

 

in a corporeal sense, agreed.
If I remember christ was God in flesh, now risen, no longer in flesh, but once again in spirit, or abstract, some would say metaphysical, though suipernatural applies.

 

One cannot prove a negative.

Theburden of proof is on others and they have none

 

Yes, the 'atheists' are pretty ignorant and rely solely on stuff they read somewhere they thought sounded good, without ever bothering to know what they're talking about. Now that you know this about yourself, you and the other pseudo-intellectuals might want to up your game a little instead of just throwing out idiotic rubbish and trying to pass that off as 'intelligent discussion' for a change.

 

lol

 

RE: Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
※→ gophangover, Soupnazi, et al,

This is a great little presentation. A+ for its argument and the manner of the convincing performance.

• How do you know (really know) that a "God" exists."
• What does it mean to "Know God?"
• IF you know (really know) that a particular God exists, THEN you must be able to describe the experience to others...​

(COMMENT)

I do not want to be confused with someone who cannot explain or understand existence of "God;" and therefore conclude that the existence cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

IF scientists can mathematically "PROVE" the existence of "God;" THEN what is the divine formula.
This is the equations that many claim to be mathematical proof of the Existence of "God?"

​

But, this is an "ontological proof." That means it is a philosophical argument ⇒ for the existence of God that uses ontology (metaphysics about reality: What is real and where; as well as What are its attributes and characteristics). This is abstract reasoning showing a conceptual possibility for the existence of God; without using Concrete facts, events, testable observations, and tangible objects.

As our Friend "Soupnazi" (I don't know what that name means) is absolutely correct. There is no evidence that a Supreme Being either exists or does not exist. True science is the investigation into something that can be tested. IF it is not testable, it is not Science.

I believe a majority of believers should expect something extraordinary to occur if the formula for the understanding of the divine were set to paper (or even thought). Again, what would it mean to understand the supernatural characteristics of the Supreme Being? Certainly, Kurt Gödel's 20th Century Argument does not explain the existence of "God." It only suggests that there is a possibility that a Supreme Being might exist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

It's character on the Seinfeld sitcom, played by the actor who played 'Belker' on the Hill Street Blues TV series, who according to the plot made the best soup in NYC, but was very obnoxious to customers, and would ban them for any number of petty 'offenses', very 'Nazi like', so many of his customers were afraid to anger him. You'll have to find the episode and see it to get it, really, as describing it literally fails, at least in my case. It's kind of a 'cult' thing.

 

If the God the Creator exists, then God is nature itself, and would't be 'supernatural' by that definition; I could have made that a little clearer, I guess.

 

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

You are making an assumption not held I evidence.

(COMMENT)

This is a big IF-THEN statement.

IF the Supreme Being exists - THEN the Supreme Being is part of nature. ⇒ What evidence is there to support this assumption?​

Again, this may -- or -- may not be true. In order to evaluate this statement, ever give it a cursory examination, we must define the attributes and characteristics of the Supreme Being.

IF we understand the scope, nature and extent of the attributes of the subject (the Supreme Being) THEN we might (still questionable) at some point determine IF the Supreme Being is some definable entity that operates outside the understanding of the physical laws of the universe (supernatural).

• Using your view, one comparative question set "might" become:

§ Is the Supreme Being limited to operating inside the physical laws of the universe: not all powerful (Omnipotent)?
------------------------------------------------------------------ OR ------------------------------------------------------------------
§ Did the Supreme Being create the physical law of the universe; but is all powerful, immortal and omniscient? ​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

This reads like shadow boxing; the internet is where religions will die. Breathing their last gasps as they discover that the internet isn't like a pulpit or the television, the internet is not a one way medium where you get to say any old nonsense without challenge. The rarified religious forums where rational discussion is shut down are simply preaching to the choir.

 

You are in good company. Many before you, for thousands of years, have made the same prediction. And, i'm sure many after you will do the same...

“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59

Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror. ~Voltaire

“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink….We’re more popular than Jesus now.” John Lennon

Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it shall perish. ~Nietzshe

 

To the contrary, the internet is where more people come to religion and it thrives and grows ad infinitum.

On a side note, this:

I am an atheist, I lack belief;

Is possibly one of the most infantile ill framed buzzy fads I have seen in a very long time, make a thread if you want to know why LOL.

The hardest pill for atheists to swalow is that athiesm is a religion, no different than any other religion.

 

seems you have a problem.

 

My, how quickly the worst of the liars and sophists leap to identify themselves, with hardly a nod in their direction, how quickly they leap to attack anyone who points out the philosophical reality.

I'd advise you that regurgitating all this nonsense you spew in thread and after thread is unchristian and unwise, but go on, tell us what else your fundie parents, parochial school, or favorite internet prophet says about everyone else. Tell us how stupid and uneducated we are.