Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Clizby WampusCat]

Lots of us have experienced that. When believers say we have chosen the easy road, they don't realize the pressure that is out there to fall in line. But sorry folks, we know too much. Knowing what we know, there is no going back.

The fulfillment we find in life by following the truth, wherever it leads, makes it all worthwhile.

I agree. I am more at peace because I have good reasons now for my beliefs, not that I like all the conclusions. However, it can lead to conflict in life. My family is ok with it, but I have lost friends because of their religious beliefs not mine. It is hard to find non believers in my area, or at least people comfortable with admitting it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Lots of us have experienced that. When believers say we have chosen the easy road, they don't realize the pressure that is out there to fall in line. But sorry folks, we know too much. Knowing what we know, there is no going back.

Ha-ha. Yeah. Ego-tripping is such a burden. You know sooo much that you can't even coherently explain it.

"If you can't explain it simply, [then] you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

I've also seen this rendered, "If you can't explain it on a Freshman level, then you don't know what you're talking about." - attributed to Richard Feynman

The fulfillment we find in life by following the truth, wherever it leads, makes it all worthwhile.

No, your presuppositional incredulity determines truth! Don't forget. The dogmatic requirement is that truth prove itself convincing to you! Never forget that you're not following truth, but actually gatekeeping it instead.

The pure irony here is that, while atheism is never a positive claim of anything, it remains your default confirmation bias as-if it were.

 

[Paulomycin]

That seems to be a Paulomycin thing. We can echo back what he says and he will deny it, and make no effort to clarify. Then he will proceed with long diatribes against others that completely misrepresent them.

Asking for a direct verifiable quote is really so difficult?

 

[Paulomycin]

I explained this many times. We are social creatures that need each other to survive and live a good life.

You're stating this alleged "need" as a moral value that everyone naturally has. But if that were the case, then we wouldn't need law enforcement. You can't account for your claim, you're simply assuming it.

If you disagree, I have proposed an experiment to prove me wrong: Go out into the woods far from any other people and there live a good life for many months without the benefit of anything from another person. That means you go out there naked and alone without a phone, a knife, a fishhook, a pair of shoes, or anything else you got from another human. Then come back and tell us how you lived the good life without the benefit of any other humans.

Some have actually done this. This isn't a question of utility. It's a question of your failure to derive a value from a fact.

Please quote a socialist that says this.

“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”
― Vladimir Lenin

“Genuine equality means not treating everyone the same, but attending equally to everyone’s different needs.”
― Terry Eagleton, Why Marx Was Right

You were paraphrasing Locke, and I recognized it as a foundation of capitalism. What socialist wouldn't be opposed to that?

And if somebody out there says this, that is irrelevant.

By your arbitrary edict. So then why demand a quote in the first place?

You and I must surely agree that "we cannot expect people to give to us unless they think there is something in it for them". If we agree, why don't we just stipulate that we agree and move on to the next point?

Because (yet again) you're leeching off my worldview.

Please quote a socialist that says this.

So you're claiming that no socialist ever says anything resembling that. Good to know.

But all of that is completely irrelevant to the argument I have made for morality. We need other people to work with us, and finding fair rules of behavior is the best way to get others to to work with us. It is that simple.

Yet you failed to explain why "we need other people to work with us for survival" is a good thing. You were simply assuming it and hoping that I'd let you get away with it. And for utility's sake as a substitute for morality, no less! Nope, you fell short of the actual target. Again.

 

[Paulomycin]

"It" refers to my statement, "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

It is a "sin." You need me to agree with your statement, but "sin" forces you to abandon it. You can't have it both ways.

"Bad" and "wrong" only exist from God's standard of Holiness.

If "sin" is defined as "transgression against God", I can accept that definition.

- No-no. A transgression against God's very nature. God is not subordinate to some higher moral law.

- Moreover, you cannot force your accusation without agreeing with some form of theism as true. Otherwise, the accusation itself is not true.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ahh ok. But we disagree on how to best determine what the why is.

I honestly don't recall how you explained how to best determine the "why" of anything.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I honestly don't recall how you explained how to best determine the "why" of anything.

I gave two examples of where we are different on epistemology in post 440.

 

[Paulomycin]

I gave two examples of where we are different on epistemology in post 440.

Which was objectively refuted in post #445. Why behave as-if I never comprehensively addressed it?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Which was objectively refuted in post #445. Why behave as-if I never comprehensively addressed it?

I know that you addressed it. This is why I am saying we will not come to an agreement. I don't agree with your refutation. We don't agree on epistemology to the point that we can never agree on these things.

 

[Paulomycin]

I know that you addressed it. This is why I am saying we will not come to an agreement. I don't agree with your refutation. We don't agree on epistemology to the point that we can never agree on these things.

Yet why we agree, or your failure to answer the "why," matters more than mere disagreement.

The refutation being objective means you disagree with it in-spite of objective reason. It's just another example why you hate reason.

By the way, did you even bother to answer my question: "Do you even know the formal name of your epistemology? Don't assume you're so special that it is at all an original epistemology in any way, shape, or form. Do you care enough about your own epistemology to even find out?"

Let me guess, it's not very high on your "to-do" list.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yet why we agree, or your failure to answer the "why," matters more than mere disagreement.

The refutation being objective means you disagree with it in-spite of objective reason. It's just another example why you hate reason.

By the way, did you even bother to answer my question: "Do you even know the formal name of your epistemology? Don't assume you're so special that it is at all an original epistemology in any way, shape, or form. Do you care enough about your own epistemology to even find out?"

Let me guess, it's not very high on your "to-do" list.

We have been through this already many times.

 

[Paulomycin]

We have been through this already many times.

And all you care about is getting the last word and marking your territory. I get that. Atheists need to advertise. Atheists need to show a continual presence on the homepage to lend the appearance of success. It generates PR and hype for your side. We get it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And all you care about is getting the last word and marking your territory. I get that. Atheists need to advertise. Atheists need to show a continual presence on the homepage to lend the appearance of success. It generates PR and hype for your side. We get it.

I have been civil throughout this entire discussion with you. But you continue to goad me and falsely stereotype me and atheists. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief or a non belief in gods. We all think differently, have different agendas, heck some atheists believe in the supernatural. Just argue the facts and give your analysis to discuss instead of telling me what I think and what my agenda is.

I was banned for a month for treating other people here like you are treating me. I am not going to report you, I don't believe in that, but can you just have a real conversation without accusing others of all kinds of things? This is what I am trying to do and be a better person than I was.

 

[Paulomycin]

I have been civil throughout this entire discussion with you. But you continue to goad me and falsely stereotype me and atheists.

I'm not goading. That's exactly how activists operate. The only reason why 95% of atheists are here is to push their activism agenda.

The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief or a non belief in gods.

"(or) or"

I was banned for a month for treating other people here like you are treating me.

This isn't about you.

I am not going to report you, I don't believe in that, but can you just have a real conversation without accusing others of all kinds of things? This is what I am trying to do and be a better person than I was.

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is a "sin." You need me to agree with your statement, but "sin" forces you to abandon it. You can't have it both ways.

"Bad" and "wrong" only exist from God's standard of Holiness.



- No-no. A transgression against God's very nature. God is not subordinate to some higher moral law.

- Moreover, you cannot force your accusation without agreeing with some form of theism as true. Otherwise, the accusation itself is not true.

None of that answers the question: "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

Once again, if somebody asks me if Paulocmycin thinks it was wrong for Abraham to set out to kill his son, we will need to tell them that he refuses to answer. You could easily answer that question if you wanted. But you refuse. You keep referring to the question, followed by gobblygook, and never answer the question.

I can see why you avoid the question.

If you say Abraham was wrong to set out to kill his son, then we find that Abraham was wrong to follow God. So that means you cannot state that whatever God commands is absolute objective moral truth.

On the other hand, If you say Abraham was right to follow God, then that means you are willing to accept a person setting out to brutally kill his son simply because God says so. If that is true, your morality is simply a matter of blindly following a dictator, regardless of what he says.

So you avoid the question.

But maybe someday you will actually address that question. And that may lead you to address other questions. And that could change your life (for the good).

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.

this right here is one of the reasons I disagree with you so much. You think that you can make a claim and not have to provide evidence to support it but think the other person needs to provide evidence against your claim or else your claim is assumed true. This is not how sound reasoning works.

 

[Paulomycin]

None of that answers the question: "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

SIN!

Once again, if somebody asks me if Paulocmycin thinks it was wrong for Abraham to set out to kill his son, we will need to tell them that he refuses to answer. You could easily answer that question if you wanted. But you refuse. You keep referring to the question, followed by gobblygook, and never answer the question.

You can't deal with the fact that it's SIN!

I can see why you avoid the question.

It's not avoiding the question to answer that it's totally a SIN!

If you say Abraham was wrong to set out to kill his son, then we find that Abraham was wrong to follow God. So that means you cannot state that whatever God commands is absolute objective moral truth.

Whatever God commands in this case was about Abraham's priorities. Because in this case, Abraham was not allowed to follow through and SIN!

On the other hand, If you say Abraham was right to follow God, then that means you are willing to accept a person setting out to brutally kill his son simply because God says so. If that is true, your morality is simply a matter of blindly following a dictator, regardless of what he says.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" - Genesis 18:25

In this case, He did. So yes, my morality really is simply a matter of blindly following a (truly benevolent) dictator, regardless of what he says. Yep. 100%!

Glad we could settle this. Your obvious trust issues will never be validated.

So you avoid the question.

You just don't like my answer. lol.

 

[doubtingmerle]

^ Yes,

You say this in response to, " Do you think that you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven?"

Previously you said only CHRINOS say you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven. I take it you changed your mind.

and no fallen human being born under the curse of Adam has ever achieved this.

So you won't go to heaven?

Human beings are required to keep all the commandments perfectly & all the time. You're literally being asked to fulfill the entire law, and that if you break even the least of the commandments, then you have failed (James 2:10).

That's odd. In the verses I quoted, Jesus was asked which commandments one needs to follow to get to heaven. Jesus responded by listing six of them. If he meant all of them, why didn't he say all of them?

If there are a list of commands one must follow to get to heaven, it would be nice if the list Jesus gave was complete. Should he have included the command to not wear clothes of two different fabrics? Should he have included the command to give to everyone that asks?

Everyone has failed to do that. - Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12. No one can achieve this. Yet Jesus was the only One capable of fulfilling the law; having never sinned.

So Jesus goes to heaven alone?

God commanded Abraham to sin....Abraham's faith was so commendable, "concluding that God was able to raise [Isaac] up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." - Hebrews 11:19

Wait, what? God commanded Abraham to sin, and yet Abraham is being commended for setting out to do that sin?

When you post gobblygoop like this, nobody know if you think Abraham was right or wrong to do what God said.

2. When I am sinned against, I would not need the sacrifice of a lamb or a Son, because the Son = the Lamb that was already sacrificed on my behalf. Therefore, I forgive based on the sacrifice paid on my behalf.

Ah, so if I were to wrong you, you would not require me to sacrifice a lamb or a son to make things right?

Well, OK then.

For the record, I would not require that either. I don't see how you sacrificing a lamb or a son would make things better.

 

[Paulomycin]

this right here is one of the reasons I disagree with you so much. You think that you can make a claim and not have to provide evidence to support it

I supported all of my claims with proof and evidence. Problem? And if I didn't, then show me, and I will do everything I can to add external citations and support.

but think the other person needs to provide evidence against your claim or else your claim is assumed true. This is not how sound reasoning works.

Burden of Proof necessarily requires a Burden of Refutation to follow. If Burden of Refutation is not met, then the proof and evidence remains unrefuted. Not "assumed true," mind you, just unrefuted.

I know my rights.

 

[doubtingmerle]

SIN!... SIN!...it's totally a SIN!

OK, so you think it was sin for Abraham to set out to kill his son. But you also commend Abraham for setting out to kill his son.

Wait, what?

How can you say it was sin for Abraham to set out to kill his son, and then commend Abraham for sinning?

Reminds me of a story about Calvin Coolidge, who was never one to use a lot of words. After church one Sunday somebody asked him what the sermon was about. "Sin", replied silent Cal. "What did he say about it", came the response. Coolidge replied, "He was against it!"

But in this case, regarding this sin, you seem to be for it.