Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Mark Quayle]

Or in other words almost as absurd as you not saying no to a simple question. You know the moral answer is no.

There is no reason on my part to answer an absurdity, unless for the fun of playing games or some other such reason. I think I was kind enough just to point out the absurdity of the question.

But since I grow tired of this nonsense. "If God told me to murder", it would not be God telling me --I would not do it.

I never knew 3 atheists in a row would follow such an inane path so far, and attempt to compel someone else to go down it with them!

 

[Kylie]

Because it feels incredibly pedantic, not to mention repetitive.

But ok, here's the first simple difference. In the theocracy of ancient Israel, when the commands were given, such as to stone the one who suggests idol worship, GOD was the only ruler, and what he says goes. He had no deputies. HE was the law.

Now we have all sorts of laws, and rulers are put in place by God --both the good and the bad-- for his purposes. I am not to break the laws they put in place, unless they break an obvious law of God.

Both God's law and man's law say do not murder, so I don't.

Are you suggesting that you think God's law doesn't apply to us any more?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There is no reason on my part to answer an absurdity, unless for the fun of playing games or some other such reason. I think I was kind enough just to point out the absurdity of the question.

But since I grow tired of this nonsense. "If God told me to murder", it would not be God telling me --I would not do it.

I never knew 3 atheists in a row would follow such an inane path so far, and attempt to compel someone else to go down it with them!

you didn’t answer the question. You changed it to “god did not tell me.” Either answer the question or say you won’t. I would respect either answer.

 

[Kylie]

There is no reason on my part to answer an absurdity, unless for the fun of playing games or some other such reason. I think I was kind enough just to point out the absurdity of the question.

But since I grow tired of this nonsense. "If God told me to murder", it would not be God telling me --I would not do it.

I never knew 3 atheists in a row would follow such an inane path so far, and attempt to compel someone else to go down it with them!

But God has told people to kill in the past. Why would he not now if it was part of his plan? You've said that it's because we're not in a theocracy anymore, but is that really something that would throw a wrench in God's plan?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But God has told people to kill in the past. Why would he not now if it was part of his plan? You've said that it's because we're not in a theocracy anymore, but is that really something that would throw a wrench in God's plan?

There can be no wrench in God's plan. He is God, after all --Omnipotent It is not part of his plan for current times. In the past it obviously was, but for a specific time, for a specific purpose, concerning a specific people. Part of it was the mere lesson concerning his superiority over any other supposed god, and his holiness and justice and so on. "[He] will not yield [his] glory to another." His people were to be consecrated to him. Since day one, life has been about him --not about us. It shows in different ways at different times.

Lol, one of his reasons was so that we would have this discussion!

 

[Mark Quayle]

you didn’t answer the question. You changed it to “god did not tell me.” Either answer the question or say you won’t. I would respect either answer.

In the simplest terms --it isn't a question --it is an absurdity. But I did answer. To the question, and pardon the quotes, because if it is a question and not an absurdity, the god invoked in the question is not God: "If 'god' were to command you to murder someone, would you do it?" I say, "No".

 

[Mark Quayle]

But God has told people to kill in the past. Why would he not now if it was part of his plan? You've said that it's because we're not in a theocracy anymore, but is that really something that would throw a wrench in God's plan?

It is NOT part of his plan. The hypothetical is void.

By the way, it is not a mere killing that he commanded. There is a specific force to the command, not random. (Just a thought there to add definition to your words, 'told people to kill').

 

[Kylie]

There can be no wrench in God's plan. He is God, after all --Omnipotent It is not part of his plan for current times. In the past it obviously was, but for a specific time, for a specific purpose, concerning a specific people. Part of it was the mere lesson concerning his superiority over any other supposed god, and his holiness and justice and so on. "[He] will not yield [his] glory to another." His people were to be consecrated to him. Since day one, life has been about him --not about us. It shows in different ways at different times.

Lol, one of his reasons was so that we would have this discussion!

You seem quite familiar with what God's plan is. How did you come to know it?

 

[Kylie]

It is NOT part of his plan. The hypothetical is void.

Again, I must ask how you know the details of God's plan.

By the way, it is not a mere killing that he commanded. There is a specific force to the command, not random. (Just a thought there to add definition to your words, 'told people to kill').

God gave instructions to one group of people to take the lives of another group of people. And when part of the instructions is, "Kill all the women who aren't virgins, but keep for yourself all the women who are virgins," I have to wonder what's going on.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You seem quite familiar with what God's plan is. How did you come to know it?

The amount I know is almost none by percentage. Most of what I do know is in perfect keeping with his necessary attributes and his nature, as reason points to them. Many of his plans, of course, I would not have guessed at, but they do add up in the end --I learned of such through the Bible, for the most part, and some through experience and circumspection.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, I must ask how you know the details of God's plan.



God gave instructions to one group of people to take the lives of another group of people. And when part of the instructions is, "Kill all the women who aren't virgins, but keep for yourself all the women who are virgins," I have to wonder what's going on.

The details? I don't know the details. I watch as some of the details happen, but know the details? Hardly. Probably the main part that I do know is simple. It is the reason he created. To make a people for himself. There is a lot more to that, as makes sense and fits Scripture, and even is drawn from Scripture, but that is the big one, and even it is done for a bigger purpose, but you wouldn't like the pride of that one.

Edit. I see I didn't answer your objections in the lower paragraph. Bear in mind times were considerably different then. Individuality was not met the same way societally it is now, just for starters. Nor was the position of women in society. This does not imply that I think the situation even then was ideal --I don't think even God thinks that.

 

[Kylie]

The amount I know is almost none by percentage. Most of what I do know is in perfect keeping with his necessary attributes and his nature, as reason points to them. Many of his plans, of course, I would not have guessed at, but they do add up in the end --I learned of such through the Bible, for the most part, and some through experience and circumspection.

The details? I don't know the details. I watch as some of the details happen, but know the details? Hardly. Probably the main part that I do know is simple. It is the reason he created. To make a people for himself. There is a lot more to that, as makes sense and fits Scripture, and even is drawn from Scripture, but that is the big one, and even it is done for a bigger purpose, but you wouldn't like the pride of that one.

Sounds to me that what you think God's plan is is just you making assumptions based on what you read in the Bible.

Edit. I see I didn't answer your objections in the lower paragraph. Bear in mind times were considerably different then. Individuality was not met the same way societally it is now, just for starters. Nor was the position of women in society. This does not imply that I think the situation even then was ideal --I don't think even God thinks that.

So God commanded it then because he figured that Humans would be okay with it in that time, but he won't command it now because he knows that Humans wouldn't be okay with it today?

For a start, I find it hard to believe God would decided what he would and would not tell us to based on whether he thinks we'd be okay with it (as there are plenty of parts of the Bible where he specifically asked people to do things that they were NOT okay with, such as Jonah and Abraham being told to kill his son).

But I also think that any command that God gives would be happily followed by any of his followers. Why would they not be eager to follow God's command?

 

[Tom 1]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

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

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

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

Maybe it's more an argument of definition - if God does exist, then he meets the criteria of the argument, if he doesn't then the criteria refer to something imaginary.

 

[Tom 1]

since it cannot be contingent

I'm not sure about this bit - why can't the existence of a perfect being be contingent on whether or not that being exists? Such a being would not be summoned into being by the assertion that it is either impossible or necessary; it either exists before the argument or not, hence it either exists or it doesn't at all times, and the argument merely comments on how the existence of such a being might be defined, if it did indeed exist. The argument seems more like a first conditional without the condition.

 

[Paulomycin]

Of course I cannot prove a logician does not exist. I don't need to because I am not making that claim.

Oh, good. We finally agree on something.

No, I am asking you to demonstrate that your premise is true.

Please pay attention: PSR IS the demonstration of it! If you doubt PSR, then you reject logic and therefore all "demonstrations" pertaining to deductive reason. Or else you have a really weird definition of "demonstration." The Principle of Sufficient Reason is sufficient.

I agree. However, you don't get to decide what others find convincing. I am not defending them, I think their reasoning skills are subpar, but they are convinced by the evidence and how they evaluate the evidence.

You're still omitting the fact that their "evidence" is founded on their false presupposition. They've convinced themselves according to their own confirmation bias. <-- That's bad, okay? You're implying that bad presuppositions and confirmation bias is fine.

How are you using the word proof?

Pertaining to math. MP is a deductive argument (bivalence) in (simple) propositional calculus.

It is a long discussion. Please start a new thread if you want to talk about it.

I wouldn't even know where to start. Why don't you do it? Wait. Is it because you wanna passively sit back and play "nuh-uh" with it? I don't believe you really have anything to explain.

You really see no difference between these two statements?

1. I do not believe gods exist.
2. I believe no gods exist.

1. Is a statement of non belief in a claim, it makes no claim at all. 2. Is a positive claim that a god does not exist and thus requires justification. If you don't understand this then we will never be able to communicate effectively.

For one thing, you're interpreting it differently from other atheists who rush to the same stalling tactic. I really don't have time for such petty pedantics.

negation - Is there a functional difference between "not believing" and "believing not"? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

What surprised me is that you took a different interpretation as other atheists. You never used the word "lack" or "graduated belief." I'm getting so many different stories that I don't know who to believe. No pun intended.

Wow, you really think you get to tell others what they think and do. You don't get to tell me how I use the word. This is what I said

It's not about you at all. It's about the "or." Or makes it deliberately vague. Whichever "or" you decided to choose indicates you should have been clearer and just used the one you chose, instead of "lack."

It is 100% non belief, which does not mean I am making an opposite claim.

Then you're saying you're not open-minded at all. Good to know.

These are assertions. How do you know these assertions are true?

The initial argument was about the God I worship, so it's in the book. I could elaborate, but since it's in the book, why would you care?

 

[Paulomycin]

And how is it that you do not think it was wrong to kill those of another religion? Because you think God said so?

Not because I "think" God said so, but because we're still referring to the Biblical narrative where God did say so. <-- This is still true even when reading it as pure fiction. IOW, "If the OT god existed and I was living in OT times where God literally said, "Go and utterly destroy the Amalekites," then yeah I'd totally do it. It would be a sin not to. Problem?

So is your morality such that, if you had thought you were hearing from God, you would do it, no matter how much the act may appear to be an atrocity to the rest of us?

^ Note how you suddenly shifted your hypothetical completely out of the Biblical context. During the covenantal period with Moses, God directly and verbally speaks to multiple individuals at once, and often. It wouldn't be all just in one person's head.

But now, the canon's closed. This is a period of grace, and not law. God no longer verbally speaks to anyone contrary to scripture. Jesus didn't order us to fight, and His kingdom is not of this Earth. Jesus ordered the Great Commission instead. Jesus' own apostle told us to obey the authorities.

I know my orders.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ethical naturalists argue that statements of the form, "If you want X, then you ought to do Y" deduce moral values from the state of what is.

And that's where they're weak. Because they fudge a universal ought into an "If you want to. . ." <-- Meaning there is no moral imperative at all. But instead, it's based entirely on the individual's own subjective desire. Morality is always an objective claim; not a subjective one.

Edit: Therefore, Is-Ought is side-stepped, rather than actually dealt with.

Read what I wrote about my basis for morality. Nowhere did I say that morality is based on what Jews and Christians say.

And I said, "Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic." Either you conform to Western Civilization, or you don't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Merle: "Ah so if we lived in a universe where the God of that universe said murder is good, then we should put our reason on hold and start murdering?"

Merle: "Ok what if you were living in a world were First Cause sanctioned murder. Would you murder?"

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

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

Merle: "Nowhere did I say that command came from God."

Uh, I personally don't think that God gives the commands.

You do. So I was writing questions from your perspective. If from your perspective, you think God commands something, and all of us can see that the thing being commanded is wrong, do you do it anyway?

Now do you understand where I am coming from with my questions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If I am convinced God is telling me to do something he tells me not to do, I should have my head examined.

I see. So when Abraham heard a command to kill his son, supposedly coming from a God who said not to kill, then Abraham should have had his head examined?

You might be on to something there.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In the theocracy of ancient Israel, when the commands were given, such as to stone the one who suggests idol worship, GOD was the only ruler, and what he says goes. He had no deputies. HE was the law.

And that is the best form of government your God could come up with? One would have thought First Cause could have thought of something better.

BTW, is heaven a theocracy just as you describe, where God is the law, and nobody else has a say in how things work?