unpopular opinion:
Anselm's ontological argument is the best argument for the existence of God ever created
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
unpopular opinion:. Anselm's ontological argument is the best argument for the existence of God ever created
>words are proof
lmao, I’ll see it when I believe it. Until it can be TESTED through EXPERIMENT I will remain unconvinced.
>TESTED through EXPERIMENT
that would imply that God is a limited/material being within our world, so whatever you're testing through experiment wouldn't be God
>we have zero tangible proof but that is actually good
>that would imply that God is a limited/material being within our world
Yes he is, docetist
It would only imply he acts in the material world in ways that can be observed. If you're saying he doesn't, then sure, you can't test for his existence.
>that would imply that God is a limited/material being within our world, so whatever you're testing through experiment wouldn't be God
More word games. Piss off.
Prove truth exists, I want to see you test the existence of truth with an experiment.
There is no truth. There are simply beliefs that are conducive to survival, and those that aren’t.
Is that true?
does this belief help me survive? Yes, that’s how I define truth. You have your own truths (but they may one day be obsolete and be seen as false by virtually everyone).
To make this very clear, I’m literally saying that everything I’m saying is subjectively true. I’m not saying it’s true for everyone (that makes no sense, given that I defined truth to be something that survives, something that helps organisms thrive).
>that’s how I define truth
That's true for you but not for me.
>You have your own truths
My truth is that this isn't true
>I’m literally saying that everything I’m saying is subjectively true. I’m not saying it’s true for everyone
No you aren't. My truth is that you're saying it's objectively true and it's true for everyone.
ok, have fun with those beliefs. We’ll see if they continue 20,000 years from now (they won’t).
That's true for you but not for me.
yep, glad we agree
It's not true for me that we agree.
Cool
>There is no truth.
Then you have given up language, and your ability to interact with the external world. Enjoy your empty world, you cannot even believe your own thoughts. You cannot even understand what you typed, what I typed, or any other aspect of your life.
You post-modernists are such gays, who never think through your stupid beliefs.
>I want to see you test the existence of truth with an experiment.
Here's an experiment you can try, see if it's true that a train is moving on the tracks by jumping in front of it.
I can see the train but I can't see this magical invisible thing called "truth". It's like believing in a pink invisible unicorn. Why do you believe in magic? You're an adult who believes in magic!
The only people who think truth is a pink invisible unicorn are platonists like you.
You think truth isn't real
I think that truth isn't a "thing", it's a linguistic construct that connects propositions to the things that they're referring to. It's no less real than verbs or nouns, but it's not a pink platonic unicorn.
Yes, truth cannot be seen by sight. Existence being determined by if something can be seen or not isn't a criteria anyone else uses, but if you want to go ahead.
Ok, can you smell it? Can you touch it? Can you hear it? Can you taste it?
>I think that truth isn't a "thing", it's a linguistic construct
So it does not exist outside of human's minds, and it is culturally relative?
Is that true?
>Can you explain what went wrong in my argument?
Yes. You didn't make one. Your post is an example of the appeal to ridicule fallacy.
>Or does believing Anslem's argument succeeds commit you to also believe that mine does?
You could not extend Anselm's argument to something like "the scariest being" because "scariness" is a subjective property.
>"scariness" is a subjective property.
As much as "goodness" is subjective
No, goodness is objective as morality is objective, not that this is relevant to the thread. But scariness is subjective by definition, as a thing is scary if it tends to induce fear in a particular subject.
and morality is objective because…
Because it is independent of subjects.
*tips fedora*
So it's magic and it's not real and you have no way to know it's real.
> Because it is independent of subjects
and what exactly does it mean for something to be moral?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
>good means moral
>moral means right
I’m tired of this game
Me too
>Makes thread about philosophical arguments
>Response to parallel arguments is "tips fedora"
Yahweh worshipers are so fricking dumb bros
Incorrect, that was an appeal to ridicule, not an argument
A parallel argument is meant to show that unacceptable conclusions follow from applying the same reasoning to a different case. The defense of "objective scariness" uses some of the same arguments used in defense of objective morality. Specifically, objective scariness was defended using the reasoning that if you fail to respond to the objective property then it is your defect, rather than evidence that the property does not exist independent of the observer, which is exactly analogous to one of the characterizations of moral realism.
The onus is on you to show that the case of objective scariness is different in some way from the case of objective morality.
>A parallel argument is meant to show that unacceptable conclusions follow from applying the same reasoning to a different case
An appeal to ridicule is meant to persuade by invoking strong negative emotions in association with the ridiculed idea.
>The defense of "objective scariness" uses some of the same arguments used in defense of objective morality
Yes, in fact that's typical of appeals to ridicule. Here, you can read all about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
>Specifically, objective scariness was defended using the reasoning that if you fail to respond to the objective property then it is your defect
It is also typical of appeals to ridicule that the false analogies they use contain something fundamentally dissimilar. This is because all that matters for the fallacious argument is that the idea is portrayed as silly. We see this in your appeal to ridicule:
>If you fail to be scared
Meaning, "I experience an emotion"
>I think it's good
Meaning, "I believe a proposition is true"
>The onus is on you
There is certainly no onus on me to do anything as long as my would-be opponent has yet to join the discussion, which I doubt you will since you are an intellectually dishonest rat acting in bad faith
Could you explain why the analogy is false? (without begging the question)
Asked and answered
2+2=4 isn't a tautology, 2=2 is. On the other hand your synthetic example is, because the definition of inflation is an increase in money supply.
Could you explain why the analogy is false? (without begging the question)
Do you accept objective scariness or not? If not, then you are accepting the logic in one instance, and not accepting it in another, which is a blatant contradiction. Unless you have some argument that cannot be used to prove objective scariness, in which case the burden of proof is on you to present it.
>So it's magic
Nope
>and it's not real and you have no way to know it's real.
Non sequitur
What's the point of posting in this thread, if you are not even going to attempt to defend you beliefs?
>But scariness is subjective by definition
That's not how I define it. You are talking about something else.
You don't just get to arbitrarily pick and choose what is scary. There are objective facts about spookiness.
If you fail to be scared of stuff that is objectively scary, that's simply you making a mistake.
Like me, when I think it's good to allow witches to live. I'm simply mistaken.
>Ok, can you smell it? Can you touch it? Can you hear it? Can you taste it?
No
Truth, just like numbers, doesn't exist, it's all a figment of human imagination. Still useful doe
>Truth, just like numbers, doesn't exist,
Is that statement true?
yes it is, why do you ask
>Prove truth exists
"Truth" isn't a thing but an abstraction, a tag we use to categorise statements that accurately describes reality with a degree of precision
Science has already decisively proven that Life and the Universe had to be created by an Intelligent Creator.
Fine Tuning of the Universe and the Sheer quantity and sequence of Biological Information necessary to create the simplest forms of life possible are conclusive proof of Intelligent Design.
For more watch this video from Stephen Meyer talking a bit about biogenesis.
?si=0423l-ID9Jw5ihf-
Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher, but if you interested in hearing more on this in much greater detail from a real and serious scientist look into James Tour.
TL;DR: It's chemically and statistically impossible for even the simplest basic building blocks of life to have been created through a chemical unintentional method.
with infinite universes, life is not a miracle, it’s inevitable. Cope.
>accuses others of cope, when relying upon infinite universe theory
Lmao. Just say a unicorn told you that I was wrong.
Our universe isn't infinite.
Infinite universes haven't been proven or even a plausible theory for there could be multiple universes. The entire theory by which infinite universes might hypothetically be generated
requires a hypothetical universe generating mechanism, which would require fine tuning to such a degree, that it would necessarily imply an intelligent designer.
> The entire theory by which infinite universes might hypothetically be generated
requires a hypothetical universe generating mechanism, which would require fine tuning to such a degree, that it would necessarily imply an intelligent designer.
no, universes just exist because they can. Causality isn’t real, there is no such thing as a cause. The “generating mechanism” is randomness, chaos, pure nothingness, all possibilities fulfilled. If you flipped a coin 100 times, and did this infinite times, you will inevitably have the series HTHTHTHTHT… 100 times. It’s not designed, it’s random. That’s exactly what this universe is, simply more complex. I know this is a lot to take in, but it’s the truth
>no, universes just exist because they can.
>Causality isn’t real, there is no such thing as a cause.
very scientific theory there. I am totally convinced.
>The “generating mechanism” is randomness
Where is this randomness happening? Our universe or a predecessor universe? Based on what evidence?
When is it happening?
How is it happening?
You are assuming so many things, I wonder if you're being moronic on purpose or if you even understand how nonsensical and magic-based your reasoning has become to explain away the very clear evidence of intelligent design.
There is absolutely zero evidence for infinite multiverses. The very idea that infinite multiverses could be created without an intelligent designer cranking them out is even more fantastic.
Please explain more. Your infinite coin flip analogy almost make me crack a smile, if you try harder, I might actually start laughing.
>something cannot come from nothing
>assuming that rules exist in nothingness
lol
There are no rules. There is no causality. Everything you see is random.
>but how come I can’t see da random elephants and dragons huh?!! I don’t see nuffin poppin into existence!!
that’s because in this particular universe, randomness has produced order, which is certainly a possibility, and an inevitable one.
There is no contradiction here. If causality isn’t real and things can just happen, then this universe is not a contradiction. It may be a rarity, an anomaly, but it is not a contradiction. There’s nothing preventing a universe with causal patterns and intelligent life from existing.
>there's a place without no rules
okay based on what evidence?
>durr cuz in dis universe we have rules!!! Dat couldn't have happened unless it was an accident!!
Lmao. Thanks. I'm gonna keep on replying to (You) because your mindless babbling is actually making me laugh now.
Let me just ask you a hypothetical:
>If the first Mars Rover had discovered a stainless steel internal combustion engine in perfect working order, what if any conclusions would you draw from that. Would you conclude that some intelligent being had created it and left it there or that it also was just the result of the randomness of our universe?
> okay based on what evidence?
It’s an unfalsifiable position (like yours) but it’s simpler and makes more sense to me.
> Let me just ask you a hypothetical:
whatever happens, the mental events in my brain are random. If I think that the engine must have been placed there by intelligent life, then that is what I will think. I’m not in control of my thoughts. Neither are you.
>whatever happens, the mental events in my brain are random. If I think that the engine must have been placed there by intelligent life, then that is what I will think. I’m not in control of my thoughts. Neither are you.
Lmao. If you truly believed that my thoughts and even yours were completely meaningless randomness, then why are (You) replying?
Why are (You) assuming that (You) are even replying to a person, and not random static on the internet, which randomly produced the result which appears to be a reply to your post?
You are arguing in bad faith. I am not.
> then why are (You) replying?
that’s just what happened. It’s random.
> Why are (You) assuming that (You) are even replying to a person, and not random static on the internet, which randomly produced the result which appears to be a reply to your post?
that’s just my nature. None of this is a contradiction
>Science has already decisively proven that Life and the Universe had to be created by an Intelligent Creator.
i hasn't
>Fine Tuning of the Universe
there's no such thing
>Sheer quantity and sequence of Biological Information necessary to create the simplest forms
the simplest possible life are self replicating strings of RNA, not much information needed
>are conclusive proof of Intelligent Design.
it isn't
>Stephen Meyer
a moronic pseudo with no knowledge of the things he is trying to talk about
> It's chemically
it isn't
>statistically
much less
> for even the simplest basic building blocks of life to have been created through a chemical unintentional method.
Miller–Urey experiment , along side with the detection of aminoacids in gas clouds in space and in comets, have already proven that your proposition is false
The fine tuning.argunent is probably the worst argument for God.
>It's an example of survivorship bias, we only have a sample size of one universe so it's impossible to conceptualize what another universe might look like and if life would be possible in such a universe.
>Our universe isn't very well fine tuned considering it's 99.9% hostile to life everywhere except Earth. And even Earth has spots that aren't habitable to anything but maybe some extremophilic bacteria.
they don’t understand that if the probability of life chemicals forming is 0.000000000001% at any given moment then this is basically guaranteed in this giant universe
>AAAAYYYY!! I'M WALKIN HERE!!
are proof
>Absolute truth doesn't exist
Yes, they're proof derived from logic.
If you were wrong about them being "proof derived from logic", how could you go about figuring that out?
Logic is a self contained, self referential system.
If statements are illogical, you can equate them to not being true.
How do you go about finding out if reality is real using empiricism?
Not entirely clear on how you could go about figuring out if Anslem's argument succeeds or not
Truth is a word humans made-up
No argument?
>I can imagine that there cannot be a sandwich greater than the one in my mind.
>Therefore the sandwich exists.
Godgays in ruins.
Pascal's Wager makes more sense, and that's still pure cope.
>Until it can be TESTED through EXPERIMENT I will remain unconvinced.
Why would an inductive argument be more convincing? You do know the flaws of inductive knowledge, right?
No, tell me. Why shouldn't I care about inductive arguments?
It's not that you shouldn't care about induction, it's just lesser than deduction.
While inductive arguments are the best method of discovering anything about the external world, they're still based upon the assumption that the past predicts the future. Our only reason for this assumption, is that the past was always like that. It's circular reasoning.
We could just exist during a point in time, where things appear to be constant, and that could end at any moment due to our incomplete understanding of the universe. We haven't seen even one universe, from start to end, to even know that we're correct about what we think is correct. Our senses can also be wrong. We usually think we're awake, when we dream. We can't instantly will ourselves sober after consuming(knowingly or unknowingly) drugs/alcohol. We get tricked by all sorts of optical illusions. Our senses are flawed.
Of course, it's still incredibly effective, as we build bridges, go to the moon, have the internet, etc. But it's still based on the assumption that the future will be the same as the past and that our senses are reliable.
But, because of that, deductive arguments will always be superior, even though it's incredibly limiting in actual application. If it's possible to prove something through purely deductive reasoning, it's better than having to rely on inductive reasoning.
If you could solve the problem of the circular reasoning, universities would trip over each other to give you doctorates in every science and in philosophy with all the tenures possible, but you'd also be taught to philosophy and science students, for the rest of human existence. That's how useful it would be, for the actual sciences and philosophy.
Deductive reasoning being superior, is the same reason why math is superior to all other fields, and we have theoretical math, that has no practical application, but it's still true.
That's enough of a crash course in Philosophy of Science and Epistemology to understand.
nta, but low IQ formatting
Cry about it. I was fighting the character limit, and I'm not going to spend my night, rewriting something that that majority of people won't care about.
You must agree with the actual content of what I typed, if that's your only complaint. Thanks. It's good to know that it all made sense to people who didn't learn the entire history of this. I was a little worried that I might have skipped something important.
I refuse to read posts with bad formatting.
Sorry.
Deductive reasoning is "superior", in what sense?
Try and deduce the speed of light, or the mass of the sun.
Historically, people did, and they got it wrong.
>Deductive reasoning is "superior", in what sense?
In the sense that if all the premises are true, and the conclusion follows from the premise, then the conclusion is true. It doesn't require any external proofs.
>Try and deduce the speed of light, or the mass of the sun.
You've already misunderstood.
Keep crying, I don't care. You know I'm right, and this is your only cope. Crying for attention. This is your last (You). But I'll know that your still coping.
Prove that the "greatest imaginable thing" is the God that brought the israelites out of Egypt or sent 1/3rd of himself to die for our sins
Yes, the argument itself is pretty much unrefutable. The problem lies in the undemonstrated premise: we don't have any proof "perfection" exists as a real entity outside of the human mind.
ideas are real
just because it's in your head doesn't mean it's fake
truth is real after all
it would be silly to say otherwise because you would be implicitly saying "it is true that truth is not real", which is self defeating
But then the argument would demonstrate God's existence...as an idea inside my head, not as an Actual metaphysical God.
is truth just an idea in your head, or does it exist metaphysically too?
See
this implies rationalists are not schizo gurus leeching off their dumb audience
The scariest being imaginable, wouldn't be the scariest unless he was real. Duh!
Proof that Sandor the Lich is real
euphoric
Can you explain what went wrong in my argument?
Or does believing Anslem's argument succeeds commit you to also believe that mine does? They seem symmetrical
We got two words that humans made-up "scariness" and "goodness"
How could we go about figuring out which one exist as real universals?
Logical validity isn’t sufficient to make an empirical claim.
How do you know that?
>What do you think the word empirical means
I doubt you have any idea.
1) Empirical:
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. “From Observation”.
2) A Priori:
“independent of observation.”
There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:
i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,
ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and
iii) Necessity vs Contingency
We can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.
(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.
(b) Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.
(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.
(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”
What do you think the word "empirical" means?
The teleological argument is more immediately self evident and easier to explain.
>muh fine tuning
this is really a misunderstanding of the argument, in order to really get it you need to understand what the Greek word "Telos" means
once you realize that certain things exist for a purpose, like your hand to grasp and your mind to think, or a cup to hold water, then you see that other things also have purpose even if that purpose may be beyond our understanding
>but you designed the cup specifically to hold water, not a good example
the cup is real
design is part of the cup
it follows that design is part of reality
this necessitates a designer of reality, as an ultimate metaphysical source for design itself
ergo, God exists
humans evolved from previous life which evolved from simply chemicals billions of years ago. The universe is the same. There are infinite universes and only some of them have the right mutations to support life. Sorry, miracles don’t exist. Everything is just the expression of limitless potentiality of the chaotic void
cool word salad
but cups are objectively real, and are designed
therefore design is objectively real, design is part of reality
you can't get away from this fact
So because humans and some animals can design, everything must be designed? All animals can shit, does that mean shitting is part of all reality?
not that anon, but he's not saying that:
>design exists therefore everything is designed.
He's simply saying that some things are indisputably designed. Therefore, the concept of "design" exists in the universe.
Things evolve in the universe. So did the universe evolve???
Not everything in the universe is necessarily designed. Doesn't have to be. Sometimes the best part of a garden is the part you didn't laborously plan, but grew of it's own accord.
But some things definitely are design, which means design is possible to begin with and part of the fabric of reality. Which implies a primordial designer.
The ancient Greeks called that designer and creator, demiurge.
if it's true that truth accurately describes reality, then it's real
not just an abstraction, a real abstraction
just because you don't know something is true doesn't mean it stops being true
it is objective, not subjective
design isn't just something humans can do
if design weren't part of reality it would be impossible for humans to design anything
shit is part of reality, whether you like it or not
we all shit for a reason, shit has a purpose
>humans evolved from previous life which evolved from simply chemicals billions of years ago. The universe is the same. There are infinite universes and only some of them have the right mutations to support life. Sorry, miracles don’t exist. Everything is just the expression of limitless potentiality of the chaotic void
>once you realize that certain things exist for a purpose
The argument for this?
Or, like, do I just need to intuit it..
Is the purpose of your eyes to see?
It's what they do
Kant refuted it albeit
Flawed argument
No it's not. If a maximally great being follows from its essence, then we can simply define anything into existence by assigning it the property. A maximally existent giant llama behind you, etc.
>unpopular opinion: