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.
This thread is not about the ontological argument.
Except that "something that doesn´t exist" isn´t something, to begin with.
That´s me. I can conceive of greater beings than the ones described in the monotheists´ Holy Books.
According to the ontological argument, these beings a. exist, and b. aren´t the ones described in those books.
This thread is not about the ontological argument.
Except that "something that doesn´t exist" isn´t something, to begin with.
That´s me. I can conceive of greater beings than the ones described in the monotheists´ Holy Books.
According to the ontological argument, these beings a. exist, and b. aren´t the ones described in those books.
What argument? LOLFeel free to point out the missing link in the argument.
Sure, but this thread is not about this argument.The "greatest conceivable being" argument inevitably derives from Anselm's.
So e.g. murder existing objectively outside the mind is greater than murder as a concept in the mind?Sure it does, it exists as a concept in the mind, and is being compared to something which exists objectively outside of the mind.
Your God concept is independent of the God as depicted in the bible? Ok. My mistake.And what does this thread have to do with Holy Books?
Sure - when you pointed me to "humans" as the determining entities for "greatness" you left me no other option.And you base this assertion on your own version of "greatness," which you have already claimed is entirely subjective?
I am imagining a being for whom 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are unnecessary.
There. I just conceived of a being greater than Yahweh.
When there´s no argument, there can´t be a non-sequitur. So when you called me upon a non-sequitur, you were implying there was an argument.What argument? LOL
Murder is not a being. It is an act.Sure, but this thread is not about this argument.
So e.g. murder existing objectively outside the mind is greater than murder as a concept in the mind?
Your God concept is independent of the God as depicted in the bible? Ok. My mistake.
Sure - when you pointed me to "humans" as the determining entities for "greatness" you left me no other option.
Not at all. I was implying that you have no argument because of the logical fallacy in your reasoning. Get it now?When there´s no argument, there can´t be a non-sequitur. So when you called me upon a non-sequitur, you were implying there was an argument.
Nothing. The point, however: I can conceive of a greater being than Yahweh, so Yahweh - according to your definition - can´t be God.[/QUOTE]Where did you get the idea that 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are necessary for Yahweh?
Then replace "murder" by "murderer".Murder is not a being. It is an act.
It´s just the nonsense of the ontological argument kicking you in the back.Stop with the nonsense already.
Feel free to point out the non-sequitur (missing logical link) in my reasoning.Not at all. I was implying that you have no argument because of the logical fallacy in your reasoning. Get it now?
Sure, but this thread is not about this argument.
So e.g. murder existing objectively outside the mind is greater than murder as a concept in the mind?
Your God concept is independent of the God as depicted in the bible? Ok. My mistake.
Sure - when you pointed me to "humans" as the determining entities for "greatness" you left me no other option.
Feel free to point out the missing link in the argument.
Where did you get the idea that 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are necessary for Yahweh?
Well. you were the one to start talking about the ontological argument, all of a sudden.Then what argument is it about? You did not provide any argument in the OP.
So then you can answer your own question "What does it have to do with Holy Books?".I didn't say that at all.
I don´t recall questioning that "greatness" was a "sound concept".So "greatness" is a sound concept when you require it and nonsensical when you don't?
Which is practically the same."Non sequitur" does not mean that there is a missing link in an argument, it means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises and syllogisms.
Well. you started to talk about the ontological argument, all of a sudden.Then what argument is it about? You did not provide any argument in the OP.
So then you can answer your own question "What does it have to do with Holy Books?".
I don´t recall questioning that "greatness" was a "sound concept".
1. It isn´t descriptive. It merely provides an unspecific value judgement, and on top of that it doesn´t provide any standards or criteria for determining "greatness".
Which is practically the same.
So since a poster called a non-sequitur, apparently he
a. felt I worked from premises and
b. felt that I arrived at a conclusion and
c. felt that the conclusion follow from the premises.
In short, he felt I made an argument (in syllogistic form).
When I asked him to point out the error in the argument, strangely enough, he then proceeded to tell me I hand´t made an argument, in the first place.
You forgot what you had asked a couple of minutes ago?
(post #73),
and funnily enough - when I first called you upon the semantics problem in your question - you answered "I asked what I asked" in post #84 - immediately before you suddenly forgot what you had asked.
Well, I suggest you just read the OP. If there´s anything unclear, feel free to ask.I know of no other. You didn't answer my question. What argument is the thread about? You did not provide any argument in the OP, nor did you link the post you referred to in the OP. (After reading through more of the thread, I can see that a large number of people, atheists included, have been assuming that the topic is Anselm's argument.)
No, it isn´t.This thread is not about holy books, it is about an argument for the existence of God.
Holy books are closely related to the topic of Gods and religions. This thread is not about holy books, but this doesn´t mean they may not be mentioned.If you want to talk about holy books you could start a new thread.
Exactly, and I was asking which argument he felt I made, what he felt the conclusion was, and where there´s a logical gap in the argument.He felt that your conclusion didn't follow from the rest of what you said. If what you said was not thought to be a coherent argument, then the conclusion would naturally not follow.
Would the greatest conceivable being be greater or lesser if it actually existed?
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?