Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Paulomycin]

It helps the case for atheism by showing that what people think is God could be something else that is Not-God.

Except that the message remains consistent throughout the narrative. Granted, it could be "something else that is Not-God," but at the same time, the "gotcha" deception you stated would be necessary to reveal at some point, and yet the actual narrative remains the same.

- So when is "Not-God" revealed? Never.
- Can any atheist specifically define this deliberately vague "something else that is Not-God?" No.

Therefore, it's far worse than when atheists initially accuse believers of claiming that God exists. Atheists here are not even claiming God, but something even less distinct altogether. <-- That's next-level hypocrisy.

Vagueness is logically fallacious.
Deliberate vagueness is intentionally deceptive.

 

[Kylie]

Except that the message remains consistent throughout the narrative. Granted, it could be "something else that is Not-God," but at the same time, the "gotcha" deception you stated would be necessary to reveal at some point, and yet the actual narrative remains the same.

- So when is "Not-God" revealed? Never.
- Can any atheist specifically define this deliberately vague "something else that is Not-God?" No.

Therefore, it's far worse than when atheists initially accuse believers of claiming that God exists. Atheists here are not even claiming God, but something even less distinct altogether. <-- That's next-level hypocrisy.

Vagueness is logically fallacious.
Deliberate vagueness is intentionally deceptive.

That reasoning sure is a stretch. "It's more likely to be God because you can't say anything about what it is if it isn't God." Yeah, okay. Whatever makes you happy.

And why in the world do you think the fooler has to reveal that he is a fooler at some point?

 

[Paulomycin]

That reasoning sure is a stretch. "It's more likely to be God because you can't say anything about what it is if it isn't God." Yeah, okay. Whatever makes you happy.

^ Words in my mouth. I'm not even saying that at all!

I am saying that even from a purely atheistic POV, proposing a purely ambiguous, "something else that is Not-God," is infinitely worse than the usual theistic claim of God itself.

Again, can any atheist specifically define this deliberately vague "something else that is Not-God?" No. And Kylie completely evaded the question. Her possible claim of "SETING" is far more ambiguous and non-specific than the claim of a particular God of the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

^ Words in my mouth. I'm not even saying that at all!

I am saying that even from a purely atheistic POV, proposing a purely ambiguous, "something else that is Not-God," is infinitely worse than the usual theistic claim of God itself.

Again, can any atheist specifically define this deliberately vague "something else that is Not-God?" No. And Kylie completely evaded the question. Her possible claim of "SETING" is far more ambiguous and non-specific than the claim of a particular God of the Bible.

So if your problem isn't that I have not explained what this not-God is, what exactly is your problem? Is it just your arbitrary claim about it being "worse", or do you have some real complaint?

 

[Paulomycin]

So if your problem isn't that I have not explained what this not-God is, what exactly is your problem?

That is exactly my problem. You've failed to specify "not-God," due to deliberate vagueness, which is irrational.

Is it just your arbitrary claim about it being "worse", or do you have some real complaint?

I'm saying by comparison. As an atheist, I would much rather argue against something specific than non-specific.

 

[Paulomycin]

@Kylie For further reference. . .

Ambiguity Fallacy (logicallyfallacious.com)

 

[Kylie]

That is exactly my problem. You've failed to specify "not-God," due to deliberate vagueness, which is irrational.

Would you like me to make something up for you?

And if I got it right, why did you accuse me of putting words in your mouth?

I'm saying by comparison. As an atheist, I would much rather argue against something specific than non-specific.

Yeah, but your ideas about atheist's beliefs are laughably wrong.

You really think that in order for me to say that what Abraham heard as not God, I have to be able to explain what it was that spoke to him?

 

[Paulomycin]

Would you like me to make something up for you?

If you're not willing to commit to it, then don't even bother.

And if I got it right, why did you accuse me of putting words in your mouth?

Because I literally did not say, "It's more likely to be God because you can't say anything about what it is if it isn't God."

Yeah, but your ideas about atheist's beliefs are laughably wrong.

Because you asserted the empty claim as-such and nothing more. No worries. Your proof by assertion fallacy is noted.

You really think that in order for me to say that what Abraham heard as not God, I have to be able to explain what it was that spoke to him?

No, I really think that you failed by making wildly vague speculations. The End. Now you're just looking for some escape hatch after getting caught doing it.

 

[Kylie]

If you're not willing to commit to it, then don't even bother.

So you are committing the Nirvana fallacy - that if an explanation doesn't explain EVERYTHING, it's useless. Managing Phantom Pain - Amputee Coalition

Because I literally did not say, "It's more likely to be God because you can't say anything about what it is if it isn't God."

Yet your problem is that I couldn't explain what it actually was.

I think you just like being argumentative.

Because you asserted the empty claim as-such and nothing more. No worries. Your proof by assertion fallacy is noted.

No, I'm just pointing out that we can't assume that it was God just because it said it was God.

No, I really think that you failed by making wildly vague speculations. The End. Now you're just looking for some escape hatch after getting caught doing it.

Except, once again, I never claimed to know what it was.

You're the one who's getting all upset because you think that if I say something might not be God I am also required to say what it is instead.

 

[Paulomycin]

So you are committing the Nirvana fallacy - that if an explanation doesn't explain EVERYTHING, it's useless. Managing Phantom Pain - Amputee Coalition

^ Another strawman. I'm not even asking for an explanation of "EVERYTHING" to begin with. I'm asking for an explanation you're willing to commit to, at minimum.

Yet your problem is that I couldn't explain what it actually was.

It's not some personal problem on my part. Vagueness is bad. That's an objective problem you're not willing to deal with.

I think you just like being argumentative.

What I like is busting fallacious reasoning. Don't do it, and you'll have a lot less to worry about. You're supposed to be all about logic, remember?

No, I'm just pointing out that we can't assume that it was God just because it said it was God.

We can assume it was the character "God," even from a reasonable reading of the narrative as pure fiction.

Except, once again, I never claimed to know what it was.

Then you have nothing to effectively argue with. Only justified knowledge counts for anything here.

You're the one who's getting all upset because you think that if I say something might not be God I am also required to say what it is instead.

Who's upset? A purely speculative "might not" that may or may not actually exist is always a more specious claim than theism itself.

 

[Kylie]

^ Another strawman. I'm not even asking for an explanation of "EVERYTHING" to begin with. I'm asking for an explanation you're willing to commit to, at minimum.

I've said that what Abe heard might not have been God. You seem to think that I am required to propose an alternative, despite the fact that anything I say would be speculation. You also seem to think that if I am unwilling to provide an alternative because I don't want to speculate, then Abe must have heard God by default.

That's not the way logic works.

It's not some personal problem on my part. Vagueness is bad. That's an objective problem you're not willing to deal with.

No you.re problem is, once again, that you think I am required to provide an alternative explanation when I said it might not have been God that Abe heard.

What I like is busting fallacious reasoning. Don't do it, and you'll have a lot less to worry about. You're supposed to be all about logic, remember?

Seems to me you like being thoroughly unpleasant and rude.

We can assume it was the character "God," even from a reasonable reading of the narrative as pure fiction.

Please tell me how you have dismissed the idea that it was Not-God.

Then you have nothing to effectively argue with. Only justified knowledge counts for anything here.

So you think it is justified to conclude that a voice you hear is God just because it tells you it is God? I know of many people in lunatic asylums who have come to the same conclusion.

Who's upset? A purely speculative "might not" that may or may not actually exist is always a more specious claim than theism itself.

lol, whatever dude.

I'm beginning to remember why I put you on ignore in the first place.

 

[Paulomycin]

You seem to think that I am required to propose an alternative,

You already proposed a terribly vague alternative: "Something that is not-god."

No you.re problem is, once again, that you think I am required to provide an alternative explanation when I said it might not have been God that Abe heard.

No. You're not required to provide anything, really. I'd simply like you to admit that, "Once you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Please? Pretty please?

Seems to me you like being thoroughly unpleasant and rude.

Logic is often unpleasant when it doesn't go the way we wanted it to. Even "rude."

Please tell me how you have dismissed the idea that it was Not-God.

Which is evidence that you're not even reading my posts. So now I have to repeat myself. Quote:

Except that the message remains consistent throughout the narrative. Granted, it could be "something else that is Not-God," but at the same time, the "gotcha" deception you stated would be necessary to reveal at some point, and yet the actual narrative remains the same.

If the message is consistent, then it's the same person. Remember, you're proposing a "something that is Not-God" that would be deliberately deceiving Abraham. Messaging that is deceptive contains inherent inconsistencies and contradictions. The messaging in the actual Biblical narrative remains consistent.

So you think it is justified to conclude that a voice you hear is God just because it tells you it is God? I know of many people in lunatic asylums who have come to the same conclusion.

No, it's justified because the voice Abraham heard justified Himself by remaining consistent with his message and covenant.

Genesis 17:21 - The promise was made of a miraculous birth to a woman long past menopause. God follows through. Therefore, the message is consistent. Conclusion: This voice can be relied on. Another conclusion: "Wow, I'm not crazy after all, because my wife heard the same message and we both had the baby as promised." Furthermore, Isaac goes on hearing the same consistent message, then Jacob, etc.

I'm beginning to remember why I put you on ignore in the first place.

I think you're intelligent enough to avoid pulling the same stunt twice. I just don't wanna see atheists running away with ambiguity fallacy. And I'm sure if I did it, you'd call me out on it just as quickly.

 

[Kylie]

Which is evidence that you're not even reading my posts. So now I have to repeat myself. Quote:



If the message is consistent, then it's the same person. Remember, you're proposing a "something that is Not-God" that would be deliberately deceiving Abraham. Messaging that is deceptive contains inherent inconsistencies and contradictions. The messaging in the actual Biblical narrative remains consistent.

So?

Tell me why you think that any liar must at some point reveal that they are lying to you?

If I get a scam email saying I owe extra taxes, I can transfer the money they demand, and I never hear anything from them about it again. They would have deceived me, yet they never reveal that to me. By your logic, they must have been the actual tax office, because you claim that liars would have revealed their deception to me.

No, it's justified because the voice Abraham heard justified Himself by remaining consistent with his message and covenant.

And a liar can do the exact same thing, despite your claims that it must reveal that it is a liar.

Genesis 17:21 - The promise was made of a miraculous birth to a woman long past menopause. God follows through. Therefore, the message is consistent. Conclusion: This voice can be relied on. Another conclusion: "Wow, I'm not crazy after all, because my wife heard the same message and we both had the baby as promised." Furthermore, Isaac goes on hearing the same consistent message, then Jacob, etc.

They claimed to be from the tax office saying I owed them money, and that if I wanted to prevent legal action being taken against me, I had to pay them extra. I sent the money to them, and no legal action was taken! Just as they said! That PROVES they weren't scammers!

 

[Paulomycin]

Tell me why you think that any liar must at some point reveal that they are lying to you?

The reason why is to identify a liar. An actual inconsistency within an otherwise consistent message must be demonstrated to point to any objective "lie." Otherwise, it's reasonably safe to assume the message is consistent. Anything otherwise resembles paranoia. I know atheists have trust issues, but please. You can't even functionally live this way in the real world.

If I get a scam email saying I owe extra taxes, I can transfer the money they demand, and I never hear anything from them about it again. They would have deceived me, yet they never reveal that to me. By your logic, they must have been the actual tax office, because you claim that liars would have revealed their deception to me.

Here, you're assuming an actual deception took place. An actual deception contradicts the paranoid fear of a possible deception.

And a liar can do the exact same thing, despite your claims that it must reveal that it is a liar.

No, I'm appealing to the internal and external consistency of the message. Consistency affirms one's reputation, as well as establishes trust.

Do you really run your entire life like everyone is potentially out to literally scam you?

 

[Lion IRC]

It helps the case for atheism by showing that what people think is God could be something else that is Not-God.

How do multiple manifestations of supernatural entities strengthen the atheist's position?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And you're arguing as-if that is what actually happened in the narrative. When it's actually not.

Get with the program, please.

I am not arguing that the story says Abraham killed his son. I am arguing that the story says that God commanded him to kill his son.

And you admit that killing your son is bad. (I couldn't get you to say it was wrong, but you did say it was bad.)

You claim that God would never tell us to do something wrong, and yet here we find a story in the Bible about God commanding Abraham to do something bad (killing his son).

That is the problem.

 

[doubtingmerle]

^ Contradiction: Morals are values. You cannot derive a value from a (brute) fact of nature.

Wrong. Morals are "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." (source:morality - Bing, Oxford Dictionaries)

I have told you my source of morality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Uh, no. Habermas' compiled secular commentaries on the letters of Paul alone. Not the gospels, nor Acts. Try again.

OK, then these "compiled secular commentaries on the letters of Paul alone" had nothing on a missing body or even a clear reference to a bodily appearance of Jesus. None of that is found in Paul.

Paul seems to be describing a Jesus who left his body behind and rose in a new body.

^ Moving the goalposts. Everyone raised during the crucifixion was raised like Lazarus. Jesus was the "firstborn of the dead." -Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5 Meaning that Jesus was the first to be raised with a glorified and incorruptible body.

Like I said, Paul describes a resurrected Jesus in a new body, not a body that came out of a grave.

Everyone raised from the dead before Jesus' resurrection would die again. <-- Pay attention. Don't play little games and skip this.

Uh, no that is not what you said. You said:

Historical evidence of the Resurrection (see Gary Habermas) would determine, "If Jesus were truly resurrected, then it would confirm everything He said about Himself, as well as scripture. It would prove that Jesus Christ is God incarnate."​

Nowhere does your post say it had to do with Jesus never dying again. You simply added that later and then complain that I missed something in your post that you never said.

Your point has been shown to be wrong. Based on your paragraph above, all of those many people that Matthew says rose from the dead around Easter weekend were God incarnate.

But anyway, how do you know that Jesus never died again?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Jesus then follows with the final declaration that salvation is not only 100% impossible for men, but entirely an act of God's grace alone.

I was not discussing whether we needed help to do good. We can all use a little help--maybe even a lot of help.

I was asking if one needed to keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Jesus says you need to keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Do you think that you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven?

You mean put to the test? Yes. Genesis 22:1

Nope, I meant what I said:

You say Abraham sinned when he offered up Isaac at God's command. If your God commanded Abraham to sin, maybe someday he will command you to sin, yes?
​

You say God commanded Abraham to do something bad (kill his son), yes?

So you must think God sometimes commands people to do something bad, yes?

If your God sometimes commands people to do something bad, could it be that someday God will command you to do something bad?

If God sometimes command doing something bad, how can you trust his commandments?

Abraham: "If I sin, God will keep His promise. Therefore, if I sin, God will raise Isaac from the dead."

Angel: "Don't sin, you passed the test."

That is only part of the story. The problem is in Genesis 22:1-2.

God: Hey Abraham.

Abraham: Here I am.

God: Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.​

God will provide the lamb for sacrifice instead, by which He has elected to strike down His own Son. - Isaiah 53:10, Colossians 1:19-22

Why does there need to be a sacrifice?

If somebody sinned against you, you would not need him to sacrifice an animal or son before you forgave him. So why cannot God do what you would do--just forgive without demanding a sacrifice? Is your God somehow limited?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You insist you "know," but you can't "show." I'm only concerned with what you can demonstrate.



You just admitted there is both evidence for a flat earth (!) as well as God. Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. <-- "Convincing" is always the latter.

You are still under the mistaken impression that your personal incredulity alone counts for something. Again, evidence is objective and persuasion is subjective. <-- "Convincing" is always the latter.

It's obvious that don't care enough to start your own. I'm pretty sure this is because you can't even come up with a coherent thesis.

"I don't know" is never a substitute for actual knowledge. "I don't know" is not even a knowledge claim.

It's one (1.) definition. The "or" doesn't magically make it into (1.) and (2.). There is no 2nd defintion. Some words are deliberately ambiguous. This is one of them, on account of the "or" within the singular definition alone.


A true believer would at least acknowledge 1 John 2:19. A true believer would know that God knows the heart from eternity past (Romans 9:18-21, Ephesians 1:4). Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a true believer or an apostate. You can't be both. I can only conclude you were a true CHRINO for 18 years; nothing more.

John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me."

Wrong. Atheists make arguments assuming the God of the Bible all the time.

"Name-calling" is a personal accusation that can be reported to mods. Show the post with the verbatum quote.

If you really believed this, then you'd stop propagandizing. Your very signature marks you as an activist atheist. You're merely the personification of what I've observed. You're not hiding it very well at all.

So I think we have exhausted our discussion. We are just rehashing the same things over and over. I don't think we will ever agree when we have vastly different epistemologies. Two examples are:

1. Regarding the bucket of marbles analogy you believe that saying "I don't believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket" is equivalent to saying "I believe there are an odd number of marbles in the bucket". I have explained why these are not equivalent and you don't agree.

2. You said that "I don't know" is not a position that you like to take and you even said it is not a real position and you implied that you should believe what the best evidence is. I disagree with this as well. The best evidence may not be good evidence.

Without agreeing on these two epistemological positions I don't know how we will ever agree on anything. Thanks for the debate, I am sure we will talk again if you wish.