1. Joined
    13 Apr '06
    Moves
    24617
    15 Sep '06 13:07
    Im not saying God doesnt exist, but what the **** is up with this argument? god exists because we can DEFINE Him?" can someone make this credible to me, or reinforce my view that it is ridiculous please
    maybe Anselm was having a bad day?
  2. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    15 Sep '06 13:27
    Originally posted by mazziewag
    Im not saying God doesnt exist, but what the **** is up with this argument? god exists because we can DEFINE Him?" can someone make this credible to me, or reinforce my view that it is ridiculous please
    maybe Anselm was having a bad day?
    I also wonder if people laughed at him the first time he formulated it.

    (and then put on a very serious face trying to find out where the hell is his formal mistake)
  3. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    15 Sep '06 13:50
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I also wonder if people laughed at him the first time he formulated it.

    (and then put on a very serious face trying to find out where the hell is his formal mistake)
    I don't think Anselm was trying to "prove" the existence of God to a skeptic/atheist.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Sep '06 13:59
    Originally posted by mazziewag
    Im not saying God doesnt exist, but what the **** is up with this argument? god exists because we can DEFINE Him?" can someone make this credible to me, or reinforce my view that it is ridiculous please
    maybe Anselm was having a bad day?
    The concept that it is possible to DEFINE something that is by definition unknowable is what is rediculous.
  5. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    15 Sep '06 14:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The concept that it is possible to DEFINE something that is by definition unknowable is what is rediculous.
    How is God "unknowable by definition"??
  6. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    15 Sep '06 14:54
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    I don't think Anselm was trying to "prove" the existence of God to a skeptic/atheist.
    What was he trying to do?
  7. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    15 Sep '06 15:06
    Originally posted by Palynka
    What was he trying to do?
    Don't know really. He certainly goes on to use his definition of God to derive other attributes of God.
  8. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    15 Sep '06 15:07
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Don't know really. He certainly goes on to use his definition of God to derive other attributes of God.
    That's what I meant. I mean, do you know anyone who read it for the first time and the first reaction wasn't: what the hell?!?

    (Ok, without the profanity 😉)
  9. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    15 Sep '06 15:13
    Originally posted by Palynka
    That's what I meant. I mean, do you know anyone who read it for the first time and the first reaction wasn't: what the hell?!?

    (Ok, without the profanity 😉)
    Probably not. It wasn't even well-received within the Church (Aquinas, for instance, was a notable critic).
  10. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    15 Sep '06 15:19
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Probably not. It wasn't even well-received within the Church (Aquinas, for instance, was a notable critic).
    Aquinas, now there's an interesting scholar. Have you read his Summa Theologiae? Is his writing a heavy read or is it clear and fluent?

    I've been curious about it for a long time.
  11. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    15 Sep '06 15:42
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Aquinas, now there's an interesting scholar. Have you read his Summa Theologiae? Is his writing a heavy read or is it clear and fluent?

    I've been curious about it for a long time.
    Provided you're reasonably clear on your Aristotle and Plato, it's not particularly heavy.

    You can read the Summa online at

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    16 Sep '06 00:58
    Originally posted by mazziewag
    god exists because we can DEFINE Him?"
    Some of the ontological arguments aren't that ridiculous. But I don't know too many people who think any of them are persuasive.

    Check out the "Hegelian" ontological argument:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
Back to Top