Originally posted by roigam It'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.
'Don't be foolish' is neither an argument nor a counter-argument. It's merely an ad hominem.
I agree, Anselm's argument gets the cart before the horse. The reason I posted the second proof is that I believe it should have been his first argument versus "God is that than which nothing greater can be imagined." Consider this: If the argument starts with "That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist" then the Proslogian begins with a logical truth instead of a fallacy. The rest of the argument becomes stronger.
It is a logical truth to say: That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist. One cannot prove the non-existence of God, or in other words one cannot prove a negative. This fits more in line with his original Biblical hypothesis " a fool says in his heart there is no God." Anselm would be reinforcing that idea by stating that only a foolish person would say conclusively that there is no God, for such a statement cannot be supported by argument. What is left is the task of making an argument for the existence of God, and that becomes stronger indeed.
Since no amount of argument an satisfy the proof necessary for the existence of God, then one must resort to inductive reason and make either a strong or weak case. Anselm's case is weak as stated, stronger if he reveres the order and premise.
p.s. for the "would be" philosophers out there when Anselm says "thought not to exist" he means "reasoned not to exist" and this may be while you have trouble with the statement.
Originally posted by Doward It is a logical truth to say: That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist.
One of the posters already demonstrated that that is false. I to, think God does not exist.
One cannot prove the non-existence of God, Actually, one can.
or in other words one cannot prove a negative. You shouldn't just repeat stuff you have heard. Try and think about it for a moment. Of course one can prove a negative.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
06 Dec '14 22:141 edit
One cannot prove the non-existence of God,
Actually, one can.
If you are the one, then do it for us. Maybe without question marks too.
Originally posted by twhitehead One of the posters already demonstrated that that is false. I to, think God does not exist.
[b]One cannot prove the non-existence of God, Actually, one can.
or in other words one cannot prove a negative. You shouldn't just repeat stuff you have heard. Try and think about it for a moment. Of course one can prove a negative.[/b]
"Actually, one can [prove the non-existence of God]."
only if the definition is specific enough and even so only in certain cases. i doubt you can check outside time and space to see if there is any god there.
If you are the one, then do it for us. Maybe without question marks too.[/b]Start a new thread and define 'God' as thoroughly as you can. If I can find a single contradiction within your definition then I have proved that 'God' as defined does not exist.
Originally posted by josephw Right. But it is hoped that God does not exist. I mean, it is really really hoped that God doesn't exist. For obvious reasons. Imagine how the one that denies the existence of God will feel when they are actually called to give account of themselves before God. I think it will be something like extreme shock followed closely by a sudden realization of impending doom.
Hey, don't look at me, it wasn't my idea! 😛 It's in the Bible.
How many unbelievers have you met who "hope" God does not exist? God's existence is immaterial to me. If God tells me to explain why I didn't spend my life strangling kittens like it wanted me to, then it's tough luck for it, as there is no way for me to verify that God, if it exists, wants me to strangle kittens.
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
07 Dec '14 12:38
Originally posted by twhitehead Start a new thread and define 'God' as thoroughly as you can. If I can find a single contradiction within your definition then I have proved that 'God' as defined does not exist.
Shifting the burden already.
You're not talking about proving God does not exist.
You're talking about clever word games.
Originally posted by twhitehead I doubt you can define such a god in any meaningful way. What do you even mean by 'outside time and space'? Existence depends on time and space.
"Existence depends on time and space."
The existence of matter depends on time and space, but the creator God of space, matter and time exists by Himself. God is self-sufficient.
How are you going to prove that the self-sufficient God doesn't exist?
Originally posted by sonship Shifting the burden already.
Not at all. I merely ask that you be honest about what you mean by the word 'God' rather than playing word games.
You're talking about clever word games. No, actually, that is what you were planning. You wanted me to fail to disprove the existence of a God defined in one particular way, whilst you believe in a God defined in a quite different way. You were then going to falsely claim that I have failed to prove the non-existence of the God you claim to believe in. If that is not word games then I don't know what is. It isn't particularly clever though.
If you choose not to define God in any meaningful way, then Dowards original claim is neither true nor false, it is simply meaningless.
04 Dec '14 02:21
Anselm's second proof
Back to Top