[JennyD]

Re: God is

Gosh, how many times do I have to say this? Items which exist in space and time are not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" and they are not perfect. People confuse themselves (I'm repeating myself here) with the sloppy use of perfect as an adjective. Gaunilo tried this centuries a go and it didn't work then, and no surprise its not working for you.

As for the perfect? The concept of the perfect is that which nothing (no thing) greater can be conceived. We call this God.

Jenny my dear, this above answers most for your questions too, but I shall add, that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, because non-existence is not as good as existence (therefore, to conceive of God as non existing would be to conceive of not the greatest thing that can be conceived.)

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?

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 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.

You also say that God exists, but outside time and space; that is, outside objective reality. Therefore, you say that God is not observable; however, the Bible indicates that He appeared in several forms, that He walked in Eden with Adam and Eve (Genesis 2, for starters), that He wrestled with Jacob (Genesis 32), and that He even allowed Moses a glimpse of His posterior (Exodus 33), all before impregnating Mary. How could He have done these things, if He only existed outside of space and time? This makes no sense.

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.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: God is

For that we have the Bible. But in terms of the pure logical foundation for God, we don't actually need faith, which surprises most atheists.

Point taken, though I think you're putting the applecart before the horse (God existed before logic, not the other way around). Just to play the Devil's advocate for a moment, however, isn't formal logic an axiomatic system? If so, then don't we need faith in each of its postulates before we can rely upon it as a guide to truth? I know that, if someone were to find a "logical proof" for the nonexistence of God, I'd toss logic out the window before I'd give up on God.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: God is

With no supernatural then obviously it was a natural event. I love this whole thinking from you theist "We have an event we don't understand,..er,..ah,.. and GOD EXISTS!" This more underpants gnome thinking, you keep on having that blind spot as to were is the evidence for god's existence.

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.

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.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

Well, we probably should at least ask what His rules are for getting into Heaven instead of Hell, and whether men or women should run society, and sundry details of that sort.

For that we have the Bible. But in terms of the pure logical foundation for God, we don't actually need faith, which surprises most atheists.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: God is

Nothing else needs to be known about that which nothing greater can be conceived apart from that it exists.

Well, we probably should at least ask what His rules are for getting into Heaven instead of Hell, and whether men or women should run society, and sundry details of that sort.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

And what exactly is "that which nothing greater can be concieved"?

The problem is you have no idea what that could be or if such an ambiguous concept is manifest in reality.

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.

Therefore, you have no factual subject matter in which to base your faulty conjectures.

You see, now you know you're wrong, you should apologise.

Your entire would-be argument hinges on a vague undefined concept that you do not know to be manifest in reality. Your "God"-thing (which you define as "perfection") amounts to nothing more than a string of words without definitive meaning. You cannot fathom "that which nothing greater can be concieved", seeing that you cannot objectively define or explain such an ambiguity, and therefore have no right to address such an ambiguous concept in argumentum. On that basis alone you have failed miserably.

That again is stupid and completely ignored everything i've said, and interjects a false claim. It is like explaining morals to a naughty 3 year old. Nothing else needs to be known about that which nothing greater can be conceived apart from that it exists.

If I am to assume that "that which nothing greater can be concieved" is distinct from everything else, everything else being not perfect, what is there to prevent me from concieving that a gold bar or any other object is greater? You might say that is an illogical statement seeing that nothing can be concieved to be greater than this so-called perfection; However, what it is is a statement that highlights the illogical nature of the "that which nothing greater can be concieved" concept itself as there is no way anyone can objectively claim that one thing is inherently better than another. Terms like better and greater are subjective in nature and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

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

If you do not define the properties that would make something "that which nothing greater can be concieved" then you have failed in presenting your case.

Stop using it as a noun and you don't have that problem. The very property is that nothing greater can be conceived.

I conclude that "that which nothing greater can be concieved", as an object distinct from all other phenomenon, does not exist in reality seeing as there is no concievable objective criteria to deduce that one thing is better or worst than another.

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.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: God is

I'm explaining the logic which proves God's existence. I'm not explaining the reason WHY he exists, i'm just saying he DOES and how.

Does this help?

God is perfect insomuch as that He is a perfect God.
He is also unique.
The perfection that He possesses is thus also unique.
As He is unique, He and His perfection are incomparable.
As we cannot compare Him, yet we can imagine Him, He cannot be a compound of other beings of our imagination.
All beings of our imagination are rooted in reality.
God is therefore rooted in reality.
Thus God exists.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: God is

The problem is you have no idea what that could be or if such an ambiguous concept is manifest in reality.

Funny thought coming from a guy who in another forum argued that reality is an illusion. Anyway, Falso has many bigger problems, but he's earnest enough, in a wordy sort of way.

Your entire would-be argument hinges on a vague undefined concept

Are there undefined concepts that aren't vague?

Your "God"-thing (which you define as "perfection") amounts to nothing more than a string of words without definitive meaning.

Cut him some slack, he's getting a philosophy degree. They can't help but string together words without meaning. It's in their blood.

You cannot fathom "that which nothing greater can be concieved", seeing that you cannot objectively define or explain such an ambiguity, and therefore have no right to address such an ambiguous concept in argumentum.

This isn't argumentum, its the Landover Baptist Church Forum.

On that basis alone you have failed miserably.

True, he is a miserable failure. I mean, come on, he's getting a philosophy degree. A philosopher is just one step up from a Catholic.

If I am to assume that "that which nothing greater can be concieved" is distinct from everything else, everything else being not perfect, what is there to prevent me from concieving that a gold bar or any other object is greater?

God is way better than a gold bar. Unless you're a Jew.

You might say that is an illogical statement seeing that nothing can be concieved to be greater than this so-called perfection; However, what it is is a statement that highlights the illogical nature of the "that which nothing greater can be concieved" concept itself as there is no way anyone can objectively claim that one thing is inherently better than another.

Steak is better to eat than dog poo.

Terms like better and greater are subjective in nature and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Not at all. They are concepts that God gave to us, like good and evil.

If you do not define the properties that would make something "that which nothing greater can be concieved" then you have failed in presenting your case.

Hmmm, omnipotence, omniscience, completely good, jealous, tri-partite, creator of the universe, first rate historian, etc. Narrows the field down a lot.

I conclude that "that which nothing greater can be concieved", as an object distinct from all other phenomenon, does not exist in reality seeing as there is no concievable objective criteria to deduce that one thing is better or worst than another.

Enjoy your plate of dog poo this evening. Me, I'm going to enjoy a ribeye.

Look, I agree that there's not much use recycling old Catholic logical proofs of God's existence when there are much more tangible proofs, like he wrote a book for us and the stunning success of Biblical prophesy, but that doesn't mean that Falso is wrong. He's just taking the long way around.

[The Black Lion]

Re: God is

Gosh, how many times do I have to say this? Items which exist in space and time are not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" and they are not perfect. People confuse themselves (I'm repeating myself here) with the sloppy use of perfect as an adjective. Gaunilo tried this centuries a go and it didn't work then, and no surprise its not working for you.

As for the perfect? The concept of the perfect is that which nothing (no thing) greater can be conceived. We call this God.

Jenny my dear, this above answers most for your questions too, but I shall add, that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, because non-existence is not as good as existence (therefore, to conceive of God as non existing would be to conceive of not the greatest thing that can be conceived.)

And what exactly is "that which nothing greater can be concieved"?

The problem is you have no idea what that could be or if such an ambiguous concept is manifest in reality. Therefore, you have no factual subject matter in which to base your faulty conjectures. Your entire would-be argument hinges on a vague undefined concept that you do not know to be manifest in reality. Your "God"-thing (which you define as "perfection") amounts to nothing more than a string of words without definitive meaning. You cannot fathom "that which nothing greater can be concieved", seeing that you cannot objectively define or explain such an ambiguity, and therefore have no right to address such an ambiguous concept in argumentum. On that basis alone you have failed miserably.

If I am to assume that "that which nothing greater can be concieved" is distinct from everything else, everything else being not perfect, what is there to prevent me from concieving that a gold bar or any other object is greater? You might say that is an illogical statement seeing that nothing can be concieved to be greater than this so-called perfection; However, what it is is a statement that highlights the illogical nature of the "that which nothing greater can be concieved" concept itself as there is no way anyone can objectively claim that one thing is inherently better than another. Terms like better and greater are subjective in nature and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

If you do not define the properties that would make something "that which nothing greater can be concieved" then you have failed in presenting your case.

I conclude that "that which nothing greater can be concieved", as an object distinct from all other phenomenon, does not exist in reality seeing as there is no concievable objective criteria to deduce that one thing is better or worst than another.

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: God is

As for the perfect? The concept of the perfect is that which nothing (no thing) greater can be conceived. We call this God.

We True Christians call Him Jesus. We don't need secular reasoning... and poor secular reasoning at that. I know retarded mongoloids who could make a better case.

[Sister Noddy]

Re: God is

I'm explaining the logic which proves God's existence. I'm not explaining the reason WHY he exists, i'm just saying he DOES and how.

But we already know that . . .

God doesn't want your logic and philosophies, he wants you to follow his Word and believe in him and praise him . . .

Careful that you don't let your own mind trick you to the point where you have forgotten to listen to those who know the way of Jesus . . .

. . . because this is what Satan wants you to do, and I can see you doing it now, falsie

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

I am having a problem telling the difference here over who is the bigger idiot; you Unfalsifiable or Bob L with his stupid gnomes. God is not perfect because we can think of nothing greater, He is perfect because He says so and He promises to toss anyone into Hell who doesn't believe Him. Going by the Bible God backs that promise up with some pretty nasty actions.

I'm explaining the logic which proves God's existence. I'm not explaining the reason WHY he exists, i'm just saying he DOES and how.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: God is

Jenny my dear, this above answers most for your questions too, but I shall add, that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, because non-existence is not as good as existence (therefore, to conceive of God as non existing would be to conceive of not the greatest thing that can be conceived.)

I am having a problem telling the difference here over who is the bigger idiot; you Unfalsifiable or Bob L with his stupid gnomes. God is not perfect because we can think of nothing greater, He is perfect because He says so and He promises to toss anyone into Hell who doesn't believe Him. Going by the Bible God backs that promise up with some pretty nasty actions.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: God is

With no supernatural then obviously it was a natural event. I love this whole thinking from you theist "We have an event we don't understand,..er,..ah,.. and GOD EXISTS!" This more underpants gnome thinking, you keep on having that blind spot as to were is the evidence for god's existence.

Lets put this way, you have a watchmaker he is obviously going to need tools. If somebody points to some guy who has no tools, never had them, never will, then that guy an't the watchmaker. God's/ The gods' tools are magic. Well, there is no magic so they an't the creator.

God has tools Bob L, I am one of them. Let us witness a tool of God's in action; you mocked God by talking about Underpants Gnomes so I changed your' name to the false idol you raised. Are you happy now you made God do this?

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: God is

You do realize that your statement of perfection is a vague concept open to infinite interpretation, don't you? I will now give you an example of perfection defined, as opposed to the ambiguity you postulate.

I set out to carve a smooth, glossy, cubic square of pure ebony onyx, the dimensions of which are to be 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. I come to possess a block of raw ebony onyx with no impurities and carve out a cube in accordance with the dimensions I mentioned previously and I polish it so that it is glossy. I now have a smooth, ebony, glossy cube made of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. That onyx cube is a perfect manifestation of what I set out to manufacture. It is a perfect smooth, ebony, glossy cube made of onyx that is 2 inches in height, 2 inches in length, and 2 inches in width. There is no way I can improved upon it. It is flawless.

In the above example I demonstrated perfection as an objective truth that everyone will agree with. I defined perfection in tangibly quantifiable terms that are not merely a factor of my own subjective preferences.

However, in your ambigious statement flawlessness is in the eye of the beholder as you failed to define the parameters that determine the supposed perfection of this "God" thing. Your idea of perfection is nothing more than an abstraction of your own ego, your preferences, and your personal ideal best. Perfection without parameters is an ambigious concept that is unique to everyone. It has no objective standard to which everyone inherently agrees with. Your entire premise is based on a vague intangible concept with no objective reality, existing solely in the individual conceptions of everyone's independent egos.

This is why I need you to define your concept of perfect within the context of this discussion. If you are unable to do as such, so be it. But know that if you cannot give a concrete description of what it is that makes "God" perfect, the use of the word "perfect" is meaningless and hollow.

It is very rude to ignore a person's question, Unfalsifiable. Please answer my first question which was,

Gosh, how many times do I have to say this? Items which exist in space and time are not "that which nothing greater can be conceived" and they are not perfect. People confuse themselves (I'm repeating myself here) with the sloppy use of perfect as an adjective. Gaunilo tried this centuries a go and it didn't work then, and no surprise its not working for you.

As for the perfect? The concept of the perfect is that which nothing (no thing) greater can be conceived. We call this God.

Jenny my dear, this above answers most for your questions too, but I shall add, that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, because non-existence is not as good as existence (therefore, to conceive of God as non existing would be to conceive of not the greatest thing that can be conceived.)