Vatican says aliens could exist

[Day]

It's much like how we proved god exists in Philosophy class.

God is all powerful, all knowing, omnisicent, perfect etc..
Existing is a perfection, (Proven by existing being better than not existing)
If someone states God doesn't exist, then we are no longer talking about the same God, because my god is perfect.

So in this case Kaylia speaks of a god that isn't fully omniscient, to which you can apply the above.

(Very much a simplified, shortened version of the theory, but that's the basic jist)

[Atlasion]

It's much like how we proved god exists in Philosophy class.

God is all powerful, all knowing, omnisicent, perfect etc..
Existing is a perfection, (Proven by existing being better than not existing)
If someone states God doesn't exist, then we are no longer talking about the same God, because my god is perfect.

So in this case Kaylia speaks of a god that isn't fully omniscient, to which you can apply the above.

(Very much a simplified, shortened version of the theory, but that's the basic jist)

Are you sure you just proved that god exists? Cause that's not a very convincing theory.

[Day]

Want to argue it?

[Atlasion]

Ok. Prove to me that god exists.

[Day]

God has to exist. Its a contradiction to say otherwise.

Here's the actual argument if you want to read the whole thing:
http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontolog ... ument.html

(What a shitty post to lose my Fallso avy to)

[Atlasion]

So god exists because people defined god as existing? Thats still not very convincing..

Edit: It just proves there is an idea of god

[Zoot]

God has to exist. Its a contradiction to say otherwise.

Here's the actual argument if you want to read the whole thing:
http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontolog ... ument.html

(What a shitty post to lose my Fallso avy to)

Alternately, a force or forces which governs energy and matter should logically exist. Perfection is a human perception and therefor not a valid statement to qualify.

Now I am staying out of this thread. FOREVER.

[Havok]

Existing is a perfection, (Proven by existing being better than not existing)

Some people might not agree with this. It's just another opinion.

[Day]

Well there's 3 other arguments you can disect if you want, they are on that site as well... I learned them all in Philosophy 101.

Personally I'm not a very religous person, so I'm not here to prove god exists to anyone... I was just trying to clarify the confusion that was going on with Kaylia and Blarg... I think that argument very much relates.

Existing is a perfection, (Proven by existing being better than not existing)

Some people might not agree with this. It's just another opinion.

This part is explained below, but like I said I'm not going to try to defend this argument, as I haven't even stated my personal beliefs, I was just pointing out the fact this arguement exists.

The Definition of “God” Includes Perfection
There are many things that something would have to be in order to be properly called “God”. For instance, it would have to be all-powerful, because a part of what “God” means is “all-powerful”. To call something that isn’t all-powerful God would be like calling a shape that doesn’t have three sides a triangle; to anyone who understands the words involved it just wouldn’t make sense. Another part of what “God” mean is “perfect”; something can’t properly be called God unless it is perfect. This is the key idea behind the ontological argument.

God is “That Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived”
If something is perfect, then it couldn’t possibly be better than it is; there can’t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine.

If we think of God as being perfect—and perfection, remember, is part of the concept of God—then we must therefore think of God as a being that cannot be imagined to be better than he is. As St Anselm, the inventor of the ontological argument, put it, God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.”

It is therefore impossible to conceive either of there being anything greater than God or of it being possible to imagine God being better than he already is.

[Neosutra]

I think your over analyzing this Day, the confusion between Blarg and Kaylia is that Kaylia's argument is self contradicting nonsense.

[Day]

Could be that too.

[Jefe]

^

^Pascal's wager, although interesting i.e. it's better to bet for him versus against, it does suffer from a bunch of weaknesses. I'd rather go w/ Anselm's Ontological Argument ;p

I'm familiar with this argument, in order to understand what Anselm is saying we have to know a few things first. We know that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. The whole basis of his argument is the "greatest being conceivable," also note that this is a-priory statement. So here's a summary from one of my thesis:

1. Everybody understands the idea of God, even atheists.

2 God exists as an idea in one's understanding.

3. Either God exists as an idea in one's understanding, or God exists exists both as an idea and reality.

4. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

5. Because if God exists merely as an idea then God is not the greatest conceivable being.

6. God has to exists in as much as God is the greatest conceivable being.

His argument is logical, and not even Hume, Dostoevsky, Gaunilo, and Kant were able to "defeat" this argument. Also keep in mind Anselm wrote it between 1033-1109 AD.

[Beckwin]

3 -> 4 is a bit of a jump

[Neosutra]

^

^Pascal's wager, although interesting i.e. it's better to bet for him versus against, it does suffer from a bunch of weaknesses. I'd rather go w/ Anselm's Ontological Argument ;p

I'm familiar with this argument, in order to understand what Anselm is saying we have to know a few things first. We know that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. The whole basis of his argument is the "greatest being conceivable," also note that this is a-priory statement. So here's a summary from one of my thesis:

1. Everybody understands the idea of God, even atheists.

2 God exists as an idea in one's understanding.

3. Either God exists as an idea in one's understanding, or God exists exists both as an idea and reality.

4. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

5. Because if God exists merely as an idea then God is not the greatest conceivable being.

6. God has to exists in as much as God is the greatest conceivable being.

His argument is logical, and not even Hume, Dostoevsky, Gaunilo, and Kant were able to "defeat" this argument. Also keep in mind Anselm wrote it between 1033-1109 AD.

Can you explain the vast jump from 3 to 4 (i.e. the god is either just an idea, or a reality+idea.. then the sudden jump to "lets just assume its a reality").

And the jump from 5 to 6 where as you assert existance via definition.

Or perhaps I am misreading it. Just seems like another weak argument. Hume/Dostoevsky, Gaunilo, and Kant probably never "defeated" this argument because its not really even a solid argument. It basically states "god exists because I define him to exist"

[Day]

I think it was better explained in my link personally...

[Beckwin]

I think the premise is something akin to Intelligent Design, as in something has to exist for us to even have the idea for this perfect God.

And it's a pretty bad premise.




Edit: the either/or in step 3 doesn't jive with the absolute but not common to the two statement in 4. You can't say "Either peanut butter being the tastiest thing ever is an opinion, or peanut butter being the tastiest thing ever is an opinion AND a fact, so therefore peanut butter being the tastiest thing ever is a fact"

[Jefe]

^LOL, yeah like peanut is the greatest being conceivable.

[Mizango]

3 -> 4 is a bit of a jump

Yes it is, but anyone attempting to prove to others that a God like being exists based on stories in the lolbible are reaching from the get go, so I mean "Reaching" and "Religion" really are synonymous. I mean I find it funny how we call all previous attempts as religion "Mythology" but anyone can basically cause a shit storm and turn friend against friend by basically using logic and hinting that it is highly unlikely that a "God" being exists. This is the problem I have with religion, all of it is fucking Mythology, pure and simple.

I mean I am all for being a better human being, and if believing does that for you then more power to you. But what makes yours more tangible than Zeus, Hermes, Mohammed, Thor or Ra? I mean we have Norse and Celtic gods as our fucking X-men for crying out loud, you want to talk about fucking disrespect from Atheist or Agnostics? Fuck you. But what it makes its ok because it's your entertainment, in a way aren't we all Atheist in some form or another? We just take this religion shit one God too far.

BTW that "Here is why God exists" example was fucking stupid.

[Jefe]

Can you explain the vast jump from 3 to 4 (i.e. the god is either just an idea, or a reality+idea.. then the sudden jump to "lets just assume its a reality").

And the jump from 5 to 6 where as you assert existance via definition.

Or perhaps I am misreading it. Just seems like another weak argument. Hume/Dostoevsky, Gaunilo, and Kant probably never "defeated" this argument because its not really even a solid argument. It basically states "god exists because I define him to exist"

1. 5 Explains it.

2. It's logic, check the premises and conclusions

3. They tried it and never accomplished it. Read some philosophy and they have "critiques" to Anselm's Ontological.

[Day]

Here this is really all you need to know about the argument to understand it:

If we were to think of God as not existing, though, then we would be able to imagine him being better than he is; we would be able to imagine him existing, and a God that exists is clearly better than a God that doesn’t. To think of God as not existing, then, is to think of God as being imperfect, because a God that doesn’t exist could be better than he is.

The idea of an imperfect God, though, we have already said, is just as absurd as the idea of a four-sided triangle; “perfect” is part of what “God” means, just as “three-sided” is part of what “triangle” means. As the idea that God doesn’t exist implies his imperfection, therefore, the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd, just as obviously false, as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. God’s non-existence is therefore impossible.

One sec and I'll post the common counter arguments Meteora mentioned.
http://www.existence-of-god.com/onto...bjections.html

And it's not actually "fucking stupid", it's using the very logic you mentioned in your post to prove that god exists.