Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[doubtingmerle]

Strawman. We're not arguing for a necessary chess piece, but rather a necessary game designer.

I didn't say you were arguing for a necessary game piece.

I showed that the same argument that was used to prove a necessary game designer could also be used to prove a necessary "Emperor" chess piece.

Get with the program, please.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you can show me how Omnipotence would ever, or why Omnipotence would ever sanction or command murder, or maybe you can present an example where he did command it (remember, now, he has the right to everyone's life. He is not one of us --so to say he killed or commanded to kill is not at all the same thing as murder or commanding or sanctioning murder.

Murder means wrongful killing. The exact definition of "murder" varies from country to country and even state to state. For instance, what acts of killing constitute lawful self defense, and what acts are homicide? Different states have different laws.

An example of killing in a way that most of us consider wrongful killing would be:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
​

Do you agree that it is wrong to kill people as these verses command?

 

[Paulomycin]

I didn't say you were arguing for a necessary game piece.

I showed that the same argument that was used to prove a necessary game designer could also be used to prove a necessary "Emperor" chess piece.

Irrelevant. It's not even analagous.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again, pure speculation doesn't warrant consideration.

If you thought God was commanding you to take an assault rifle, and kill dozens of people at random, would you do it?

I would not.

Will you answer that, or will you refuse to answer because it is mere speculation?

 

[Paulomycin]

Will you answer that, or will you refuse to answer because it is mere speculation?

- It's still mere speculation, and I'm not obligated to anything relevant to real-life here.
- Am I a Continuationist? No. The canon is closed. So, it doesn't concern me at all.
- Is puerile "badgering" and peer-pressure suddenly a thing I should be concerned about when you decide to repeat the question?​

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This modus ponens is both valid and sound. Why? Because the fact that logic is universal. Logic has prescriptive force. PSR dictates that logic necessarily require a logician, regardless of any time, place, situation, or environment. Denying it on will alone (without evidence to the contrary) just proves me more right.

Again, I don't need to prove a logician does not exist. You need to support your claim a logician does exist. So far you have not. You have just asserted it.

Then you reject universal logic. It's really that simple.

You don't need these bullying tactics. Just provide good evidence that your premise is true.

The only nature of "convincing" evidence is whether or not it is objective. It has nothing to do with how overwhelmed you "feel" about it. Most people cannot emotionally handle objective evidence that crashes so hard against their old paradigm. It's entirely possible that you might be experiencing a cognitive dissonance. This is a worldview shift that cannot be casually accepted. For many it will result in a crisis.

No, it has everything to do with how each person evaluates the evidence. Different people will believe opposite things based on the same evidence. This is because their "tools" to evaluate evidence are different.

And here you are forcing your will against it--by simply asserting it wasn't demonstrated as true, or demonstrated enough to overwhelm your feelings. You already have no choice but to believe. You are without excuse.

You don't get to determine what I believe. Another bullying tactic on your part. I actually don't get to determine that either. I have told you many times why I am not convinced by your argument. You have only responded by insisting that it is true and telling me I am insane or reject logic if I don't agree with you. More bullying tactics.

- Which is an argument to feelings (personal will) instead of facts. Feelings should only follow from the facts. Not the other way around.

I agree. But flat earthers are convinced by evidence they have evaluated. People can believe things based on feelings. Theists do it all the time. I try not top be convinced by feelings. This is why you need to provide evidence for your claims.

- Flat earthers are "flat earthers" based on their foundational incredulity of the overwhelming evidence of a round earth. And yet they are not "overwhelmed" by it. Their belief in evidence for a flat earth is solely built upon their prior confirmation bias of a flat earth to begin with.

How can you possibly know that. Flat earthers are convinced by many different reasons. Yet they are convinced and believe the earth to be flat. Notice also I never said I was overwhelmed by evidence. I said there is overwhelming evidence.

If people behaved the way you claim they do, then flat earthers would not exist at all, because they would be overwhelmed by the evidence of a round earth. Flat earthers are not overwhelmed, therefore you are wrong.

You don't understand the nature of belief. I said no such thing.

- I do not believe playing games with semantics will get you out of this.
- I believe no semantics games will get you out of this.

If you cannot understand the difference between my two statements then I am understanding why you are not understanding why I am not convince by your arguments.

"Lack" is deliberately vague (therefore fallacious). I was hoping you'd go there. For at least 12 years, you people were coasting on the "lack of belief" meme, and it never worked then just like it doesn't now. Because "lack" implies a ratio of belief-to-non-belief. But you'd never outright admit the percentage of how much you believe vs. how much you don't. Why? Because it would be an admission of at least some belief. Thus, the ambiguity is exposed as deliberate. I can go 10 whole pages of one thread on your deliberate "lack" of clarity here. I absolutely love this one. Try me.

What definition are you talking about? Here is a definition:

noun
deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.

So I am using lack as absence which has no relation to a ratio of belief to non belief. I do not believe a god exists. Again, I am not asserting that a god does not exist, which seems to confuse you.

It's old news. The world just forgot is all. We've slipped into a new dark ages. We're little more than techno-barbarians; incoherently banging keys instead of rocks.

Sticking with the conspiracy theories eh.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Murder means wrongful killing. The exact definition of "murder" varies from country to country and even state to state. For instance, what acts of killing constitute lawful self defense, and what acts are homicide? Different states have different laws.

An example of killing in a way that most of us consider wrongful killing would be:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
​

Do you agree that it is wrong to kill people as these verses command?

Ha! I've been wondering when you would come around to this, hoping to trap me with a 'gotcha'.

The command you point to, or any command to stone anyone, doesn't apply to me. I don't, just for starters, live in a theocracy.

Occurs to me to point out the mindset you display here --that you expect a person to assess and be wise and decide what principles are right and what are wrong and henceforth to pursue those principles, instead of depending on one's own Maker for wisdom. You wish to bend fact to "your truth", not fit "your precepts" to God. You even go so far as to try to hold God responsible to live according to 'your truth'! Ludicrous! --I will be measured by the standard I use, but you will be measured by the standard you use. You condemn yourself with this foolishness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You say this in response to, "you cannot tell me what you would do if First Cause commanded murder. I would think that was an easy question. Murder is wrong."

And you get out of it by saying God gets to define what is and is not murder.

Let me rephrase the question: If the First Cause commanded you to kill people in a way that most of us humans consider to be murder, would you do it?


Ah, so might makes right? Is that your point?


You find it hard to believe that I would be interested in knowing if you would kill people in a way that most people would consider murder? I would think everybody would want to know that.

If God sanctioned you to kill people in such a way that most of us consider it to be murder, would you sanction it also?

Keep trying --you will not succeed in trapping me with this inanity.

The Old Testament has a story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his promised son. Abraham obeyed. You, like many before you, will probably say Abraham was wrong, and God a murderer. You have no valid notion of who God is.

God will not command me to murder. Why is this so hard to get through your head?

Society's current standards are usually (but not always) society's laws, and I am committed to upholding the law. That does not mean that society is absolute over God, as far as my obedience goes. God is the source of morality. Society's law is not. Funny thing is, you won't point to law, but current public opinion! What is wrong with you, man, that you continue to pound your head against the wall?

 

[doubtingmerle]

- Is puerile "badgering" and peer-pressure suddenly a thing I should be concerned about when you decide to repeat the question?​

I won't badger. I will merely note that you refuse to tell us what you would do if you thought God was commanding you to take an assault rifle, and kill dozens of people at random.

If you are interested in what I would do, I would not do it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

God will not command me to murder. Why is this so hard to get through your head?

How do you know this?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here's a hypothetical: If you ask a theist a hypothetical, will the theist answer or complain about the question?

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you know this?

Because it is logically self-contradictory. It is not about murder, but about God.

I suppose, since you have a different standard of right and wrong, dependent on current public opinion, or at least, the most noisy or forceful opinion, that you might consider some things God could tell someone to do, wrong.

There's an Old Testament story where God tells one of his prophets to cook a meal over a fire burning human excrement, for the purpose of demonstrating to the people something God wants them to understand.. (The prophet protests strenuously, and God backs off a bit, telling him to cook it over animal dung). The act of using human excrement for that purpose would have been seen by the people as sin via uncleanness. Was that then wrong of God to tell the prophet to sin? Hardly!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here's a hypothetical: If you ask a theist a hypothetical, will the theist answer or complain about the question?

I should think that would depend on the question, no?

If you explain to an atheist that their question is absurd, and tell them that if it isn't absurd, they should explain or defend it --will the atheist attempt to buttress their original question by mocking the fact the Theist failed to answer the original (however bogus) question?

There is nothing there to answer. There's a time to be silly, even absurd, and mind games are fun, but he is pretending to ask a valid question drawn from logical soup, and then you want to help him believe it itn't an absurd question?

If you want to demonstrate the validity of the notion that God would order someone to sin, please, be my guest.

 

[Paulomycin]

Again, I don't need to prove a logician does not exist.

I don't recall saying you needed to. Pretty sure because you can't.

You need to support your claim a logician does exist. So far you have not. You have just asserted it.

Modus Ponens and PSR wouldn't be necessary to "just assert it." You're simply forcing yourself to ignore the method of support.

You don't need these bullying tactics. Just provide good evidence that your premise is true.

This isn't about appeasing your flat-earth incredulity. This isn't about your subjective will. The objective proof is right there.

No, it has everything to do with how each person evaluates the evidence.

Your arbitrary made-up rules won't get you around the proof.

Different people will believe opposite things based on the same evidence. This is because their "tools" to evaluate evidence are different.

What a fantastic story you're spinning. And with zero external support. You really do believe you can make up your own rules on the fly, huh?

You don't get to determine what I believe. Another bullying tactic on your part. I actually don't get to determine that either. I have told you many times why I am not convinced by your argument. You have only responded by insisting that it is true and telling me I am insane or reject logic if I don't agree with you. More bullying tactics.

It's not bullying when you're blatantly rejecting what is probably the strongest and most forceful syllogistic form ever discovered, combined with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. You're literally rejecting reason itself.

I agree. But flat earthers are convinced by evidence they have evaluated.

There is no rational evidence for a flat earth at all, because there is no sound presupposition that round earth is false!!! I can't even believe you're defending them.

People can believe things based on feelings.

Nope. Feelings aren't facts.

Theists do it all the time.

Surprise! They're wrong too.

I try not top be convinced by feelings. This is why you need to provide evidence for your claims.

It's a proof. Please learn the difference between proof vs. evidence. You demand evidence, because you know there's an inductive escape hatch. This isn't the case with deductive proof. That's why I went with the proof.

You don't understand the nature of belief.

You're not doing anything to actually correct me. Why hide your purported "true" knowledge of the nature of belief? Oh wait, maybe because you're faking it?

If you cannot understand the difference between my two statements then I am understanding why you are not understanding why I am not convince by your arguments.

Because there is no difference and you can't demonstrate any. Your pattern is nothing more than some puerile, "I know something you don't know," game but you continually fail to show your work.

What definition are you talking about? Here is a definition:

noun
deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.

So I am using lack as absence which has no relation to a ratio of belief to non belief.

^ And then, as usual, I have to point out the operative "or" within the definition itself, which makes it deliberately vague on the part of the one trying to fool others with it. Atheists always ignore that little "or;" desperately hoping that I'll overlook it as well. Sorry. Not gonna happen.

If "deficiency," then you people will always-always refuse to give me any hard numbers, percentages, or ratios, of "how deficient." Which is my point all-along. If you were 100% "deficient," then it would be 100% EQUAL to 100% absence of belief! But if you were say, 99% deficient, then that's a 1% crack in your armor of incredulity that I can exploit. But you can't have that, either. Your only option is to evade the issue altogether.

Sticking with the conspiracy theories eh.

No, there's these things called "books" that historically demonstrate that none of the classical proofs for God's existence were ever refuted. As-in ZERO. I even started a thread on it and as-predicted there's nothing there.

During the Scottish Enlightenment a few guys just said, "Hey, let's try explaining the world without God," and here we are today. That's all! You don't win debates by "Nuh-uh." You can't just ignore your opponent's proof and evidence and call it "good 'nuff."

And surprisingly, there's even more proof and evidence now since the age of enlightenment than there ever was in the history of civilization! The majority of the population who went to secular schools just missed out on it. That's all.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I should think that would depend on the question, no?

If you explain to an atheist that their question is absurd, and tell them that if it isn't absurd, they should explain or defend it --will the atheist attempt to buttress their original question by mocking the fact the Theist failed to answer the original (however bogus) question?

There is nothing there to answer. There's a time to be silly, even absurd, and mind games are fun, but he is pretending to ask a valid question drawn from logical soup, and then you want to help him believe it itn't an absurd question?

If you want to demonstrate the validity of the notion that God would order someone to sin, please, be my guest.

OK, that's one for complaining about the question.

Well, to be fair, you did answer the question.

This is one question you can answer by quibbling: "I won't answer the question; I'll quibble. And thus I've answered the question."

 

[Paulomycin]

I won't badger. I will merely note that you refuse to tell us what you would do if you thought God was commanding you to take an assault rifle, and kill dozens of people at random.

^ Exactly as predicted. Your badgering and petty manipulation tactics might work on other theists, but I'm definitely not one of them. "The canon's closed," can't be blithely ignored.

If you are interested in what I would do, I would not do it.

You're an atheist. You have no objective reason why you "would not do it."

 

[Paulomycin]

How do you know this?

a.) The canon is closed. There is no new direct revelation of God until the Apocalypse. That's the reason why those (completely ignorant) hypotheticals always fail.

b.) Related to 'a,' the speculative question runs against God's Word. This is the gospel dispensation. God does not lie. God does not change His mind. The prophesy is that believers will be the persecuted, and not the persecutors. Any CHRINO who shoots someone and claims "God told me to," is an heretic. IIRC, there are strict rules on CF for this very reason.

 

[Paulomycin]

Here's a hypothetical: If you ask a theist a hypothetical, will the theist answer or complain about the question?

You better answer the question, or I'll just ignore the content of all your posts and badger you with the same question over and over and over. . .

 

[Paulomycin]

Well, to be fair, you did answer the question.

Correct. Just because you didn't get the answer that agrees with your confirmation bias doesn't mean he didn't answer at all.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The command you point to, or any command to stone anyone, doesn't apply to me. I don't, just for starters, live in a theocracy.

I didn't ask you if Deuteronomy 13:6-10 applied to you. I asked you if you agree that
it is wrong to kill people as these verses command. That seems like a simple question.

Can I take it that you have no comment on whether it is wrong to kill people that promote a different God from you?

Occurs to me to point out the mindset you display here

It occurs to me that we are supposed to be discussing issues here and not discussing each other's mindset. Is it too much to ask that you deal with what I say, rather than attacking my supposed mindset?

--that you expect a person to assess and be wise and decide what principles are right and what are wrong and henceforth to pursue those principles, instead of depending on one's own Maker for wisdom.

Well suppose that you think your Maker commands something that most people think is wrong, such as killing people that worship a different God. I would think, in that case, one should do what is right, and refrain from mass murdering those of another religion. It is not clear to me if you would do what is right, or if you would do what you think you are hearing from God. Do you have no desire to claify your views?

You wish to bend fact to "your truth", not fit "your precepts" to God.

Can you please refrain from casting judgement on others?

I have no wish to bend fact to fit "my truth."

You even go so far as to try to hold God responsible to live according to 'your truth'!

I am not here to judge God. I am here to understand if you would commit an atrocity if you thought God wanted you to do it.