Originally posted by DowardI see, and how does one force your (3) through:
one need not concieve of perfection but simply assign perfection as a descriptor, so it does succeed under this description
(3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.
I can assign square and triangle as descriptors to a square triangle, doesn't mean it can exist though.
Originally posted by DowardWhy? Surely it is more perfect if it doesn't exist? Especially in this imperfect world!
If a being concieved is perfect then it is neccesary that for perfection that being exist.
One could not concieve of a perfect being unless a perfect being existed, for existance is part of that perfection.
How does that follow? I don't get the logic at all.
I can understand how the assumption that a perfect being is only perfect if it exists would lead to the conclusion that one can only conceive of a perfect being if in the conception, the perfect being exists, but it does not follow that the perfect being exists in reality.
To help me understand your logic, explain how it does not apply to a squoogle, where a squoogle is defined as a brown round ball with 6 eyes, that exists.
Now one cannot conceive of a squoogle unless in that conception, the squoogle exists. But I did conceive of it. Does it follow that the squoogle exists?
Originally posted by Agergsquare and triangles are concepts, the existance of god would be a concrete reality, just as the existance of Agerg is a concrete reality.
I see, and how does one force your (3) through:
(3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.
I can assign square and triangle as descriptors to a square triangle, doesn't mean it can exist though.
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardI see no reason to treat "God" as anything more than a concept; for any exceptions you make so to bully through the existence of some god I can play the same game on my end with equally spurious claims.
square and triangles are concepts, the existance of god would be a concrete reality, just as the existance of Agerg is a concrete reality.
Originally posted by DowardWhat if I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true? Typical theism is internally inconsistent (ie illogical) and thus I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which it can be true.
square and triangles are concepts, the existance of god would be a concrete reality, just as the existance of Agerg is a concrete reality.
Originally posted by twhiteheadinconsistancy and illogical are not the same as untrue, they are a matter of perspective. Read my above quote by Descarte
What if I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true? Typical theism is internally inconsistent (ie illogical) and thus I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which it can be true.
Originally posted by Agergfine, then imagine the concept of a perfect god, then continue with the rest of the steps.
I see no reason to treat "God" as anything more than a concept; for any exceptions you make so to bully through the existence of some god I can play the same game on my end with equally spurious claims.
2 edits
Originally posted by Dowarderm...yeah. Isn't it amazing that thinking like yourself I've managed to make something with no more, no less than three sides that also happens to have no more, no less than four sides actually exist!?
yep triangles with a 90 deg. angle exist, they have one corner square. Yay I win!
As per your response to twhitehead if you're prepared to divorce yourself from the constraints of consistency and logic then you divorce yourself from any serious discussion. There is no way for you to force this "proof" through - regardless of your or anyone elses delivery of it, it is internally flawed.
Originally posted by Agergthe world is not consistant, why we try and force that view onto it is beyond me.
erm...yeah. Isn't it amazing that thinking like yourself I've managed to make something with no more, no less than three sides that also happens to have no more, no less than four sides actually exist!?
As per your response to twhitehead if you're prepared to divorce yourself from the constraints of consistency and logic then you divorce yourself from any ...[text shortened]... roof" through - regardless of your or anyone elses delivery of it, it is internally flawed.
3 edits
Originally posted by DowardI'm quite sure any inconsistencies you find involve a human element - be that naivety, ignorance, hypocracy, or just plain old flawed logic, and so on...The world (treating ourselves as biological entities in this respect), independent of our evaluation of it, I expect is very much consistent.
the world is not consistant, why we try and force that view onto it is beyond me.
Originally posted by DowardI really cant see the relevance of the Descarte quote.
inconsistancy and illogical are not the same as untrue, they are a matter of perspective. Read my above quote by Descarte
If something is illogical then it cannot be assigned a truth value. Thats simple logic. It also cannot exist. And no, it has nothing to do with perspective. If your God requires that p=not p then your God does not exist.
Originally posted by DowardIf it is inconsistent, then we cannot claim it exists. If inconsistency is allowed then we could allow God to both not exist and exist simultaneously. We could allow that your proof is valid and invalid. And nothing we said would make any sense.
the world is not consistant, why we try and force that view onto it is beyond me.
Of course it is much easier to say that it is you or your argument that is inconsistent and not the world. You exist, God does not.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI really cant see the relevance of the Descarte quote.
I really cant see the relevance of the Descarte quote.
If something is illogical then it cannot be assigned a truth value. Thats simple logic. It also cannot exist. And no, it has nothing to do with perspective. If your God requires that p=not p then your God does not exist.
because your mind is clouded