[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.