Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
No, I supported it, you just don't want to believe it.
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.
The thing is, is that the greatest conceivable being can't be defined into existence.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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".No thanks
I'm talking about a being, the greatest conceivable being.
If by "supernatural" you intend to refer to "the greatest conceivable being", then such a world is not a possible world.
As far as I am concerned, I agree. The greatest conceivable being doesn't need extremely crappy apologetics arguments to prove its existence.
No thanks.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".
OkNo, 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.
No thanks.
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.
It doesn't.How does conceiving of something have any bearing on that thing actually existing? Again, that makes no sense at all.
It doesn't.How does conceiving of something have any bearing on that thing actually existing? Again, that makes no sense at all.
You realize that you're not not making yourself look good, here in the Apologetics forum, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?