Originally posted by FMFIn fairness to Anselm he was writing in the late 11th Century and logic was not very well developed. There was Aristotle's Organon and that's about it.
I don't see what argument roigam was offering in the dispute. I just saw a lazy ad hominem-like-thing that sought to circumnavigate or perhaps stifle debate. 🙂
edit: [b]He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.
Well, he has had some exchanges of views with me and I am a non-believer when it comes to his religious faith.[/b]
Originally posted by DowardIf you are genuinely interested in this, I recommend this course:
discredit Anselm's second proof from the Proslogion if you can:
That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist
https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-philosophy-mitx-24-00x
It is a free course, and covers Anslem's argument quite rigorously. I am sorry to say that it turns out not to be a convincing argument.
Originally posted by josephwIt's interesting to hear you say this. Are you now also going to keep your personal views about other posters out of the discussion in future?
Worry about your own image geester, and I'll worry about mine. In the mean time you and the unbelievers can keep your personal views about me out of the topic of discussion.
Originally posted by FMFAre you?
It's interesting to hear you say this. Are you now also going to keep your personal views about other posters out of the discussion in future?
What's the topic of discussion now FMF, our personal views about other posters or our personal views about the topic of discussion?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by josephwWell, if I may unhelpfully point out that obviously the topic of discussion can't be our personal views on the topic of discussion. 🙄
Are you?
What's the topic of discussion now FMF, our personal views about other posters or our personal views about the topic of discussion?
Originally posted by FMFAs is yours, as usual.
These kinds of snippets of text can be used ~ perhaps ~ to urge or coerce conformity and compliance in a group or cult consisting of people who already hold Bible based beliefs, but they are of no relevance to people who do not subscribe to that particular literature. So your post is a variant of 'preaching to the choir'.
Originally posted by FMFWell, it's been shown that you can't see much at all when confronted by those that do not believe as you do.
I don't see what argument roigam was offering in the dispute. I just saw a lazy ad hominem-like-thing that sought to circumnavigate or perhaps stifle debate. 🙂
edit: [b]He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.
Well, he has had some exchanges of views with me and I am a non-believer when it comes to his religious faith.[/b]
Not that that excuses it, mind.
Originally posted by FMFIt's only an ad hominem if it's fallacious. In other senses it is a valid observation if it advocates a course of practical reason.
I rather thought it was an ad hominem about being "foolish" rather than a genuine "reply" to the OP poster. But maybe you're right, maybe it's legitimate "advice". The question of what it actually is has been highlighted then. Good.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSorry, my frame of reference is the Bible and Bible understanding. I took philosophy in college and found it to be a lot like cotton candy, that is fun to eat but not very substantial and of very little value as far as nourishment goes.
I haven't noticed roigam ever respond to any posts except ones made by Christians. He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI was busy over the wknd so I'm just catching up on this thread.
I haven't noticed roigam ever respond to any posts except ones made by Christians. He tends not to involve himself in disputes with non-believers.
To finalize my thought, the Bible offers superior understanding when compared with the musings of man so that is my preference.
Originally posted by roigamThat's unfortunate. Do you remember what you studied? Was it an introductory survey course?
Sorry, my frame of reference is the Bible and Bible understanding. I took philosophy in college and found it to be a lot like cotton candy, that is fun to eat but not very substantial and of very little value as far as nourishment goes.