The Existence of God

[CollectiveUnconscious]

First you must understand the phrase "That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived (which will now be refered to as TT)."

1. God is TT.
2. When the fool hears TT he understands it.
3. When TT is understood, TT exists in understanding.
4. Whatever exists in both reality and understanding is greater than what exists only in understanding.
5. TT is greater than everything else
6. If TT exists only in the understanding then there must be somethinng greater than TT
7. Therefore, TT exists in reality.

I will take a position of defense, attack this if you wish.
Note: This is not saying that there is a God as defined by a specific religion; rather, that there is a God.

 

[kogase]

"That Than Which Is Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived." you really need some nouns in that sentence. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DnetMHZ]

Bunny + Pancake.. STAT!!

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: kogase
"That Than Which Is Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived." you really need some nouns in that sentenc. I have no idea what you are talking about.

My mistake. I added an "is" when there is none. It has been fixed.

 

[Mrfrog840]

Originally posted by: DnetMHZ
Bunny + Pancake.. STAT!!

haha i love that picture!

 

[furie27]

Faulty syllogism, there's nothing to back up your second statement.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
First you must understand the phrase "That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived (which will now be refered to as TT)."

1. God is TT.
2. When the fool hears TT he understands it.
3. When TT is understood, TT exists in understanding.
4. Whatever exists in both reality and understanding is greater than what exists only in understanding.
5. TT is greater than everything else
6. If TT exists only in the understanding then there must be somethinng greater than TT
7. Therefore, TT exists in reality.

I will take a position of defense, attack this if you wish.
Note: This is not saying that there is a God as defined by a specific religion; rather, that there is a God.

I understand what you are saying, but it's a leap in logic. You're arguing in the way Socrates and Plato did... trying to reason through everything. While that works well for many situations, it assumes you have all the information available. Clearly that is not true in this situation.

The existence of God cannot be proven logically. If it could, there would be no need for faith.

 

[FleshLight]

Deductive reasoning FTL.

 

[BrokenVisage]

I'm not convinced.

 

[Darthvoy]

You can apply the same logic to anything...for example a unicorn

 

[furie27]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
First you must understand the phrase "That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived (which will now be refered to as TT)."

1. God is TT.
2. When the fool hears TT he understands it.
3. When TT is understood, TT exists in understanding.
4. Whatever exists in both reality and understanding is greater than what exists only in understanding.
5. TT is greater than everything else
6. If TT exists only in the understanding then there must be somethinng greater than TT
7. Therefore, TT exists in reality.

I will take a position of defense, attack this if you wish.
Note: This is not saying that there is a God as defined by a specific religion; rather, that there is a God.

I understand what you are saying, but it's a leap in logic. You're arguing in the way Socrates and Plato did... trying to reason through everything. While that works well for many situations, it assumes you have all the information available. Clearly that is not true in this situation.

The existence of God cannot be proven logically. If it could, there would be no need for faith.

The fault here isn't in the application of reason but in false assumptions.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: furie27
Faulty syllogism, there's nothing to back up your second statement.

When someone describes something to you, do you not understand it. Simply speaking, there is nothing greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived. I have described it to you, you should now understand it the same as someone who describes a cardinal to you.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
You can apply the same logic to anything...for example a unicorn

And yet, when you try to make a greater unicorn, you must must continually add attributes to it until it becomes TT.

Edit: Also note, specific logic that can be applied to everything is defective logic. Thus, this logic can only be applied to this situation.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DnetMHZ
Bunny + Pancake.. STAT!!

Score!

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: furie27

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
First you must understand the phrase "That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived (which will now be refered to as TT)."

1. God is TT.
2. When the fool hears TT he understands it.
3. When TT is understood, TT exists in understanding.
4. Whatever exists in both reality and understanding is greater than what exists only in understanding.
5. TT is greater than everything else
6. If TT exists only in the understanding then there must be somethinng greater than TT
7. Therefore, TT exists in reality.

I will take a position of defense, attack this if you wish.
Note: This is not saying that there is a God as defined by a specific religion; rather, that there is a God.

I understand what you are saying, but it's a leap in logic. You're arguing in the way Socrates and Plato did... trying to reason through everything. While that works well for many situations, it assumes you have all the information available. Clearly that is not true in this situation.

The existence of God cannot be proven logically. If it could, there would be no need for faith.

The fault here isn't in the application of reason but in false assumptions.

QFT. You cannot prove it either way.

 

[JulesMaximus]

TT=Time Trial.

/thread

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: DnetMHZ
Bunny + Pancake.. STAT!!

For some reason I had to double take the thread cause I was scrolling and "Pancake" read as "Bukkake" for me.... lol..

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
You can apply the same logic to anything...for example a unicorn

Unicorn is BAH (Big Ass Horn).
When I hear BAH I think of sheep.
When I think of sheep, I'm sleeping.
Unicorns are magic, they don't sleep.
I'm not a unicorn.
I sleep.
If something doesn't sleep, it's a Unicorn.
Brussel's Sprouts don't sleep.
Brussel's Sprouts are Unicorns.

OMG, Unicorns exist and logic kicks ass!

 

[furie27]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious

Originally posted by: furie27
Faulty syllogism, there's nothing to back up your second statement.

When someone describes something to you, do you not understand it. Simply speaking, there is nothing greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived. I have described it to you, you should now understand it the same as someone who describes a cardinal to you.

You're correct I've understood your account. Understanding the account of something and understanding the thing itself are two completely different things.

 

[furie27]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
You can apply the same logic to anything...for example a unicorn

Unicorn is BAH (Big Ass Horn).
When I hear BAH I think of sheep.
When I think of sheep, I'm sleeping.
Unicorns are magic, they don't sleep.
I'm not a unicorn.
I sleep.
If something doesn't sleep, it's a Unicorn.
Brussel's Sprouts don't sleep.
Brussel's Sprouts are Unicorns.

OMG, Unicorns exist and logic kicks ass!

During a friend of mine's seminar on The Republic, Unicorn logic prevailed for a good half an hour, it was quite amusing .

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
1. God is TT

Prove this assumption.

 

[Albatross]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You coulda saved yourself a lot of trouble and just said:

1. Define "God" as "That which exists."
   Therefore God exists.

I hope you understand why the more erudite observeres find such an argument less than convincing.

 

[nakedfrog]

I must not be a fool, because I don't understand you.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: furie27

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious

Originally posted by: furie27
Faulty syllogism, there's nothing to back up your second statement.

When someone describes something to you, do you not understand it. Simply speaking, there is nothing greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived. I have described it to you, you should now understand it the same as someone who describes a cardinal to you.

You're correct I've understood your account. Understanding the account of something and understanding the thing itself are two completely different things.

Ah, St. Aquinas I have found you. And yet, you understand the account, and so it is in your understanding.