Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

so all you have to offer is more figments of your imagination, please spare us.

 

No I am stating facts and you know they are facts.

There is no us you only speak for yourself and you are wrong and you know it.

 

sure everyone knows the useless drivel you post, the figments of your imagination, are facts to you and you alone. time to change sox again.

 

. . . you just perfectly summarized the ontological argument, pretending that figments of imagination are facts.

 

well I went through all the trouble of digging up info from sanford U's philosophy team but either no one has read it or they simply dont understand it.

 

If you are talking about the Negation article, it has nothing to do with what I just said.

 

human interactions have no physical traces, if someone flips you the bird you instantly react despite nothing touched you physically. Do you believe that conveyance did not exist because you cannot touch it?

 

You're getting even further off topic. This has nothing to do with the ontological argument in the least. But human interactions do have physical traces. If someone flips me the bird, photons are bouncing off of his appendage and into my eyeballs, triggering other physical processes. I can film the person flipping me off for further evidence if I'd like, but I have evidence that he flipped me off. I don't have evidence God exists. Nor does the ontological argument have anything to do with evidence. Evidence is a posteriori. The ontological argument is a priori.

 

not so, I am precisely on the topic at hand, but you had to cheat by adding your own strawman accessories to the proposition to avoid giving an answer, I will accept that as a concession.

 

The only concession here is your avoidance of the topic and simple observations. As well as completely inventing a straw man to try to back out of the discussion.

 

hardly, I had to teach a course in logic and reason 101 to the ['s']lacker crowd, and that was the topic until the peanut gallery sox popped in slinging their ad homs around. Now you pop in and cant even answer a simple proposition without applying your strawman tactics to avoid answering.

 

I agree, and I will note how these words mean very different things to different people.

You may as well ask why theists should be cocksure and confident, while more thoughtful people entertain doubt. That is, in both groups, some express varying degrees of doubt; but it's usually the ones who act cocksure and confident who get our attention.

Atheists are not a monolithic group, any more than Christians or Muslims or Hindus are. Even less so, I'd say. All 'I'm an atheist' means is 'I reject religion.' It doesn't say anything about a person's personality, about interests and goals, about political views, about values and ethics, etc..

To an atheist, the world is a lot like one big Comic Con, where the fans actually believe that their favorite franchises are literal truth. If you can imagine being surrounded by fans who actually believe they know Captain Kirk, or Doctor Who, or Sam & Dean Winchester, or Luke Skywalker, you may have an idea how religious folks can appear to atheists. Given this, how would you describe these fans' beliefs? That's a genuine question, because I sometimes struggle to talk about religion with religious folks -- if I'm honest about what I think of their beliefs, I run the risk of seriously offending them; but if I go the diplomatic route, I run the risk that 'uncertainty,' 'doubt,' or 'open mind' will be misinterpreted as 'I'm not really sure what I believe and don't believe, convert me harder.'

And while keeping an open mind, how many times would you investigate the fans' beliefs only to find them unfounded, unverifiable, and even outright contradictory before you concluded that they are beliefs only? As you say, your own experience is limited no matter how many fans you talk to -- but how long could you maintain a genuine "Sure, maybe this fan has it right" attitude after you meet yet another fan who wants to talk to you about his extraordinary friend?

Ditto!

 

You failed to apply any reason or logic.

Your entire lame argument is to twist the meanings of words and claim that lack of a belief is a belief.

It is NOT. Facts prove you wrong and I have stated only facts annd you know this to be trure proving it is you alone launching the ad hom.

Everytime you have started this debate you have been crushed and destroyed by many people it is nothing more than a maturity problem you have and you think repeating something which has been proven wrong allows you to save facewhen in fact you just look worse with evvery post

Grow up you are just being childish and you know you are pwned

 

yeh yeh yeh you say that to everyone you cant defeat, nothing to see folks, same old vacant drivel as every other ad hom post.

 

I used to tutor logic. And no, you still apparently don't know what a straw man is. Otherwise you actually would have identified one.

 

Ah there may be intelligent life on the planet after all!

Thats not true you know since atheism deals strictly with deity belief which is not required to be religious. Though I agree that many atheists simply throw everything out with the bath water, so lets not confuse the issue worse than it already is .

 

If that were the case you would have answered the question.

 

You question was, itself, a straw man and was based on false assumptions. I addressed those false assumptions and the fact that the question failed to address anything I was actually talking about or anything that the thread is about. The question if evidence has literally nothing to do with the ontological argument, and observing someone flipping me off is, despite your assertion, a physical process.

 

ah cool nice dancing, pretty quick on your feet! However, now that you at least kept it within the boundaries of the proposition how do you intend to prove it to the guy across the street who did not see it? The proposition did not include recording devices, so try not to cheat this time.

 

Can you find a way to actually relate your scenario to the topic? How will an ontological argument help me prove the existence of this guy?

 

you need me to tell you? ontology is also about showing the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain.

I have just given you a problem, you know its a fact and you know its true that you were flipped off now prove it to the guy next door.

 

Please stop making things up and return to the topic. It is starting to look desperate. Your question has precisely nothing to do with the ontological argument, nor could a reconstruction of the ontological argument aid you in answering such a question. Put down the poorly-made straw man.

 

It is the topic, and only because you either fail or simply refuse to connect the very obvious dots, as well as the concept of an analogous proposition.

 

The proposition isn't analogous in the least. One is an a posteriori proposition and the other is a priori. Try again.

 

Of course and you cant explain why you think that is the case.