Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ontological Argument...

kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:38:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have came up with undeniable proof that the maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. Here is that proof:

1) It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
6) Therefore maximally great sock stealing coffee pots exist.

This is the Ontological argument's logic!
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:51:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists as like a program in your mind, dawg.

Crash Bandicoot exists.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:56:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:51:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists as like a program in your mind, dawg.

Crash Bandicoot exists.

Treasure island exists.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:21:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yer damn right it does.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:22:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rule 34 wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:52:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:38:01 PM, kohai wrote:
I have came up with undeniable proof that the maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. Here is that proof:

1) It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
6) Therefore maximally great sock stealing coffee pots exist.

This is the Ontological argument's logic!

Cool, I always wonder where my socks went. But wait a minute. This coffee pot is a
thief! Since this pot takes socks instead of giving me socks of woven silk I won't beloved in it.

Now, if it did everything I wanted when I wanted it I might believe in it. But oonly if it didn't take my socks. I mean, socks come in a pair. It is unfair to break up a pair. The sock it stole didn't do anything to very stolen. Why should the sock have to spend eternity without the other sock. I for one refuse to believe in coffee pot that does this.

Its just a big meany! And I will tell EVERY SINGLE person about it. Because people that are that dumb need to be told. The need to be ridiculed as much as possible. And since I'm sooooo smart I have every right in the world to do it. That sock stealing coffee pot should be more like me doing what i think is best, then I would accept it, if it conformed to my every desire. Until then I will be the greatest one over my socks.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 10:45:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 9:52:59 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/18/2011 8:38:01 PM, kohai wrote:
I have came up with undeniable proof that the maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. Here is that proof:

1) It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
6) Therefore maximally great sock stealing coffee pots exist.

This is the Ontological argument's logic!

Cool, I always wonder where my socks went. But wait a minute. This coffee pot is a
thief! Since this pot takes socks instead of giving me socks of woven silk I won't beloved in it.

Now, if it did everything I wanted when I wanted it I might believe in it. But oonly if it didn't take my socks. I mean, socks come in a pair. It is unfair to break up a pair. The sock it stole didn't do anything to very stolen. Why should the sock have to spend eternity without the other sock. I for one refuse to believe in coffee pot that does this.

Its just a big meany! And I will tell EVERY SINGLE person about it. Because people that are that dumb need to be told. The need to be ridiculed as much as possible. And since I'm sooooo smart I have every right in the world to do it. That sock stealing coffee pot should be more like me doing what i think is best, then I would accept it, if it conformed to my every desire. Until then I will be the greatest one over my socks.

Excellent pint! Not only is there the unmistakable ontological proof, but the fact oone seems to know where their missing socks are. I am missing lots of socks tha mysteriously disappeared.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 11:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:38:01 PM, kohai wrote:
I have came up with undeniable proof that the maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. Here is that proof:

1) It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
6) Therefore maximally great sock stealing coffee pots exist.

This is the Ontological argument's logic!

I can imagine an even better sock stealing coffee pot... I cannot imagine a better God...
President of DDO
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 12:26:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 12:17:14 AM, Contradiction wrote:
*Facepalm*

Two words: Intrinsic maximum

Two words for you: Special pleading.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 12:33:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:38:01 PM, kohai wrote:
I have came up with undeniable proof that the maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. Here is that proof:

1) It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
6) Therefore maximally great sock stealing coffee pots exist.

This is the Ontological argument's logic!

No, you copy/pasted it off this website.

http://godlessons.com...

At least give credit to the person who actually made the argument...
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 12:39:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 12:26:01 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 12:17:14 AM, Contradiction wrote:
*Facepalm*

Two words: Intrinsic maximum

Two words for you: Special pleading.

How is that special pleading, rofl?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 12:40:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 12:39:07 AM, Contradiction wrote:
At 10/19/2011 12:26:01 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 12:17:14 AM, Contradiction wrote:
*Facepalm*

Two words: Intrinsic maximum

Two words for you: Special pleading.

How is that special pleading, rofl?

you actually think the argument is valid for god, but not for anything else.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.

Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 7:52:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:38:01 PM, kohai wrote:
3) If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.

Never understood this one.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:30:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

It is still special pleading as if you say a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot that is non-contingent then he still wouldn't believe it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 10:07:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 12:17:14 AM, Contradiction wrote:
*Facepalm*

Two words: Intrinsic maximum

I trust you know what your talking abought, but could you explain for those who don't.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:47:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.

Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Lol. Read a primer on possible world semantics, then read some plantinga, then get back to me.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:51:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:47:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.

Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Lol. Read a primer on possible world semantics, then read some plantinga, then get back to me.

plantinga even admitted this proves nothing. As the argument could just as easily prove a non-maximality exists, rendering both possible conclusions contradictory.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:57:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand Plantinga's ontological argument, but I would assume by now the ontological argument has been formulated to be immune from Gaunilo's perfect Island objection.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:58:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:51:29 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:47:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.

Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Lol. Read a primer on possible world semantics, then read some plantinga, then get back to me.


plantinga even admitted this proves nothing. As the argument could just as easily prove a non-maximality exists, rendering both possible conclusions contradictory.

I would say lets debate it, but I fear I'd be wasting my time. And that isn't what he said and you're drawing the wrong conclusion from what he actually did say.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:58:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.

Your acting as though you know what makes a maximally great being greater with your completely finite mind.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:01:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:58:59 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.

Your acting as though you know what makes a maximally great being greater with your completely finite mind.

It's like telling a plumber that his plumbing isn't that good even though you've never learned or experienced a day in a plumbers life. You really have no idea how to judge his reasons.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:02:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:58:59 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.

Your acting as though you know what makes a maximally great being greater with your completely finite mind.

I don't know what makes a "maximally great" but I know what makes a better being than that joke presented in the longest joke of human history.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 4:01:42 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:58:59 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.

Your acting as though you know what makes a maximally great being greater with your completely finite mind.

It's like telling a plumber that his plumbing isn't that good even though you've never learned or experienced a day in a plumbers life. You really have no idea how to judge his reasons.

If my toilet's is not getting fixed, I can safely say that he isn't a very good plumber and their likely better ones out there. You're simply assuming that this plumber is the best there is so better shut up, bend over, and take it in the arse.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:04:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 4:02:36 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:58:59 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.

Your acting as though you know what makes a maximally great being greater with your completely finite mind.

I don't know what makes a "maximally great" but I know what makes a better being than that joke presented in the longest joke of human history.

Refute or ignore...You have chosen to ignore it instead and dish out insults about the "maximally great" aspect of the ontological argument. That sounds quite like....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:04:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 4:02:36 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:58:59 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:51:52 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:30:41 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:13:44 AM, kohai wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:18:39 AM, Contradiction wrote:
Lol, because I think there's a relevant difference between God and various other parodies. Hence the term "intrinsic maximum"

Read some Plantinga and get back to me.

Then add intristinct before maximally.


Btw, since when does possible existence mean necessary existence? Izbo is right that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

Not that I'm a Theist but it is not special pleading. God is non-contingent and cannot be conceived to be any greater. Any other proposition like a coffee pot is contingent and is also not maximally great as it can be conceived to be better.

Yes he can. I can concieve a god that won't kill you if you see his face. Boom, better god concieved.

Your acting as though you know what makes a maximally great being greater with your completely finite mind.

I don't know what makes a "maximally great" but I know what makes a better being than that joke presented in the longest joke of human history.

Hmmm, sounds more like a personal hatred in your life and not based on truth.