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.
Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God. For example, some had tried to attack on the grounds that a flying spaghetti monster must then exist. Sorry, again, won't work. You have to come up with a being who has maximal perfection,' arguments, etc., do not have that, only God does.
Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God. For example, some had tried to attack on the grounds that a flying spaghetti monster must then exist. Sorry, again, won't work. You have to come up with a being who has maximal perfection,' arguments, etc., do not have that, only God does.
Weird how all atheists need is a simple coded signal at SETI to conclude mind but when in the presence of the DNA code the very thought of a designing mind of a superior entity which they might have to call God instantly perceptually incapacitates them..
Coded radio broadcasts are indeed more convincing than natural life in terms of whether or not minds are present.
Although, Coded radio broadcasts would probably just be an indication that natural life ended up producing other organic brains somewhere else in the universe.
Maybe God should send some radio broadcasts if he wants to convince us atheists...
The fact that you can imagine what you present as evidence for a mind is not evidence of a mind.
The ability to conceive of something or evaluations of greatness of something don't act as evidence for things.
Beyond that though, given that you aren't even replying to the argument I presented or the nor are you supporting the original argument to which I was replying, I'm going to ignore you.
A being must exist that is so special that special pleading is not a fallacy.
I love it.
We're left with the logical question of why such a special being must exist in the first place though.
A greatest being must exist for any coherent and realized definition of great but we have no reason to believe that the ontological argument gives us a category of great that actually exists.
When the criterion which justifies certain conclusion is identical and yet ignored when convenient it isn't logical nor scientific. It is called inconsistency of policy and is categorized under fallacious reasoning.
BTW
Concluding GOD isn't a requirement. Concluding mind is.
I won't disturb your thread any longer.
My apologies!
And that's not to say the being will be maximally great, just better than anything else. I'm the greatest engineer in my office right now - but that's only because I'm the only one there. Being the of that set greatest doesn't mean I possess omni-engineeringness or anything, and unfortunately no one is going to mistake me for a god because of it.
That wasn't the intent - I thought link was amusingly apt - but I apologise if you found it provocative.I hope you realize that trying to provoke an angered response via mockery is against forum rules.
The criteria are different. DNA has been observed to evolve under both natural and artificial selection pressure, consistent with the principles of modern evolutionary theory. It's reasonable to infer it has done so in the past - and the available evidence all supports the inference.When the criterion which justifies certain conclusion is identical and yet ignored when convenient it isn't logical nor scientific. It is called inconsistency of policy and is categorized under fallacious reasoning.
Well, your language seems to be crafted for dealing with real things instead of imagining Gods into existence.
I have defined these terms several times since I began posting here.Define your terms. Remember your debate with cjlr?
Are you referring to things that come to be ex materia or ex nihilo?I have defined these terms several times since I began posting here.
Universe = all matter all energy and the space-time manifold
Begins to exist = comes into being
Why are you deliberately omitting the material cause?Cause = efficient cause i.e. that which produces an effect
A being must exist that is so special that special pleading is not a fallacy.
I love it.
We're left with the logical question of why such a special being must exist in the first place though.
A greatest being must exist for any coherent and realized definition of great but we have no reason to believe that the ontological argument gives us a category of great that actually exists.
Basic logic, such as?Only when intelligent people go to sleep on their very basic assumptions...
and forget very basic logic.
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?