Why do people believe that their is a god?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]

sounds like something any televangelist would say.C_Town_Soul

If an evangelist is a true Christian then they would not lie like that.

Would you believe my word? Because if you'd trust my word then I can assure you after listening to him and seeing the slide pictures you'd believe him.

Well it's the complete truth.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]I have never seen any proof that there wasn't One either.MFaraz_Hayat

I'm definitely with you on this one.

First of all, you guys haven't quoted a source.

Secondly, you are trying to use an ad-populum argument. That opinion of majority is correct.

Thirdly, in the source I quoted, this statement has been proven by references to mathematical equations.

You are mixing science an religion, then.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]

sounds like something any televangelist would say.Lansdowne5

If an evangelist is a true Christian then they would not lie like that.

Would you believe my word? Because if you'd trust my word then I can assure you after listening to him and seeing the slide pictures you'd believe him.

And the doctors just let his tumor grow out of control? No treatment, no chemo?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]

sounds like something any televangelist would say.xxDustmanxx

If an evangelist is a true Christian then they would not lie like that.

Would you believe my word? Because if you'd trust my word then I can assure you after listening to him and seeing the slide pictures you'd believe him.

And the doctors just let his tumor grow out of control? No treatment, no chemo?

He had doses of radiotherapy and chemotherapy but it was too progressive.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]I have never seen any proof that there wasn't One either.C_Town_Soul

I'm definitely with you on this one.

First of all, you guys haven't quoted a source.

Secondly, you are trying to use an ad-populum argument. That opinion of majority is correct.

Thirdly, in the source I quoted, this statement has been proven by references to mathematical equations.

You are mixing science an religion, then.

Nope, I wasn't trying to convince anybody. I just stated that this is the religious/philosophical idea I believe in. Hence, burden of proof is not at all applicable.

Nope, I wasn't trying to convince anybody. I just stated that this is the religious/philosophical idea I believe in. Hence, burden of proof is not at all applicable.

MFaraz_Hayat

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]

sounds like something any televangelist would say.Lansdowne5

If an evangelist is a true Christian then they would not lie like that.

Would you believe my word? Because if you'd trust my word then I can assure you after listening to him and seeing the slide pictures you'd believe him.

And the doctors just let his tumor grow out of control? No treatment, no chemo?

He had doses of radiotherapy and chemotherapy but it was too progressive.

There you go, not only that but your going to assume because someones cancer went into recession that it was the supernatural act of a deity? No other tests were run on him afterwards to find the cause? They just left it at that?

Not the first time ive heard this kind of story.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Nope, I wasn't trying to convince anybody. I just stated that this is the religious/philosophical idea I believe in. Hence, burden of proof is not at all applicable.

C_Town_Soul

UssjTrunks, was replying to OP which stated that there is no evidence for God's existence. He said, that similarly there is no evidence for God's non-existance. No one was trying to convinve any other person, and hence bringing "burden of proof" in the argument, by Funky, was a wrong move. Since, Theism is a philosophical/religious idea, and hence, burden of proof is not applicable on it.

The real question is, why can't they? What hard evidence is there that God does not exist? Unless you can disprove it, and no real harm* is coming from it. Why can't they believe so?

*Although theres extremists which are a very small minority, and most of them barely believe in what they're fighting for.

Why do people believe that God exists? Well i'd say more people believe in his teachings more than they do his actual existance, but through his teachings some go on to believe his existance. There are many reasons, some simply think it's easier to digest than other theories, some feel more comfortable thinking that someone is looking over them. Different reasons for different people.

Does god exist? That's a question that will never be answered, but debated much.

For the record, I'm agnostic

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Nope, I wasn't trying to convince anybody. I just stated that this is the religious/philosophical idea I believe in. Hence, burden of proof is not at all applicable.

MFaraz_Hayat

UssjTrunks, was replying to OP which stated that there is no evidence for God's existence. He said, that similarly there is no evidence for God's non-existance. No one was trying to convinve any other person, and hence bringing "burden of proof" in the argument, by Funky, was a wrong move. Since, Theism is a philosophical/religious idea, and hence, burden of proof is not applicable on it.

People are always looking for answers, we'd like to know what we're doing here and how we got here, and also what's going to happen. Religion is one such answer, and it's quite appealing because unlike science, which always aknowledges it might be wrong and it's just the best educated conclusion that could be reached based on the available data, religion speaks of truths (note: I said "speaks OF truths" not "speaks THE truth") and speaks in absolutes, there's just no way it might be wrong, so it gives people a sense of comfort and reassurance, people are comforted believing they know the true, definite answers.

It's much easier to have inner peace "knowing" that as long as you follow the rules you'll be rewarded with everlasting happiness and eternal life and that there's a loving father out there that cares for you and looks after you than having to accept that quite possibly there's no meaning or purpose to any of this, we're just here by mere chance, there's no one looking after us, we'll always be alone and when we die everything will end and only nothingness will follow.

So I believe the reasons people believe are mainly answers and comfort. Of course, this is just my opinion.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

Nope, I wasn't trying to convince anybody. I just stated that this is the religious/philosophical idea I believe in. Hence, burden of proof is not at all applicable.

MFaraz_Hayat

UssjTrunks, was replying to OP which stated that there is no evidence for God's existence. He said, that similarly there is no evidence for God's non-existance. No one was trying to convinve any other person, and hence bringing "burden of proof" in the argument, by Funky, was a wrong move. Since, Theism is a philosophical/religious idea, and hence, burden of proof is not applicable on it.

I just popped in to point out your spelling error. Spellingman, AWAAAAAAAY!karriston

Most religions are collections of fables and myths to obtain order and control through fear.

usaaaaaa

EXACTLY

In my experience, the people who believe there is a God are those who've sat down and thought about it rationally. We understand God as a being of infinite power--the greatest possible thing in existence. Since things that exist are greater than things that are just imaginary, then this idea of the greatest being must have the added attribute of existence. In other words, God MUST exist. mysterylobster

I might as well share a bit of my essy on topic

The ontological argument is one of the more interesting 'proofs' of the God hypothesis, not necessarily because it works in any successful way, but because it forces a deep examination of logic and language upon anyone who hears it. On its face value it appears faultless, yet most anyone who genuinely tries to use it as a stand alone proof for the existence of a supreme being will feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is a well founded feeling. When the argument is closely inspected it is readily noticeable that, due to confusion among the notions of existence, reality, conceptualization and greatness, it is fundamentally flawed. This flawed nature is also evident in the many counter examples which can be arrived at through the same line of reasoning. Both of these factors conspire to make the ontological argument impotent and well worth forgetting.

The Ontological argument originated from St Anselm, who in 1077-78 AD presented it in the second chapter of his Proslogium[1]. Since then it has undergone many modifications from the likes of Rene Descartes and Alvin Plantinga but each and every reiteration shares the same basic form and thus the same basic flaws. Anselm's original version was in the form of a reductio ad absurdium, an argument that presents a statement and then attempts to make it contradictory or incomprehensible, thus presumably making its inverse true. This original statement is the opinion of the fool that a being "than which nothing greater can be thought"[2] can exist in the mind but not in reality. From this starting point Anselm reasons that if the fool can conceive of this being in his mind then he can also conceive of it in reality as well. To exist in reality as well as the mind, he says, is greater than to exist in the mind alone and therefore a being who truly is that "than which nothing greater can be thought" must by necessity exist in reality. The fool's original statement is thus proven to be absurd and God, it seems, exists in reality and the mind.

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God. Even in Anselm's time the same form of argument was spoofed in an attempt to prove it irrelevant. The monk Guanilo, used Anselm's exact wording to try and prove the existence of "Lost Island", an island which is "superior in its abundance of riches to all other lands which are inhabited by man". Strictly speaking Guanilo's example was not a fair representation of the ontological argument because it only described an island greater than those inhabited by man. For the purposes of comparison I will alter his argument to mean that Lost island is the island than which no greater can be thought. If the argument takes this form then the conclusion can be reached that Lost Island does in fact exist. Plantinga rejects the validity of this counter-example, noting that an object like an island cannot have an "intrinsic maximum" and thus can always be imagined to be greater[3]. However, this objection assumes that the larger the features of Lost Island, such as the number of palm trees and the degree of temperature, the greater it is. If Plantinga's criteria for greatness were true then Lost Island's temperature would be well above the tolerable limit of human survival which would make it more like hell than the greatest island imaginable. Greatness, as Michael Martin suggests, is more appropriately set at an ideal value rather than a maximum[4]. If Lost Island is the greatest island conceivable then by necessity, part of its greatness must be its existence which means that Lost Island exists. Clearly though, there exists no such thing as an island which is as great as our imaginations will allow us to comprehend. The ontological argument has thus provided a false conclusion which means that it is invalid and somehow faulty.

First among these faults is the fact that the ontological argument is an example of circular logic. That is to say that it is an argument whose conclusion is asserted among its premises. Anselm, and almost every other philosopher who posited an ontological argument, surreptitiously asserts the existence of God in a statement describing or defining him. Anselm's argument said that God was the being "than which no greater can be thought" just like Descartes' which said that God "has all perfections"[5] and like Plantinga's which implied that God was the being of "maximal greatness"[6]. These statements seem innocent by themselves but when we examine them in hindsight of the later premises of the ontological argument, namely the premise that existence is a "great making" property, we see that they are essentially defining God with existence. The ontological argument thus takes the form of- 'God by definition exists therefore he exists in reality'- which is a laughable method of proving anything. At best this form of argument proves that God exists within his definitional conceptualization but not in reality[7].

A more important fault of the ontological argument is its confusion of existence and greatness. The crux of the argument and the factor which swings God from existence in the understanding to existence in reality or from possible existence to necessary existence is the notion that to exist in reality or by necessity is greater than to exist in the understanding or in a possible world. This all-important premise is untrue or at the least not necessarily true, as was originally demonstrated by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of pure reason. Existence, unlike properties such as power, wisdom and benevolence, is not a factor which alters the value of an object. To exist merely means that there is an object which corresponds with a concept, not that a concept includes the quality of existence.[8] In short existence is not a predicate of an object. Kant reasons that if existence was a predicate and did in fact change the value of something then it would be impossible for that thing to exist in the understanding and in reality[9]. For example a triangle is an object with the quality of having three sides and a one hundred and eighty degree sum of interior angles. We can conceptualize a triangle purely in the mind and we can also observe triangular shapes in reality. However if the ontological argument is correct and existing is a quality which grants added value then the imagined triangle and the existent triangle become two entirely different things. This isn't how things are in reality though. A triangle that is only imagined is still a triangle, just like a triangle that exists is still a triangle. The existing triangle may have a greater practical application but this is irrelevant to its value as a geometric shape. Existence therefore is confirmed not to be a predicate and as such the ontological argument's claim that an existing or necessary God is greater than an imagined one is false. The fool's original statement, that a being "than which nothing greater can be thought" can exist in the mind but not reality, thus retains its comprehensibility and no longer serves to point towards an existing God as the consequence of its contradictory nature.

Ontological arguments are by their nature practically worthless. Even if the faults of logic are not immediately perceived it is almost universally apparent that they are perceived by people as unconvincing and pedantic. Perhaps the idea of a definition or a conceptualization determining what exists in reality is simply abhorrent to practically minded people, perhaps the circular logic is all too obvious or perhaps at a fundamental level everyone understands that God cannot be proved or disproved by argument alone.

[1] Barnes, Jonathan, The Ontological argument (London, Macmillan, 1972) pg 1

[2] Ibid pg 2

[3] Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom and Evil (London, George Allen & Unwin, 1974) pg 91

[4] Martin, Michael, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (United States of America, Temple University, 1990) pg 83

[5] Barnes pg

[6] Plantinga pg

[7] Martin pg 85

[8] Kant, Immanuel, "On the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof ofthe Existence of God", Critique of Pure Reason (London, Penguin, 2007) pg 504

[9] Ibid pg 505

I have never seen any kinda of proof of their being a god that created us. To me religion is all based on opinions with no facts behind them.

At least science has had facts in the past and shows you somthing that could have actually happen like the Big Bang.

Thoughts?

JangoWuzHere

but anyway, it's clear to most people who look that there is some kind of order larger than what can be seen. science is an example of this: the scientific method seeks to establish what this invisible order is, but only in the physical universe. the problem is that people are ultimately not satisfied with the physical universe and become inclined to think that some thing exist outside of it, like our souls. after that it becomes a question of langauge I think.

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

domatron23

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

mysterylobster

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

domatron23

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period. This is the single essential characteristic of God. The same cannot be said about anything else--islands included.

I might as well share a bit of my essy on topic...

[...]

...Perhaps the idea of a definition or a conceptualization determining what exists in reality is simply abhorrent to practically minded people, perhaps the circular logic is all too obvious or perhaps at a fundamental level everyone understands that God cannot be proved or disproved by argument alone.

domatron23

I read that entire post, and I'm glad that I did. Great job.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

mysterylobster

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

No, because nothing can be "more perfect" than another. When comparing islands or gods, if one entity is perfect, then it is the greatest conceivable entity of it's type, cased closed, lights out, show's over. There can be MORE of those perfect islands or gods, though, but there can never be anything greater than perfect because such is logically impossible.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

mysterylobster

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

Ah but I'm not referring to the greatest "anything" imaginable. I'm referring to the greatest island imaginable.

Both of these things necessarily exist if we use Anselm's logic.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

-Jiggles-

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

No, because nothing can be "more perfect" than another. When comparing islands or gods, if one entity is perfect, then it is the greatest conceivable entity of it's type, cased closed, lights out, show's over. There can be MORE of those perfect islands or gods, though, but there can never be anything greater than perfect because such is logically impossible.

The whole premise rests on the idea that no island can be greater (which the poster began to see the problems with, but failed to follow to its conclusion), not that NOTHING can be greater.

Because there is a god. Like most people you get confused by religious institutions and terminology.

God is just the source of everything you understand, and don't understand. You can call it the X, the Y, or the big bang theory. God is the ultimate source of everything you see, and nothing you can say will change that. I'm not suggesting god has anything to do with science, or religion. I'm stating that god is the ultimate source of everything you see. It's just a word used to describe a concept, just most people get lost in all the details.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

domatron23

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

Ah but I'm not referring to the greatest "anything" imaginable. I'm referring to the greatest island imaginable.

Both of these things necessarily exist if we use Anselm's logic.

Like I said before, the concept of a perfect island and God are different in very important ways. We can define the concept of God as something than which nothing can be greater. Done. God is simply the supreme being, and there needs to be no further discussion. You began to see why this is different with something like an island. We can say there's a concept of a perfect island, but we get mired in questions of what makes an island have good value.

This is why, as I said, the existence of God alone can be poven in this way.

The rest of the essay hits on more substantial critiques, which aren't so easily dismissed.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

mysterylobster

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

No, because nothing can be "more perfect" than another. When comparing islands or gods, if one entity is perfect, then it is the greatest conceivable entity of it's type, cased closed, lights out, show's over. There can be MORE of those perfect islands or gods, though, but there can never be anything greater than perfect because such is logically impossible.

The whole premise rests on the idea that no island can be greater (which the poster began to see the problems with, but failed to follow to its conclusion), not that NOTHING can be greater.

You're missing the point my lobstery friend. I concluded that there is such a thing as a conceivably perfect island (one whose qualities are at an ideal level) and that this island exists according to the ontological argument.

It makes no difference if I'm referring to an island or a being. If it can't be conceived of as greater then Anselm holds that it must exist.

Lets see.

Miracles and unexplained phenomena (including Jesus' resurrection)

The fact that the universe exists rather than not

The aparrent design found in biology and the world around us

Fulfilled prophecies

The afterlife

Authority

Fear

Upbringing

Religious texts

Changed lives

Morality

domatron23

I was going to post, but this atheist did it for me.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

mysterylobster

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

Ah but I'm not referring to the greatest "anything" imaginable. I'm referring to the greatest island imaginable.

Both of these things necessarily exist if we use Anselm's logic.

Like I said before, the concept of a perfect island and God are different in very important ways. We can define the concept of God as something than which nothing can be greater. Done. God is simply the supreme being, and there needs to be no further discussion. You began to see why this is different with something like an island. We can say there's a concept of a perfect island, but we get mired in questions of what makes an island have good value.

This is why, as I said, the existence of God alone can be poven in this way.

Oh I agree that Anselm's definition of God and Gaunilo's "lost island" are different. My point is that they are both necessary according to the Ontological argument yet at least one clearly does not exist hence something is wrong with the argument.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

domatron23

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

No, because nothing can be "more perfect" than another. When comparing islands or gods, if one entity is perfect, then it is the greatest conceivable entity of it's type, cased closed, lights out, show's over. There can be MORE of those perfect islands or gods, though, but there can never be anything greater than perfect because such is logically impossible.

The whole premise rests on the idea that no island can be greater (which the poster began to see the problems with, but failed to follow to its conclusion), not that NOTHING can be greater.

You're missing the point my lobstery friend. I concluded that there is such a thing as a conceivably perfect island (one whose qualities are at an ideal level) and that this island exists according to the ontological argument.

It makes no difference if I'm referring to an island or a being. If it can't be conceived of as greater then Anselm holds that it must exist.

You're misinterpreting Anselm (and his followers), then. The point is not that IT can't be concieved as greater; rather, that NOTHING can be concieved as greater. The concept of God is the only concept that fulfills this requirement.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

mysterylobster

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

No, because nothing can be "more perfect" than another. When comparing islands or gods, if one entity is perfect, then it is the greatest conceivable entity of it's type, cased closed, lights out, show's over. There can be MORE of those perfect islands or gods, though, but there can never be anything greater than perfect because such is logically impossible.

The whole premise rests on the idea that no island can be greater (which the poster began to see the problems with, but failed to follow to its conclusion), not that NOTHING can be greater.

You're missing the point my lobstery friend. I concluded that there is such a thing as a conceivably perfect island (one whose qualities are at an ideal level) and that this island exists according to the ontological argument.

It makes no difference if I'm referring to an island or a being. If it can't be conceived of as greater then Anselm holds that it must exist.

You're misinterpreting Anselm (and his followers), then. The point is not that IT can't be concieved as greater; rather, that NOTHING can be concieved as greater. The concept of God is the only concept that fulfills this requirement.

I know what Anselm said but his logic applies to anything whose definition includes existence. If I think about the best island I can then I include existence as a part of that greatness (wrongfully). I know that God is greater than my island but that doesn't affect the argument at all.

I guess it's so man can have something to look forawrd to. Kind of a crutch maybe, an excuse if you will.

I think it started out to bring communities together. Think about it, what else did all people have in common back then (when religions were all people had to think about)

Now we have television, music, media, so many things that bring us together, we don't even need religion anymore. But some people just can't let it go X|

(If someone already posted this or somehting similar, I R SRY. I didn't want to read through ten pages of posts)

Why do you want to know?

-TheSecondSign-

Because I always wondered that's all.

I could say the same thing about religion. Why do people follow it? Why not live your life without out such things? I always found most religions to be prejudice against other people as well.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]In my experience, the people who believe there is a God are those who've sat down and thought about it rationally. We understand God as a being of infinite power--the greatest possible thing in existence. Since things that exist are greater than things that are just imaginary, then this idea of the greatest being must have the added attribute of existence. In other words, God MUST exist. domatron23

I might as well share a bit of my essy on topic

:shock:

NICE! Domatron that was awesome! :D

I guess it's so man can have something to look forawrd to. Kind of a crutch maybe, an excuse if you will.

I think it started out to bring communities together. Think about it, what else did all people have in common back then (when religions were all people had to think about)

Now we have television, music, media, so many things that bring us together, we don't even need religion anymore. But some people just can't let it go X|

(If someone already posted this or somehting similar, I R SRY. I didn't want to read through ten pages of posts)

Zorn_Ate_Thorn

Lets see.

Miracles and unexplained phenomena (including Jesus' resurrection)

The fact that the universe exists rather than not

The aparrent design found in biology and the world around us

Fulfilled prophecies

The afterlife

Authority

Fear

Upbringing

Religious texts

Changed lives

Morality

domatron23

None of those are proof.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Lets see.

Miracles and unexplained phenomena (including Jesus' resurrection)

The fact that the universe exists rather than not

The aparrent design found in biology and the world around us

Fulfilled prophecies

The afterlife

Authority

Fear

Upbringing

Religious texts

Changed lives

Morality

DJCUEBALL

None of those are proof.

Yup. They're just reasons to hold a belief in God not proof of his existence.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]In my experience, the people who believe there is a God are those who've sat down and thought about it rationally. We understand God as a being of infinite power--the greatest possible thing in existence. Since things that exist are greater than things that are just imaginary, then this idea of the greatest being must have the added attribute of existence. In other words, God MUST exist. black_cat19

I might as well share a bit of my essy on topic

:shock:

NICE! Domatron that was awesome! :D

Cheers. That particular essay got an A+

TC, why do you believe there is no god?Silverbond

Because I have no reason why I should believe that their is one. Their is no way to really prove that their is one really. I find science the better way because at least they can give you explanations to you. I also just don't like the idea of us being created by some god but that's just my opinion overall.

I never said that people didn't have to believe in a god. They can do it for all I care. I just wanted to ask why for once thats all.

The same reason I believe that one day you'll learn the difference between their and there. They're delusional.xMOBSTER23x

don't start I hate their, there, and they're :(

Religion is based on faith? Thank you for opening my eyes. Like many atheists, this TC brings up another pathetic and shallow argument.Solid_Snake325

you can at least explain a bit or give me some facts as to why you think religion should exist in are world.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

The first and most obvious problem is that the argument is not applicable only to God.

domatron23

You seem to begin to understand where this example breaks down, but you reach the wrong conclusion. This perfect island in relation to its necessity is not the same as our concept of a supreme being, which is unique in its definition as something than which nothing can be greater. Trying to apply that definition to anything else leads to absurd conclusions.

The logic of the ontological argument surely demands that a perfect island would exist? Anything that is "that than which no greater can be conceived" is necessary according to Anselm.

But even if you were to work out what a perfect island is, there would still be something greater than that perfect island. Not so with God, and that is what makes this concept of a supreme being unique. There is nothing that can be greater than God, as He is the greatest possible thing, period.

No, because nothing can be "more perfect" than another. When comparing islands or gods, if one entity is perfect, then it is the greatest conceivable entity of it's type, cased closed, lights out, show's over. There can be MORE of those perfect islands or gods, though, but there can never be anything greater than perfect because such is logically impossible.

The whole premise rests on the idea that no island can be greater (which the poster began to see the problems with, but failed to follow to its conclusion), not that NOTHING can be greater.

You're missing the point my lobstery friend. I concluded that there is such a thing as a conceivably perfect island (one whose qualities are at an ideal level) and that this island exists according to the ontological argument.

It makes no difference if I'm referring to an island or a being. If it can't be conceived of as greater then Anselm holds that it must exist.

You're misinterpreting Anselm (and his followers), then. The point is not that IT can't be concieved as greater; rather, that NOTHING can be concieved as greater. The concept of God is the only concept that fulfills this requirement.

I know what Anselm said but his logic applies to anything whose definition includes existence. If I think about the best island I can then I include existence as a part of that greatness (wrongfully). I know that God is greater than my island but that doesn't affect the argument at all.

God being greater than the island isn't the point. What does affect the argument is the divide between the divine and the material. Thinking about the greatest conceivable island is meaningless, because it's part of the material world and therefore inherits its limitations, including going in and out of existence. The only way Anselm's proof works is by looking to the infinite and divine God, since He can be defined as something than which we can imagine NOTHING being greater.

Of all the points you raised in your essay, this is the one most commonly dismissed by modern thinkers, for reasons I've already explained. You do a fine job summarizing Kant, but trying to shoehorn this flawed argument only hurts your criticism.

Why are some of the most foundational principles governing nature and the molecular world more complicated than the greatest inventions the human mind can come up with or even understand? I think it is easier to believe that there is a creator than Time + Chance= complexity. FrKnPuertoRican

The problem with that point of view is that no one questions the "creator".

No one ever tries to prove that it is POSSIBLE for their to be an intelligent creator. No one ever asks HOW an intelligent creator created everything. We're just suddenly not supposed to have to explain that, since now we're dealing with "magic".

Okay...so it's difficult to imagine the universe as we know it being solely the result of natural and unthinking processes? Fair enough. The problem I have is when those "skeptics" then go and say that god must have done it.

Umm...excuse me, but if we suddenly stop having to explain things as soon as we invoke god, then how can god legitimately be an explanation for anything?