Godlessness and choice

[Dave Ellis]

I provided two scientific websites, one explained how chemistry works and the other explained how the brain operates according to the laws of chemistry.



Provide one I committed.

Why are you not obligated to re-post your sources, however I have to root back through multiple pages to find what I claimed about your argument?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, I supported it, you just don't want to believe it.

Not that I've seen, I did read back through most of the thread a few days ago and I didn't see where you posted anything scientific to back your claims.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I have been studying Anselm's Ontological argument recently and find it to be simply sublime.

When we think about God, and our thoughts reflect an adequate grasp of who God is, we will recognize immediately that God exists, for it is not possible that God could not exist.

Defining things into existence doesn't mean they actually exist. That's all that argument tries to do.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Defining things into existence doesn't mean they actually exist. That's all that argument tries to do.

The Greatest Conceivable Cookie would necessarily exist not only in my mind, but also in my mouth.

How odd... I don't taste anything.

I guess you're right - you can't just imagine things into reality.

 

[anonymous person]

Defining things into existence doesn't mean they actually exist. That's all that argument tries to do.

The thing is, is that the greatest conceivable being can't be defined into existence.

Think about it. You're right. I can't cause something to be by merely imagining it. Nor is that what the argument does.

The argument simply points out that if you think about what properties the greatest conceivable being would possess, you would conclude that it would exist in every possible world.

Whereas something like a cookie, which is made up of cookie dough, couldn't exist in every possible world. For there is a possible world wherein there is no matter, for example.

 

[anonymous person]

The Greatest Conceivable Cookie would necessarily exist not only in my mind, but also in my mouth.

How odd... I don't taste anything.

I guess you're right - you can't just imagine things into reality.

Well notice, you're talking about a cookie. A cookie can only be so many things by virtue of it being constituted of cookie dough.

I'm talking about a being, the greatest conceivable being.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The thing is, is that the greatest conceivable being can't be defined into existence.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Think about it. You're right. I can't cause something to be by merely imagining it. Nor is that what the argument does.

That's exactly what it does, actually. It argues for existence from 'definitional' properties of 'the greatest conceivable being', fallaciously treating 'existence' as a property. You can't make Anselm's argument without including that in one of your premises.

The argument simply points out that if you think about what properties the greatest conceivable being would possess,

In other words, thinking about the definition.

Whereas something like a cookie, which is made up of cookie dough, couldn't exist in every possible world. For there is a possible world wherein there is no matter, for example.

OK, I can play that game too.

There is a possible world in which there is nothing supernatural. Therefor, there is a possible world in which your god does not exist.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well notice, you're talking about a cookie. A cookie can only be so many things by virtue of it being constituted of cookie dough.

And a 'god' can only be so many things, by virtue of it being 'supernatural'.

See, there is no criticism you can level that does not equally apply to you. That's the slippery thing about trying to imagine things into reality - I can imagine just as hard as you can.

I'm talking about a being, the greatest conceivable being.

I am conceiving of a being that does not require extremely crappy apologetics - like Anselm's ontological argument - to prove its existence.

There. I just conceived of a being greater than your god.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm glad we agree on something.



That's exactly what it does, actually. It argues for existence from 'definitional' properties of 'the greatest conceivable being', fallaciously treating 'existence' as a property. You can't make Anselm's argument without including that in one of your premises.



In other words, thinking about the definition.



OK, I can play that game too.

There is a possible world in which there is nothing supernatural. Therefor, there is a possible world in which your god does not exist.

If by "supernatural" you intend to refer to "the greatest conceivable being", then such a world is not a possible world.

 

[anonymous person]

And a 'god' can only be so many things, by virtue of it being 'supernatural'.

See, there is no criticism you can level that does not equally apply to you. That's the slippery thing about trying to imagine things into reality - I can imagine just as hard as you can.



I am conceiving of a being that does not require extremely crappy apologetics - like Anselm's ontological argument - to prove its existence.

There. I just conceived of a being greater than your god.

I don't see how that follows. Maybe you can explain?

As far as I am concerned, I agree. The greatest conceivable being doesn't need extremely crappy apologetics arguments to prove its existence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No thanks

Pro tip: when you're backed into a corner, it's probably a better idea not to respond at all instead of replying "no thanks".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm talking about a being, the greatest conceivable being.

The greatest conceivable being does not exist in reality in any possible world.

If you disagree with that statement, please give an objective reason for that disagreement rather than a subjective "nuh uh".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If by "supernatural" you intend to refer to "the greatest conceivable being", then such a world is not a possible world.

No, there is nothing intrinsic about 'the supernatural' that would make it necessarily existent in all possible worlds, any more than cookie dough is necessarily existent in all possible worlds. You are just arbitrarily assuming that as a hidden premise.

I can do it too. Watch,

If by "cookie dough" you intend to refer to "the greatest conceivable cookie", then such a world is not a possible world.

I can play this imagination game all day and night.

As far as I am concerned, I agree. The greatest conceivable being doesn't need extremely crappy apologetics arguments to prove its existence.

Yet clearly, your god does, otherwise there would never have been any need to invent crappy apologetics like Anselm's ontological argument in the first place.

Therefor, your god is not the greatest conceivable being. The one I've conceived of is greater.

 

[anonymous person]

The greatest conceivable being does not exist in reality in any possible world.

If you disagree with that statement, please give an objective reason for that disagreement rather than a subjective "nuh uh".

No thanks.

 

[anonymous person]

No, there is nothing intrinsic about 'the supernatural' that would make it necessarily existent in all possible worlds, any more than cookie dough is necessarily existent in all possible worlds. You are just arbitrarily assuming that as a hidden premise.

I can do it too. Watch,

If by "cookie dough" you intend to refer to "the greatest conceivable cookie", then such a world is not a possible world.

I can play this imagination game all day and night.



Yet clearly, your god does, otherwise there would never have been any need to invent crappy apologetics like Anselm's ontological argument in the first place.

Therefor, your god is not the greatest conceivable being. The one I've conceived of is greater.

Ok

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No thanks.

You realize that you're not not making yourself look good, here in the Apologetics forum, right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The thing is, is that the greatest conceivable being can't be defined into existence.

Think about it. You're right. I can't cause something to be by merely imagining it. Nor is that what the argument does.

The argument simply points out that if you think about what properties the greatest conceivable being would possess, you would conclude that it would exist in every possible world.

Whereas something like a cookie, which is made up of cookie dough, couldn't exist in every possible world. For there is a possible world wherein there is no matter, for example.

How does conceiving of something have any bearing on that thing actually existing? Again, that makes no sense at all.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Hilarious.

 

[anonymous person]

How does conceiving of something have any bearing on that thing actually existing? Again, that makes no sense at all.

It doesn't.

I said that earlier.

 

[anonymous person]

How does conceiving of something have any bearing on that thing actually existing? Again, that makes no sense at all.

It doesn't.

I said that earlier.

 

[anonymous person]

You realize that you're not not making yourself look good, here in the Apologetics forum, right?

I didn't know that was supposed to be one's aim in posting in an apologetics forum. To make one's self look good.