Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Kylie]

I didn't call that, nor you, arrogance/ arrogant. I only expect some have called you that, as most people with a line of reasoning they are pretty sure of been called that. Don't take it personally.

My "arrogant" remark was directed at Paul, for claiming he understood what my atheism meant better than I do.

You're ok. I like you.

Thanks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have a low tolerance for people who claim to know me better than I know myself.

I'll take your warm recommendation here under advisement.

most atheists immediately begin to erect fences and make the Theist fight for every inch they think to do, instead of actually dealing with conceptions common to both parties. \

What I said about this kind of debate, where you spend all the time debating terms for debate reminds me of how politicians get away with what they do. They do so much, so fast, so egregious, so commonly, that the courts would be overwhelmed and any action would take years to accomplish. You just want to give up.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're asking me to repeat myself?

IF??? A valid hypothetical has to at least propose a valid presupposition to merit serious consideration. Suppose you both wrote that and did not write that --would I have answered and not answered? You're suggesting the ludicrous.

First Cause does not murder.

Ah, you cannot tell me what you would do if First Cause commanded murder. I would think that was an easy question. Murder is wrong.

How is it that you are so sure that First Cause does not command murder? After all, you are a fallible person, yes? You sometimes make mistakes, yes?

So what if it turns out that you are mistaken, and First Cause actually does sanction murders? Do you then sanction murder?

 

[Paulomycin]

Perhaps you could give me a reason why I should accept any claim about how the world works if there is no testable evidence, no way to verify it?

It's literally called the classical Problem of Induction. Assuming that you aren't intellectually obstinate and incurious, you've already been given enough to read up on it yourself. However, if you are intellectually obstinate and incurious, then you'll simply spit out whatever I try to spoon-feed you.

BTW, Problem of Induction is also closely related to Black Swan Theory. That's also relevant to the discussion.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ah, you cannot tell me what you would do if First Cause commanded murder.

Because you had no "valid presupposition to merit serious consideration." I actually read Mark's post. Did you?

I would think that was an easy question. Murder is wrong.

You have no objective justification why it's "just wrong." This is probably the greatest weakness of atheism. You're merely hoping that Mark agrees with you; without you having to provide a reason why you merely assume "murder is wrong." This is why I always say that atheists who believe "you can be moral without God" are merely leeching off of a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic. Apologist Doug Powell says they're driving a stolen car.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I actually read Mark's post. Did you?

Yes.

You have no objective justification why it's "just wrong."

I have a very good reason for being against murder. I stated it many times on the thread Where's God? | Christian Forums

How do you answer the question I asked Mark? If the First Cause sanctioned murder, would you or would you not sanction murder?

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes.

Then please stop ignoring the problem that Mark pointed out.

I have a very good reason for being against murder. I stated it many times on the thread Where's God? | Christian Forums

You didn't link to any specific post.

How do you answer the question I asked Mark? If the First Cause sanctioned murder, would you or would you not sanction murder?

I already answered that the question itself is wrong, because you had no valid presupposition to merit serious consideration. Again, pure speculation doesn't warrant consideration. The speculation has to be relevant to reality. Mark didn't take the bait, and neither did I.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My "arrogant" remark was directed at Paul, for claiming he understood what my atheism meant better than I do.



Thanks.

I know he comes across that way, specially on another less formal site he and I frequent, where politeness isn't even encouraged, and as you can imagine the debate doesn't often go far. He finds it necessary there to try to get people just to be consistent, and it is hard on anyone's patience who wants to actually discuss.

 

[Kylie]

I'll be charitable and just wait for you to finish reading posts #192 and #193 in their entirety.

Then you'll be waiting a long time. I've been speaking with you for only a few days, and I haven't enjoyed any of it. I got better things to do with my time.

 

[Paulomycin]

Then you'll be waiting a long time. I've been speaking with you for only a few days, and I haven't enjoyed any of it. I got better things to do with my time.

1. I'm not here to entertain you. I'm not some clown for your amusement.
2. You're welcome to leave, but for me that's a guaranteed win by default.
3. In future threads, this will only get harder for you the more you avoid it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, you cannot tell me what you would do if First Cause commanded murder. I would think that was an easy question. Murder is wrong.

God is not wrong. If he commanded killing (and I half expected you to go to the Old Testament examples of 'merciless' mass killing he commanded), it is not murder.

How is it that you are so sure that First Cause does not command murder? After all, you are a fallible person, yes? You sometimes make mistakes, yes?

Because God owns everything. It is all his do with as he pleases. He has no peers to respect or dignify. He owes nobody anything.

So what if it turns out that you are mistaken, and First Cause actually does sanction murders? Do you then sanction murder?

You keep on with this ludicrous notion! God doesn't just sanction killing in some instances, he has even commanded it. But killing and murder are not synonyms.

I get the feeling you are just trying to sound me out, not to argue a point. I find it hard to believe anyone thinks this is a valid question to pursue! You seem to think God can be just whatever you wish to posit that day.

 

[Kylie]

1. I'm not here to entertain you. I'm not some clown for your amusement.
2. You're welcome to leave, but for me that's a guaranteed win by default.
3. In future threads, this will only get harder for you the more you avoid it.

If someone brings a plate manure to the dinner table and the rest of the diners choose to get up and leave, it's not a win for the guy who brought the manure.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If someone brings a plate manure to the dinner table and the rest of the diners choose to get up and leave, it's not a win for the guy who brought the manure.

Lol I see you said that with a smile!

That applies to whatever party brings the manure. That's the reason for clear debate with rules and reason.

 

[Paulomycin]

If someone brings a plate manure to the dinner table and the rest of the diners choose to get up and leave, it's not a win for the guy who brought the manure.

Congrats, you're calling David Hume, Karl Popper, [edit] Kurt Gödel (!!!), William F. McComas, and others "manure."

Wow.

 

[Paulomycin]

The argument for a perfect chess piece as a necessary piece in every chess set can be put formally:

1. An Emporer is defined as a maximally great or Perfect white chess piece.

2. The existence of a Perfect white chess piece is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect white chess piece is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect white chess piece is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect white chess piece exists on every chess board.

Ok, let's play chess. What? You say I can have white? Thank you.

I move my emporer. Since the emporer is a maximally great chess piece, it puts your king in check wherever I put it, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. I win.

Checkmate.

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

 

[Kylie]

Congrats, you're calling David Hume, Karl Popper, William F. McComas, and others "manure."

Wow.

I was referring to your rudeness.

 

[Paulomycin]

I was referring to your rudeness.

With all due respect: Truth and logic are often rude awakenings. Wake up sleepyhead, we got some logic to pound out here! Facts don't care about feelings, etc. etc.

 

[Paulomycin]

I was referring to your rudeness.

What part of, "I'll be charitable and just wait for you to finish reading posts #192 and #193 in their entirety," was rude?

Or aren't you just looking for an excuse to bail out?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, you cannot tell me what you would do if First Cause commanded murder. I would think that was an easy question. Murder is wrong.

How is it that you are so sure that First Cause does not command murder? After all, you are a fallible person, yes? You sometimes make mistakes, yes?

So what if it turns out that you are mistaken, and First Cause actually does sanction murders? Do you then sanction murder?

I feel I was not fair to you in my first answer to this 3rd post of yours proposing a self-contradictory notion --that God might sanction murder.. Fair would be to give it no more rational thought than you did.

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God is not wrong. If he commanded killing (and I half expected you to go to the Old Testament examples of 'merciless' mass killing he commanded), it is not murder.

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?

Because God owns everything. It is all his do with as he pleases.

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

I find it hard to believe anyone thinks this is a valid question to pursue!

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?