(October 29, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: If you're truly on a "philosophical" thread you'd understand the reasoning behind the statement. I myself am NOT claiming this, Anselm, one of the GREATEST Philosophical Thinkers wrote a book on this, and he himself had a scholarly talk with the FOOL in his book, who, like you stated such ignorant question that he was verbally destroyed by Anselm because his claims are invalid and ignorant.

Anselm made a character in a book he wrote look stupid. Wow, it really takes a mental giant to pull that off.

(October 29, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: You can't argue with a person who is making stronger claims than you because you're making yourself to be ignorant.

Hypothetically speaking, if you WERE making strong claims, it would still be easy to argue with you because you're presenting them so poortly as to make them sound ridiculous.

What could be true from his statement (which he has sorely misconstrued), is that one can concieve of their being something beyond what one does not know.

This is intellectual honesty, and long before The Bible existed, it is this unavoidable truth that man has tried to satisfy with Gods. This is true for both believers and non-believers alike, whether they recognize it or not.


If by God, he means "that which we do not know", I would be inclined to agree. I would not personally use God in this context because there seems to be more accurate words that can be strung together to articulate this notion without being intentionally misunderstood with the use of the word "God".

When we look at his argument closer, we can see that he does not view God as "That which we do not know", because he is making specific knowedge claims about this God which cannot be substantiated from any one of the countless religious doctrines that have spanned mankind's existance, all attempting to do the same thing.

We are left to conclude that he has recognized that there exists "that which can not be known", but has decided himself to ignore this truth, and replace it with God.

One can pretend that they have all the answers, but why would one insist on ignoring their own ignorance? Why would one, as this fellow is, choose to deny his apparent ignorance?

The problem is not as he has depicted it that "All Recognize God and choose to deny him", but rather a deeper issue that gave rise to God being used as a pacifier in the first place.

We have come full circle to discover that this individual is choosing to pretend to know, that which he doesn't know, and is soliciting a pacifier for something that he is in no position to offer.

This argument has backfired.

Quote:The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore, God does not exist.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

and much more ontological tomfoolery.

(October 29, 2013 at 11:22 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 29, 2013 at 10:36 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: 4. Balant design flaws in human anatomy ....the fact that we use one tube for eating and breathing.

That's not a flaw. If you couldn't breath through your mouth, you'd die from nasal congestion.

Then the nose is poorly designed as well.

(October 29, 2013 at 11:22 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 29, 2013 at 10:36 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: 4. Balant design flaws in human anatomy ....the fact that we use one tube for eating and breathing.

That's not a flaw. If you couldn't breath through your mouth, you'd die from nasal congestion.

Oh, Chad. Thousands die each year from accidentally inhaling their food, particularly children. It's normal for animals to be able to breath through either their mouth or their nose, we're not special in that regard. We're special in regard to having our windpipe and esophagus at the same physical level with only a flap of skin to control which passage has air going down it and which passage has food going down it. It is physically impossible for most animals to get food stuck in their windpipe unless they snorted it through their nose.

---

(October 29, 2013 at 11:32 pm)Informative2016 Wrote: Anselm, one of the GREATEST Philosophical thinkers stated my first claim. Hence,by thinking of God, you've already acknowledged Him, you can choose to deny Him in your life, but you cannot deny the fact that God does no exist, no one can. How does this make someone dishonest? And I apologize that there are smarter people than you.

Anselm was pretty clever, it's not his fault we've had almost a thousand more years to think over his arguments than he had. But I'm pretty sure he never said that if you think of God you must believe in God. I'd be happy to be educated differently if you can quote him and source it.

It seems to me that you are getting his Ontological Argument a bit wrong. He says that God must exist because he is the greatest being that can be conceived and a being that exists in reality is greater than one that only exists in the mind. I don't think he said anything about people being unable not to believe in God once they've thought of him.

I see our newest chew toy has to assert his intellectual dominance, then posts poorly punctuated posts with the capslock of truth making long-debunked arguments with logical fallacies. Yep, my vote goes for (if he's being truthful about attending college) Bob Jones U, Patriot U, Liberty U, or Oral Roberts University.

(October 29, 2013 at 11:32 pm)Informative2016 Wrote:

(October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

Unicorns.
Dragons.
Griffons.
Werewolves.
Vampires.

You are quite mistaken.

I'm not mistaken, you've clearly underestimated the statement. Congratulations, you've thought of mythological creatures, which CAN be proven to be unreal based on their nature.

That's a bold claim, but easy to back up if true. Prove werewolves aren't real.

One can only assume this 700 Club DVR recordist isn't here for one reason. The campus at Liberty is ablaze. Likely they attempted to put out the burning effigy of Hitchens with the only fire extinguishers they allow...copies of the bible.

(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. It's sad to think that you probably graduated from high school, I sure hope not, that would be an embarrassment to education throughout the world.

Too bad you've not yet received enough academics to understand that having a PhD and a world-renowned reputation as a thinker are perfectly compatible with using profanity.

(October 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: the capslock of truth

That one must go in the annals!