[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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”.

[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.

[MrSmith101]

Re: God is

God is my favourite fictional character =D

[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.

[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.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: God is

Not a very good try there, sunshine.

Pal, if you refer to Brother Ezekiel or any other True Christian™ as "sunshine" or any other demeaning name ever again, I'll personally put your lights out.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

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?

The greatest thing that can be conceived surely could handle the feats of God in the Bible with ease. Why does it have to exist outside of time and space?

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?

No one can think greater then "that which nothing greater can be conceived" or it would be illogical.

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.

He could cease to exist from the perspective of humans as there would be no humans left to have perspective.

Oh and PASTOR Zeke, I was not calling Brother Zeke sunshine, rather, I thanked him for his post and moved on to talking to the person Brother Zeke had correctly admonished, thank you for your concern, though.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: God is

I conceive of three things, each greater than the other.

Logic requires a foundation of faith, for you must take it on faith that logic is effective. Logic cannot prove itself effective; to do so would require a circularity of argument which is logically inadmissible.

"It is like a dream. When even the bones is gone in the desert the dreams is talk to you, you don't wake up forever."

The three things are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

Repent! Logic is a frail reed, and the bones of Saint Anselmo have become fragile and friable as dry mud. REPENT! The Lord will tell you -- has already told you -- what to think. Saint Anselmo rots in his grave and his Ontological Proof is as unsound as his crumbling bones.

REPENT! Logic is a frail reed, but mighty is the Grace of God. His Grace is SALVATION entire and ineffable!

~~ OEJ