It's not impossible to explain at all. It's quite well explained in evolutionary theory.

Except for the fact that this Off Topic forum, which *used* to be exclusive to Stardock game sites, is now accessible on Joe Loser. So there is no point in moving the conversation, it's already there.

\

 

True . Still, there are many questions. Like when did simple compounds come together to make

the first cell? There are so many questions, yet so few answers .

Yep, Kryo outlines the rules here.

OTF Political, Religious and Inflammatory Threads

Which may mean there is an appropiate thread at JL for this discussion.

 

Interesting topic tbh.

First of all,

Thats a contradiction. The definition of God is the perfect "being". You cant have something that is more than perfect. God is the highest "being", anything higher then him is God.

And to the people who dont believe in God, you worked this out by logic? I think logic is very unreliable in itself. Example on how to prove God's existence with logic:


Definition of God: That than which nothing greater can be concieved".
Step 1: Imagine God
Step 2: God exists in the mind
Step 3: Something that exists in the mind AND reality, is greater then something that exists ONLY in the mind.
Step 4: Therefore if God is to be "something that nothing greater can be concieved of". he must exist in the mind and reality. If he only existed in the mind, then you could imagine something even greater - a God that existed in the mind AND reality. That contradicts the definiton of God.
Step 5: Therefore God exists.

The purest form of logic in five steps, explain right above

Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.

 

No, most scientists believe there is a date at which the Universe began it's current state of existance.

 

If you don't see the gaping holes in that 'logic', then I don't know what to say...

Please point out the gaps.
Philosophers have been trying for hundreds of years and failed.

Actually Coelocanth, that argument is logical. Ask any phylosophy

professor. It's hard to explain, but mental beliefes can also be interpreted

as reality. These step helps set up a mental belief, which can be interpreted as

reality, and thus it is  logical.

Coelcanth, its called the Ontological Arugment btw

Actually if you look up "Ontological Argument" on wikipedia you will see that nearly all modern day philosophers find the original argument you posted (Anselm's) to be invalid.  There are a few people going through linguistic contortions to try to make a new version of it, but so far they have been shot down by other philosophers as well.

 

Anyway, there are several flaws, first, in the premises:

"That which than nothing greater" - the word "greater" is a loaded term.  What's great for you may not be great for me.  In fact, I'd say the word "great" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.  When I imagine the "greatest" sandwich that can be conceived of, it's probably very different than the "greatest" sandwich you would imagine.

1) Imagine God.   - It's not actually possible to imagine God, since no one has any idea what they're talking about when they use that word and there's no actual definitive version of God, and no way to know if what you're imagining is God or not.  I could imagine a ham sandwich and claim that I'm imagining God.  But is that true?  How do I know that what I'm imagining is the "greatest" thing, or even great at all?  It's clear that Frosted Flakes are grrreat, but with other things, their level of greatness is questionable.

2) "It's greater to exist physically than just in the mind" - says who?  Again, this is opinion and usage of the weasel-word "great".  But let's say we accept this argument; it doesn't really matter that much.

3) "Therefore God must exist" - this is the logical fallacy, the "base assertion" fallacy I believe it's called.  The only thing you can actually prove with the above two things would be something like "Therefore, the definition of God would include him actually existing."  The only reason you'd conclude that he ACTUALLY exists is if you assumed that your definition at the beginning was describing something that actually exists, and that's begging the question.  For example, if I said "The definition of 'Dream Angelina Jolie' is that she's a clone of Angelina Jolie but she is also my girlfriend." and "In order to be my girlfriend, she'd have to exist", it (unfortunately) does not prove "Therefore, Dream Angelina Jolie exists and is my girlfriend."  The only thing it proves is "Therefore, the definition of Dream Angelina Jolie would have to include existence as one of her traits".

 

 

[/thread]

For what it's worth, I read the ontological argument, or at least this thread's phrasing of it, as a logical proof that you can't prove that God exists since it (supposedly) uses logic to prove that he in fact does, and as an extension of that, that in some things logic need not apply for the job-which I understood to be the original intent of DalzK's post.

Thats why I said the following in my post:



Yes its a hard word to define, buts its meaning is really quite accepted by everyone. For example, we all know what Hate and Love is, but how can we define it? Just because its hard to define it doesnt make it invalid. Great can be subjective in certain circumanstances (e.g. whats the greatest sandwhich) but in the Onotlogical argument context, its not really.


You can "imagine God". You just cant imagine A LOT of his qualities (if not all) as they are out of our world/experience. I can tell you now that I am imagining him now - for a fact. Although I cant actually know for sure a lot of things about him, i can still "imagine" him.

Still, if you disagree with my points above, just replace the step "Imagine God" with "Imagine Something" and "God exists in the mind only" and "Something exists in the mind only" and the argument will still work.

Would you rather exist in the mind only, or in the mind and reality?

And I never said "it's greater to exist physically than just in the mind". I said "its greater to exist physically AND in the mind than just the mind". Its generally accepted that this is the case, however the majority of people would agree that its greater to exist in both than just one. And with God specifically, a God that existed in the mind and reality would be superior and have more control than the God that just existed in the mind (which is the point of the argument).

 

We can embrace love; it's not too late.
Why do we sleep, instead, with hate?
Belief requires no suspension
to see that Hell is our invention.
We make Hell real; we stoke its fires.
And in its flames our hope expires.
Heaven, too, is merely our creation.
We can grant ourselves our own salvation.
All that's required is imagination.

-The Book of Counted Sorrows,Dean Koontz

Anyone looking for reading material in this subject I highly recommend Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by physists Stephen M. Barr. Its a look at the conflict between materialist (Believes nothing exists but matter) and reliegion. He examines what he calls five plot twists, which includes the big bang, anthropic coinsidences, and studies on the humna mind.