Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

You still can't show in any way that god exists in reality.

This is the problem with ontological arguments.

 

But I can imagine something that CAN lift the rock. So God is no longer the greatest thing I can imagine.

 

I was reminding KAMALAYKA of the author of the island counterargument, not explaining it to you.

Enjoy your condescension and ANGRY CAPS.

 

I got a huge kick out of my philosophy classes in college, religious and not, it's just fun to talk through with non-argumentative folks! But yeah, at the end of the day religious philosophy is essentially navel-gazing, 'cause it's all about unverifiable claims.

 

Even more true re the claims of 'rationalism', which is a fiction of even greater magical thinking.

 

Doesn't have to, since no human has any real genuine grasp on 'reality' in the first place.

 

Nonsense

 

Yes, and what you are doing is pointing at something, somewhere that might have done something and calling it 'God'.

Here is the problem you will face. If you define your God as above and you will have valid holes picked in your logic for special pleading the idea. If you define it to well and narrow down the philosophical wriggle room then the absurdity of the definition is easy to pick apart unless you are prepared to adopt an absurd apologetic.

 

That is appealing to ignorance and, by invoking the regression of ignorance you have conceded the argument.

It is ignorance all the way down from there.

 

Being rational is a tool that can be shown to work, the results repeat; when the results don't repeat we can adjust our model to allow for the new knowledge we have gained.

Religion actually does attempt to adopt a rational approach by using apologetics to compensate for the dogmatic positions that it cannot rationally sustain. It always fails because it starts with a conclusion.

If you are trying to play around with equivocating 'faith' to 'justified belief' then I am OK with putting my assumptions about reality on the table and asking you to show where they do not work.

 

Fact. Religion and tradition does a much better job at social cohesion and cultural development than 'rationalism' does.No need to keep re-inventing the wheel just because some Burb Brats take a Philosophy 101 course and think they have mastered it all.

If you want to pretend your intellect is all knowing, can handle all variables, and make perfect choices every time, fine; we can just laugh at all the Darwin Awards you win.

 

No, it isn't; just because you can't rebut it with proof of any kind doesn't make it so.

 

You couldn't have been any plainer in your appeal to ignorance, I don't need to rebut any assertion made on that basis because it is self refuting.

If you disagree then you can explain to me what you mean by '...any real genuine grasp on 'reality'...'.

 

No. It isn't. As has already been explained. If he can't lift the rock, I can imagine something greater than him. According to your definition, that means he is no longer God. There is a greater being: the God's Rock Lifter.

 

So if I can imagine something that is the greatest, and it is greater if it actually exists, then it must exist if we can imagine it.

Since we can imagine that a god that exists, it clearly isn't beyond our imaginations. And the ability to imagine doesn't make something real. QED.

 

No it doesn't. Religion is responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

.

We should always discard make believe superstitions in the face of reality.

Now you're just being silly. you know perfectly well I never made any such statement, or implied any such thing.

 

I can.
Super God!

 

Only to a theist!

You are just talking about the supernatural and you have no evidence of that either.

Have you ever solved the omnipotence paradox for your imaginary deity?

 

Here is something a little nore reality based that is impossible for the omnipotent God.

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

 

Using your example:

2+2=4

we shall call that math.

math is an abstract, it exists.

It attaches to the physical world.

Swap out math insert God, same thing.

 

The world of ideas is non-real and is simply what the mind imagines. In this world we can create whatever we want whether it is real or not, it is a mental canvas for creating whatever we like. In the world of the reality you can't mentally create what is real, it exists or it doesn't. In the world of reality things are physical and real.

You started in the world of ideas, defining God a being in the world of ideas. But then you made the mistake of trying to attach real-world properties to something in the world of ideas. You broke the rules as you can't attach real-world properties to an idea, and idea can only have ideal properties. To correct your logic, this idea of God actually existing in reality is still just an idea and still only exists in the world of ideas. I can imagine a frog per se that according to the idea actually exists in reality but that is different than actually existing in reality. You are confusing the idea of God existing in reality with God actually existing in reality.

This mistake can be abused to "prove" the following:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that Jud the Pig is a pig that is the greatest possible pig that can be imagined.
2. Jud exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A flying pig is greater than a non-flying pig.
4. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
5. Thus, if Jud exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine a pig that is greater than Jud (that is, a greatest possible pig that does exist).
6. But we cannot imagine a pig that is greater than Jud (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a pig greater than the greatest possible pig that can be imagined.)
7. Therefore, Jud the flying pig exists.

I will define an island with all the abilities God has that doesn't conflict with its identity as an island. Now find me an island greater than that.

 

So what? What makes this God anything other than a being of immensity?

 

Deleted

 

The definition of God is
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnipresent
Eternal

Super God:
Transdimensional

It seems that the originators of the god concept didn't have that one yet. So they didn't imagine the greatest being possible.

 

Not my example.

Whether maths exists or is just a perspective is debated. Either way, it doesn't exist in the same way that God supposedly does.