[JennyD]

Re: God is

Thanks Zeke, but to clean up this post, God isn't an "item" as you put it (and claim that i put it, when I didn't), he is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Being, that which nothing greater can be conceived the Bible doesn't seem a very hard feat to accomplish. Although that is not to say that the ontological argument proves the Bible, before you make the same mistake about 3 people have already made.

Not a very good try there, sunshine.

Tell me, Unfalsies, why is it you keep insisting that because you can conceive of a "greatest thing", it therefore must exist? That is not logical.

You then say, "Well, it ONLY works for the GREATEST thing. It doesn't work for conceiving other things."

You ignore my comments about your assertion that God only exists outside time and space (that is, objective reality), yet is recorded in the Bible as having repeatedly interacted with real people (not those you've imagined). No answer for that, eh?

What if you and I have different abilities to imagine, and I am able to conceive something far greater than you? Does that mean my imagined being exists, while yours does not? Or does it mean that God is subject to human imaginations, and exists only because we are capable of imagining Him?

Finally, would God cease to exist if humans ceased to exist? Since you say that He must logically exist because He is the greatest thing of which we humans can conceive, then it logically follows that if humans ceased to exist, there would be nobody to imagine Him, and He would likewise cease to exist.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

Oh do tell how you know this? You don't have a perfect item to observe.

I suppose you are going to trying claiming your god is the perfect item. That doesn't work because the only observations of your god is in The Bible and it's clear for all his boasting YHWH doesn't have a clue about the rest of the universe much less how this planet really works. The only place YHWH is perfect is in between you Christian’s ears which pretty much defines his existence.

The clue here kid is your “logical” argument comes from the ancient period were everyone excepted the supernatural existed. When your’ argument says “atheists” it means “someone who doesn’t worship YHWH” not “someone who rejects the supernatural because of the lack of evidence”.

Thanks Zeke, but to clean up this post, God isn't an "item" as you put it (and claim that i put it, when I didn't), he is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Being, that which nothing greater can be conceived the Bible doesn't seem a very hard feat to accomplish. Although that is not to say that the ontological argument proves the Bible, before you make the same mistake about 3 people have already made.

Not a very good try there, sunshine.

[MrSmith101]

Re: God is

God is my favourite fictional character =D

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: God is

Oh do tell how you know this? You don't have a perfect item to observe.

The clue here kid is your “logical” argument comes from the ancient period were everyone excepted the supernatural existed. When your’ argument says “atheists” it means “someone who doesn’t worship YHWH” not “someone who rejects the supernatural because of the lack of evidence”.

No, I think that Unfalsy has used the word correctly - "a-theist" without God(s)." Whether that God is the Lord of Hosts or some jigga-boo's tree is not relevant to the definition of "God(s)" and atheist believes in the existence of no gods. The reason why an atheist does not believe is neither here nor there to the definition.

The supernatural is dismissed by virtue of various Bible verses condemning witches, fortune tellers, casters of spells etc. So you and Unfalsy are at one with this. We here at Landover reject these superstitions.

[Underpants Gnome]

Re: God is

He can exist in both, I should of known you'd misunderstand what I said, Items that only exist in space and time cannot be perfect.

Oh do tell how you know this? You don't have a perfect item to observe.

I suppose you are going to trying claiming your god is the perfect item. That doesn't work because the only observations of your god is in The Bible and it's clear for all his boasting YHWH doesn't have a clue about the rest of the universe much less how this planet really works. The only place YHWH is perfect is in between you Christian’s ears which pretty much defines his existence.

The clue here kid is your “logical” argument comes from the ancient period were everyone excepted the supernatural existed. When your’ argument says “atheists” it means “someone who doesn’t worship YHWH” not “someone who rejects the supernatural because of the lack of evidence”.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

So we agree that God does not exist in time and space. We are finding common ground. Now all you have to do is to convince me that things can exist outside of time and space.

He can exist in both, I should of known you'd misunderstand what I said, Items that only exist in space and time cannot be perfect.

That's because you don't actually explain anything; you just verbally dance around exploiting the ambiguities of the language. We rephrase our questions in the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of you.

I suppose it could be that you are using a different kind of logic from what I learned in school, some kind of higher logic that merely appears, to my feeble mind, to be nothing more than circular arguments and non sequiturs.

If this is the case, you might want to dumb down your arguments so we stupid atheists can follow. Try using normal logic that I can understand -- the kind where the premises have to be true, where you are not allowed assume your conclusion in your premises, and and where the conclusions have to necessarily follow from the premises.

Interesting to see you've typed all this out, and not even tried to refute anymore points. Clueless atheist hypocrite. I answer all the points you make, you don't answer then say that I am the one not answering! Try answering some points yourself! Go back to the last post of yours that I destroyed, and answer some stuff.

[Joe the Atheist]

Re: God is

Steak is better to eat than dog poo.

That's not a fact. It is a subjective opinion that I happen to share. However, this guy would disagree with your statement:

Items which exist in space and time are not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" and they are not perfect.

So we agree that God does not exist in time and space. We are finding common ground. Now all you have to do is to convince me that things can exist outside of time and space.

I've explained this over and over to the atheists and they keep coming back with the same questions phrased differently.

That's because you don't actually explain anything; you just verbally dance around exploiting the ambiguities of the language. We rephrase our questions in the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of you.

I suppose it could be that you are using a different kind of logic from what I learned in school, some kind of higher logic that merely appears, to my feeble mind, to be nothing more than circular arguments and non sequiturs.

If this is the case, you might want to dumb down your arguments so we stupid atheists can follow. Try using normal logic that I can understand -- the kind where the premises have to be true, where you are not allowed assume your conclusion in your premises, and and where the conclusions have to necessarily follow from the premises.

[Fallen Angel]

Re: God is

ive been reading this agan n i think i under stand now. a pefect god exsists coz hes perfect. m i rite? but i think ur wrong 1 way. 2 b perfect dun a guy god need a grrl godess? so my god n godess r real. c i told u ppl im not stupid.

[Underpants Gnome]

Re: God is

Hey Unfalsifiable,

Lets' for a take that blind eye to the painfully obvious hole in your "agruement" and accept it. Now wouldn't this go to follow?

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

To be perfect God doesn't exist. Tap dance with this one boyo.

[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

Unfalsifiable,

Sorry, but your faux logic is unacceptable to a rational mind.

If you cannot support your claims with a rational argument (ie. not simply reiterating that a concept is a manifest reality simply because the concept exist in your subjective mind) then I accept your defeat.

You can't win them all, lad.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

[/i]

I have already concluded that "that which nothing greater can be conceived" is an illogical assertion at this point in light of the fact that there is no objective criteria to I can claim one object is inherently better than another.

Glad to know you ignored the part where I set down the criteria in my other post. Go back and look. That which is greater then anything else that can be conceived is not an ambiguous concept, for we know what perfect is, it is that which nothing greater can be conceived, no two which ways about it.

Until you provide an argument detailing the objective criteria which demonstrates how a "that which nothing greater can be conceived" is a manifest part of reality and not an ambiguous concept that does not exist in manifest reality, you have failed in your argument.

Perhaps you need to spend more time looking at my argument rather then claiming it has "failed" all the time, when it hasn't. Your very own claims of

I will no longer respond to any comments falsely asserting the manifest reality of a "that which nothing greater can be conceived" until you provide the objective criteria necessary to continue arguing such a notion. That particular ambiguity has already been ruled out at this point.

So rude, I ALREADY did it, as I have said. Go back and read, franky apologise too.

Recall my objective criteria example for the onyx cube. It I was a perfect smooth, glossy, ebony cube of onyx that is 2 inches, by 2 inches, by 2 inches. It is flawless. However, despite the fact that it is a perfect smooth, glossy, ebony cube of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in width, and 2 inches in length it is not objectively better than any other object.

It is objectively WORSE then another object, namely that object with is better then all others, of which we can conceive. That is what matters.

Now don't ignore half of what I say this time.

[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

Of course you do, it is "that which nothing greater can be conceived. That is the ONLY thing we know about it that is the point.

I have already concluded that "that which nothing greater can be conceived" is an illogical assertion at this point in light of the fact that there is no objective criteria to I can claim one object is inherently better than another.

Until you provide an argument detailing the objective criteria which demonstrates how a "that which nothing greater can be conceived" is a manifest part of reality and not an ambiguous concept that does not exist in manifest reality, you have failed in your argument.

I will no longer respond to any comments falsely asserting the manifest reality of a "that which nothing greater can be conceived" until you provide the objective criteria necessary to continue arguing such a notion. That particular ambiguity has already been ruled out at this point.

Of course you can claim that one this is better then another, that is why we have perfection as an adjective, for example.

Recall my objective criteria example for the onyx cube. It I was a perfect smooth, glossy, ebony cube of onyx that is 2 inches, by 2 inches, by 2 inches. It is flawless. However, despite the fact that it is a perfect smooth, glossy, ebony cube of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in width, and 2 inches in length it is not objectively better than any other object.

Ok so you think dog feces is equal to a saved Christian human, you think a screwed up bottle cap works just as well as one that fits correctly. You think a crippled man can run faster then the fastest man on earth. Whatever.

What I think or you what you think is irrelevant and wholly subjective. Our opinions on such subjects being nothing more than our personal subjective criteria. I have received no evidence to support the idea that any one thing is inherently better than any other thing. And you have not provided any argument to the contrary.

[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

Funny thought coming from a guy who in another forum argued that reality is an illusion.

Our perception of physical reality as a concrete construct is illusionary, yes. As matter is in constant flux, one day's oak chair is another day's patch of grass. Even within your own biological organism, the atomic building blocks that make up the human being are being discarded while new material is being incorporated. The physical body you possess now is not made of the exact same atoms as your physical body of five years ago.

Are there undefined concepts that aren't vague?

Not that I am currently aware of. If something is without definition it is inherently unknown and therefore subject to ambiguity. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

God is way better than a gold bar. Unless you're a Jew. Steak is better to eat than dog poo.

In your own subjective opinion perhaps.

Steak, in my subjective opinion, would be more enjoyable to eat than dog poo. As to rather one action is inherently better than another action is subject to situation and our own individual egos. If I presented you with a steak in one hand and a plate of dog feces in the other and informed you that if you ate the steak instead of the feces I would kill you, certain individuals would argue that eating the dog poo was the better choice. Of course, that would still merely be their subjective opinion on the subject.

[Underpants Gnome]

Re: God is

Not at all. Let me put it like this, and maybe your slow head can process it:
We have two theories for the origin of life.

One involves a big bang- an explosion of unlimited power that was caused by nothing and created all-
Followed by the miraculous event of life coming from inanimate materials, and somehow "DNA" coming into existance later on, and then - evolution.

Well I will concede this; we don't know what was the event that caused the Big Bang because we can't observe anything outside the universe. So I suppose you could say "God did it", kind of like a mad scientist prancing arround his lab screaming itself alive. That's what the Catholic Church does.

So I can assume you true Christians are lining up with the Catholics?

I like this one because it fits how the Bible describes your god; something a teenager playing a video game with all the cheats on and screaming "I‘m so awesome" every time he beats on the hapless AIs.

This theory^ does simply put, not make any sense at all.
It relies on a cascade of spectacular events without anything whatsoever to cause them!

And on the other hand, we have the theory that God created it all, which unlike the so-called "scientific" one has not been disproven on a single count.
Any reasonable person would thus go with the second theory, the one that states that God created everything, the theory found in the Bible.

What you're doing however is just that you accuse me of:
You have an event (several infact) you don't understand and yet you ASSUME God wasn't involved, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Stop being such a blind fanatic of satan and open your eyes, friend.

Really, do tell what this evidence is for your god doing it? This wouldn't be because you theists wrote he did in your magical book?

Speaking of that I noticed in your magical book it talks about the "gods moving accross" the water. So were these "gods" YHWH, El, Azazel and all the other Jewish gods back in the old days before YHWH booted them into the underword?

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

No, Unfalsies my sweet, it really doesn't answer my questions, it sashays around them. Have you been hanging out with Dances with Joy?

First, how is it that you can decide that non-existence is not as good as existence? Have you TRIED not existing? And even if you have, you can only say whether existing is better than not existing for YOU; who are you to say that existence is inherently better than not existing?

Don't sashay around the question. Is what is greatest that can be conceived going to be greater as an existing thing or as a non-existing thing? Obviously the former.

For me, for example, it'd be far better if Homersexuals did not exist. They might beg to differ. (Or not, considering their deathstyle, but that's beside the point.)

But homosexuals are bad, non great things. Can you think of any positive things that you can conceive of that you'd rather not exist?

But the whole of your position seems to be that anything of which we can conceive must exist because it's better to exist than not to exist. That's not much of an argument.

Not at all, as I have said near 10 times in this very thread, the ontological argument does not work for objects or "just anything" as they are not the greatest thing of which we can conceive.

You have reduced God to a concept, a bit of mental masturbation (sorry, Pastors), instead of recognizing Him as Creator and Master of the Universe! You have regurgitated nonsense from your Western philosophy schoolbooks that proves nothing, and which you will abandon when you reach the next philosopher in your course. Lord help us when you get to Eastern philosophies!

You also didn't answer why it is that you hate Jesus so much that you set up these foolish straw man arguments that even a feeble-minded female such as myself can bash into bits.

This argument does not postulate the existence of the Biblical God, rather it sets foundations for his existence without faith. No need to worry, God is all powerful and perfect, he can still do all the stuff he did in the Bible and remain logically consistent. Because he is God.

I've explained this over and over to the atheists and they keep coming back with the same questions phrased differently. However, it was a pleasure to explain it to you Jenny my dear. Need me to go over it again?