Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Do you need an explanation of what those terms mean?

 

nope I need your explanation how you are applying them

 

The ontological argument is a priori. The scenario in question is not and it is wildly off topic.

 

ok so you cant explain how you applied them, got it.

the point here is that you cant explain how you are applying them and to what exactly, yet you think you know and stand on your soapbox claiming I am off topic, it shoudl be obvious what I said is 'prove it', you cant. simple as that

 

right, which is why I actually explained it. lol

 

I found this interesting...

So, if one cannot prove non-existence, then what in the hell do atheists hang their hats on? It is according to the above quote impossible to prove that god does not exist. So perhaps they have just as much faith in its non existence and theists do in its existence? For the theists cannot prove its existence either.

If god exists, outside of this universe, outside of time space matter, there is logically no way to prove it does exist. Unless of course we ever discover that consciousness is fundamental, which is what most of the founders of quantum mechanics and Von Neumann thought. Of course other physicists did not accept what many of the founders thought or Von Neumann, but they have no evidence to the contrary either. It might be impossible to find evidence for the assumption of materialism, or for what Von Neumann and the founders thought. But this means there can be no certainty in regards to materialism. Nor any certainty that a god consciousness does not exist outside of our universe. So we are left with mere beliefs based upon nothing at all. This is where we are and neither the atheists or theists will accept it. Especially the atheists who try to use science as their crutch.

 

Dualism does not absolve you from the responsibility for providing evidence for the positive assertion.

If you think consciousness exists outside the physical then show it.

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. You correctly point out it is impossible to prove a negative. But the burden of proof lies squarely with the theist.

 

word games, flim flam, subterfuge, pretense, anything to dodge the fact they believe there is no God.

 

Tell it to Isaac Newton.

Philosophy as it's taught today is BS, but learning about philosophy can be very rewarding, and can inform your thinking in ways that learning about science cannot. Imagine how much differently you would live your life if you adopted a philosophy of hedonism or a philosophy of stoicism from however you live your life now. Or imagine if you could articulate why you think X is bad and Y is good using the language of Aristotle instead of, "Well, that's how I feel about it, anyway." Most people today, whether they know it or not, have philosophies similar to either Kant or Nietzsche, and to my mind, both are essentially nihilist philosophies that lead to destruction, but without understanding the philosophy they hold, most people don't really know that.

Not quite. More like because we can imagine the greatest possible thing that exists, and because existence is greater than non-existence, the greatest possible thing must exist, and we call it God.

Here you're trying to tie God up in a logical paradox. Since God is necessarily outside of the universe if he made the universe, God is not tied by either gravity (moving) or dimensions (size). God exists outside of the physical laws that you're trying to bind him by. (He doesn't exist, but I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument.)

Not quite. The argument is that because you can imagine God, and God is the greatest thing that could possibly exist, and existence is greater than non-existence, God must exist. Because a non-existent God would be less great than the greatest thing we can imagine. It's not quite the same argument as one made not too long ago that because we can imagine God, and there's no evolutionary reason we should, i.e., there's no survival benefit to it, God must have made us that way, and therefore God must exist. That one, to me, ignores the fact that primitives believed in animism, not a solitary, omnipotent, creator God. After that was polytheism, and after that, monotheism. Monotheism is a relatively recent advancement in human history, after all, no more than 6000 years old in a 300,000-500,000 year period of humanity.

 

It seems important to you that atheists comply with what you say they should believe, why is that?

 

Philosophy like most branches of academia is being destroyed by people with a politicised religious agenda. It is important to keep in mind that those subjects can have their integrity restored by rejecting and opposing politicised religious interference.

 

Odd that you would say that while trying to promote fallacies like 'you lack belief', simply pretending that the negative cannot be restated as a positive, which is absurd. Nonetheless its the latest fad religion amongst the disgruntled.

 

It seems important to you that atheists comply with what you say they should believe, why is that?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a politicized religious agenda. 99.9% of all philosophers I've met/heard about/read have been atheists. I can think of one who wasn't, but he called himself an ethicist rather than a philosopher. No, I think the problem with the teaching of philosophy today is that it has become so esoteric and so navel-gazing in nature that most people's eyes glaze over in lack of understanding and lack of interest. Philosophers no longer concern themselves with the big questions of life, they concern themselves with minutiae of philosophical questions only of interest to other philosophers also interested in that tiny slice of philosophy. Nobody else cares.

 

Pointing out that what you claim is a logical fallacy is not telling you what to believe, makes me question if you have some kind of victim thing going on?

We have people with no understanding of these subjects simply throwing around buzz words today. Philosophy is a very wide turf, that includes ethics which is the 'study, or philosophy of morals', along with metaphysics, theology etc, and when a person incorporates and practices their chosen set of morals its classified as religion, in private its a personal religion if public policy its political religion, and the ability to practice your religion in public is liberty.

In the US people have the right to exercise their religion, at least the Bill of Rights gives it lip service, the difficulty with creating a gubmint that defacto respects religion it requires the creation of a public policy that all religions agree upon, hence ultimately neutral between them for instance.

Most of what I see today is merely bickering.

 

I lack belief.

Over to you.

 

No you dont, thats a false conclusion, you in fact believe there is no evidence for a deity, hence you have lots of beliefs. Please keep it real.

 

It seems important to you that atheists comply with what you say they should believe, why is that?

 

I dont care what atheists believe or lack thereof, what atheist belief or lack thereof is not my point, what is my point is that atheists in these threads fail to comprehend simple grammar, logic and reason and with that fail to make a valid case for themselves.

 

Really? Seems to me like you consistently attempt to build a straw man of what positions atheists have and then attempt to attack that position rather than what they actually tell you. You've done that consistently for numerous pages now.

It seems important to you that atheists comply with what you say they should believe, why is that?

 

every conclusion you make is a belief, sorry but thats just life.
its your belief that no gods exist, fine with me, but to claim atheists lack belief borders on delusion if not insanity.

 

I have yet to meet an atheist (besides myself) who has been willing to acknowledge that "not believing in God" is logically equivalent to "believing in no God", even if they will acknowledge that "if not A then B" is logically equivalent to "if A then not B". Likewise, I have yet to meet an atheist (besides myself) who has been willing to acknowledge that secular humanism is a religion, even though it has a specific set of beliefs and practices that go with it. We do have an established religion in this country, and it is secular humanism. God help you (so to speak) if you go against it.

 

If the rest of your philosophy and belief system is in step then you are one of the very few educated atheists that I have run across. FWIW the supreme court agrees with you

 

I'm more than happy to discuss faith, justified belief, assumptions about reality and ignorance at any other time but, at the moment the question is why it seems important to you that atheists comply with what you say they should believe, why is that?