Can I play, too?

First off, this guy claims he's in a 4 year uni course.... oh whoopydoodie-dooo... (not in his 4th year, mind you)
I've completed a 5 year uni course on physics, followed by a PhD on Fusion plasma physics and a few more years of working on some of the world's largest nuclear fusion devices...
How's that for credentials?

PhD means I am a doctorate of philosophy!, so take care!

Now, Anslem (and Gretel)... "If I can conceive of god, then that god exists", or as the wiki tells us "Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality."

The very christian Aquinas defeated this argument a long long time ago... back to the wiki for a full text: "Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God's existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm's argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. His rejection of the ontological argument caused other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument."
Oh, look, not only Aquinas, but also "Catholic theologians" have rejected this argument...

I think you need to go back to school...
In the meanwhile, just keep reading the wiki! It's amazing the sort of stuff you may learn in just one page!

"Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God's non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.
Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's ability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist."

Also "Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; once exclaiming: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He drew a distinction between existence and essence, arguing that the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question."



Why should I have to be a philosopher when others have done such a fine job at debunking your argument and all I have to do is show you their reasoning?

A new chew toy, I see

Oh well, carry on...

(October 30, 2013 at 5:14 am)pocaracas Wrote: First off, this guy claims he's in a 4 year uni course.... oh whoopydoodie-dooo... (not in his 4th year, mind you)
I've completed a 5 year uni course on physics, followed by a PhD on Fusion plasma physics and a few more years of working on some of the world's largest nuclear fusion devices...
How's that for credentials?

Oh no, that can't be! Only one can have an university education, you must be lying!

(October 29, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: You may not believe in God, but by denying God or accepting that there is no God you have already acknowledged the fact that there is a God.

What a bunch of hooey.

(October 29, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: You can not think of something and choose to deny it.

Sure, one can. It is known as having an imagination. One can imagine anything, but it does not mean that what one imagines exists in reality.

---

(October 29, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: You truly are one of the most ignorant people I have come across.

---

(October 29, 2013 at 11:41 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: I refrain from profanity because the academics I have received are clearly a lot better than the waste you got from your education.

I am going to burst that superiority complex by stating that refraining from profanity is not a sign of higher intelligence.

(October 29, 2013 at 11:23 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: That's when I graduate the 4 year university which I attend, thankfully they don't accept ignorant thinkers such as yourself

Did kent hovind get out early and start a university???

(October 30, 2013 at 3:24 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 3:19 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Does what sink in?

Bingo.

What's bingo?

(October 30, 2013 at 3:16 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 3:15 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I wonder if an ignoramus would always know when they are being insulted.
hrug:
Maybe it would sink in slowly, eventually, gradually.

I don't know lion, does it sink in?

(October 30, 2013 at 3:24 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 3:19 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Does what sink in?

Bingo.

Lion, they are being mean to you. Funny, but mean.

(October 30, 2013 at 6:35 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 3:16 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I don't know lion, does it sink in?

(October 30, 2013 at 3:24 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Bingo.

Lion, they are being mean to you. Funny, but mean.

Drats.
I didn't notice either.

(October 30, 2013 at 12:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: If you really want to road test this stuff, why not try it out in the debate area? I offered this challenge to the last person who came up as ridiculously as you have, and she bailed rather than face me.

@ Informative: I'll second this. It's tough to answer so many people at once. Why not deal with just one? You have this great university education and such a wide breadth of knowledge, so take on one dumb atheist in the debate area. Esquilax, as you have pointed out, isn't very smart, so you should be able to wipe the floor with him. Right?

(October 30, 2013 at 5:23 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 5:14 am)pocaracas Wrote: First off, this guy claims he's in a 4 year uni course.... oh whoopydoodie-dooo... (not in his 4th year, mind you)
I've completed a 5 year uni course on physics, followed by a PhD on Fusion plasma physics and a few more years of working on some of the world's largest nuclear fusion devices...
How's that for credentials?

Oh no, that can't be! Only one can have an university education, you must be lying!

Madam, I never lie!