(October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: They are atheists because they look to themselves and find what they want to be true.

Proof that unconscious irony is not fatal.

(October 30, 2013 at 11:09 am)max-greece Wrote: He's using the ontological argument. Basically as soon as you consider God he exists.

I consider Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft existing on my bed. . . Nope. Oh well. I guess I'll have to be satisfied with her existing only as an idea in my imagination. Wait a minute. . . that means she DOES exist. Now I are confuseder than before.

(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. You can not think of something and choose to deny it, your brain will not let you do that.

Is that why you believe leprechauns are God's chosen agents on earth? Since you read it, you've thought of it. You can not think of something and choose to deny it, your brain will not let you do that. So I'd like to pursue your belief in leprechauns, and then we can work our way up to God.

(October 29, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: And the Bible is evidence that there is a God everything within the Bible has been proven to have some sort of backing, for example the Bible is historically accurate with its writings.

The sky is not a firmament. Egypt and China were flourishing nations when the Bible says the earth was flooded to the mountaintops and they didn't even seem to notice it. Israeli archaeologists have been trying diligently for decades to find evidence of the Exodus but have had to conclude that it didn't happen because that many people couldn't possibly have traipsed around the wilderness between the Red Sea and Israel without leaving evidence. It is a story the Hebrews told to console themselves when they were in Babylonian captivity, basically, 'God got us out of a worse spot than this'. Herod never had a 'slaughter of the innocents' carried out. No Roman census could have been carried out in Herod's territory: Herod collected his own taxes and gave tribute to the Romans. The Romans collected taxes province by province, and made no requirement to move for census: it's a rather useless census that counts where people used to live instead of their current residence. The 'world-wide census' was clearly made up to retroactively fulfill Micah 5:2. There was never a Roman custom of freeing a prisoner on the Passover. You could write a book on the historical errors in the Bible.

I really hope this guy accepts my debate challenge. I really do need a new chewtoy.

(October 30, 2013 at 11:44 am)Esquilax Wrote: I really hope this guy accepts my debate challenge. I really do need a new chewtoy.

I don't know if you want to chew on this one. He seems like a real master debater.

"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."

Just for a bit of fun whilst I have a few moments I thought we might like to investigate the best counters to the above argument. I'll start of with a few and you guys can chime in with critiques or comments or other arguments that are hopefully better than mine:

1. Defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is fine - but it rules out the OT/NT God who is further from that definition than Superman.
2. Whatever being that could be defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is not conceivable by the human mind. All we could actually conceive of would be a pale imitation of what that being would be.
3. "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" - by whom? We would get some serious variation of what one person conceives compared to another when talking about perfection. Mine would be female, for example and a bad fit for someone who sees the perfect being as male. There can't be any compromise here, as we are dealing with perfection and hermaphrodite wouldn't do it for me. This leads to polytheism if each of us can conjure up from out imagination our own perfect being that has not been conceived of in exactly the same way.
4. Whatever we conceive of in the mind cannot be made whole by will alone- however neat the philosophy.
5. There is no evidence that existence in reality, even in addition to existence in the mind, makes the greatest possible being better. It could be, for example, that existence a priori denies perfection. Nothing we know of, that exists is perfect.
6. We can change a few of the terms of the argument to prove that it doesn't work. As follows:

Max defined Monster as "that than which nothing scarier can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the scariest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a scarier being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality and is in the room behind him ready to eat him in the next 2 seconds."

aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh

Oh no - still alone. The premise fails.

Anyone got any more/better ones?

(October 30, 2013 at 11:47 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 11:44 am)Esquilax Wrote: I really hope this guy accepts my debate challenge. I really do need a new chewtoy.

I don't know if you want to chew on this one. He seems like a real master debater.

More like a master bater.

(October 30, 2013 at 11:49 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 11:47 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't know if you want to chew on this one. He seems like a real master debater.

More like a master bater.

*sigh* way to jizz on the punchline

Or as a great Roman playboy once said: vidi, vici, veni.