Decartes on Proving God's Existence

[Sophus]

I don't accept his ontological arguments for god, so I'm hardly closed minded to seeing flaws. I already mentioned that I thought they were flawed, and why. That hardly makes them "absolutely pathetic". So your attempted redirect is misplaced.

Of course! "Yeah, I could totally rip that to shreds, but I chose not to..."

If the Bible said the sky was phantasmagoric barrage of red and purple lights I would never be able to convince a Christian the sky is blue. That's why recently I've tried to figure out if going into the meat of an argument is going to be worth it. I don't want to debate lawyers, I want to debate scientists. I've yet to figure out which you are.

So we agreed that they're flawed but not to the same degree? How can flawed arguements be brilliant?   You've just completely lost me.

[Hitsumei]

I don't want to debate lawyers, I want to debate scientists. I've yet to figure out which you are.

I'm a homemaker, see my profile.

So we agreed that they're flawed but not to the same degree? How can flawed arguements be brilliant?  

[Sophus]

You must not think anything is brilliant, or that some have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions.

I think Tolle is brilliant but that doesn't mean I still don't think his reasons for believing in god or classifying all ego as a sickness is pathetic.

Though I notice how you are still evading

Now I don't know if we're on the same page or not. Are there parts that you agree with? If so bring them up and we'll discuss them.

[Hitsumei]

I think Tolle is brilliant but that doesn't mean I still don't think his reasons for believing in god or classifying all ego as a sickness is pathetic.

This isn't a response to what I said -- or have I found you?  

Now I don't know if we're on the same page or not. Are there parts that you agree with? If so bring them up and we'll discuss them.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what his arguments are.

[Sophus]

This isn't a response to what I said -- or have I found you?  :|

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what his arguments are.

There is a dog gone link at the beginning of this entry.    Are you going to answer the original question?

[Hitsumei]

This isn't a response to what I said -- or have I found you?  :|

I guess you didn't quite grasp what I meant by me finding you then. If you agree that one's arguments need not be flawless to be brilliant, then you are no longer lost.

There is a dog gone link at the beginning of this entry.    Are you going to answer the original question?

You are clearly unwilling to outline your brilliant and amazing disproofs, as this is your fifth time refusing to, and attempting to redirect the issue onto me. I don't know if I agree with you about what the flaws are, and I certainly am not going to outline what I think they are before you elucidate your brilliant rebuttals. That would of course defeat the purpose of calling you out on your outlandish boasting.

[Sophus]

I guess you didn't quite grasp what I meant by me finding you then. If you agree that one's arguments need not be flawless to be brilliant, then you are no longer lost.

Certain arguments of Tolle's were brilliant. The pathetic ones were not. I asked "how can a flawed argument be brilliant?".

You are clearly unwilling to outline your brilliant and amazing disproofs, as this is your fifth time refusing to, and attempting to redirect the issue onto me. I don't know if I agree with you about what the flaws are, and I certainly am not going to outline what I think they are before you elucidate your brilliant rebuttals. That would of course defeat the purpose of calling you out on your outlandish boasting.

Not the flaws. The parts you agree with. Jesus Christ.

[Hitsumei]

Certain arguments of Tolle's were brilliant. The pathetic ones were not. I asked "how can a flawed argument be brilliant?".

Then I reiterate my earlier statement: you must think that some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions, or that none are brilliant. These are mutually exclusive.

Not the flaws. The parts you agree with. Jesus Christ.

Which would leave out which parts I thought were flawed. The result is the same.

[Sophus]

Then I reiterate my earlier statement: you must think that some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions, or that none are brilliant. These are mutually exclusive.

Brilliance is not the same as perfection.

Which would leave out which parts I thought were flawed. The result is the same.

Wrong.    Are we or are we not trying to discover new flaws? There's no need to go over material that need not be addressed.

[Hitsumei]

Brilliance is not the same as perfection.

No shit Sherlock, that is why I said that I thought Descartes' arguments were brilliant, regardless of being flawed.  

Wrong.    Are we or are we not trying to discover new flaws? There's no need to go over material that need not be addressed.

The principle of the thing is not important enough for me to continue this dance. You're off the hook.

[Sophus]

No shit Sherlock, that is why I said that I thought Descartes' arguments were brilliant, regardless of being flawed.  

Hmmm... But that would contradict the statement of yours that I was responding to. Nice job.

Flaws cannot be brilliant. The philosopher can be brilliant because of his many perfected philosophies. Though any of the arguments themselves if flawed would not be brilliant. If it has an error in any way it's useless toward proving its crux. If a great man makes one mistake he has enough good deeds to back him up. That doesn't make the mistake good.

The principle of the thing is not important enough for me to contain this dance. You're off the hook.

You're nuts. Ha. All you have to do is bring up the points you think are "bullet proof." Whatever.

[Hitsumei]

Hmmm... But that would contradict the statement of yours that I was responding to. Nice job.

You're being exceptionally obtuse. If you think this, then you really need to read over my posts again.

Regardless of wanting to address the other things you said, if the future can be inferred from the past, then I don't see it going anywhere, so I will just leave things off with you here and now. If I have failed to make my point by now, then I don't think that I am capable of making it to you.

[Sophus]

Then I reiterate my earlier statement: you must think that some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions, or that none are brilliant.

They're either perfect or not brilliant. Oh yeah, I'm dead wrong in thinking you somehow equated brilliance with perfection.

Way to ignore everything else too.    I'm happy now.

[Hitsumei]

I'm going to do this one more time, and then I am going to not respond to you in the future.

I specifically said "you must think" each time, because I clearly said originally that I did not think this.

Equating perfection with brilliance is what you have done, as I said from the beginning that a flawed argument can still be brilliant, and you said that it could not. I then said that you must think that either brilliance does not exist, or some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions.

Now clearly I'm using "perfection" as a modifying adjective for "arguments and positions", and thus am saying that unless you think:

1)Some arguments and positions are completely without flaw, and perfect
2)There exists no brilliant arguments or positions.

You must agree that a flawed argument or position can still be brilliant. I have not said that I think they are mutually exclusive at any time, and that is why I said "you must think" and then outlined the dilemma, as you have said that Descartes' ontological arguments can not be brilliant if flawed.

This is as simplified as I can make it, but I suspect it is stubbornness that has kept you contrary, and not slowness, so it is for that reason that I think replying to you in the future would be a waste of time.

[Sophus]

I'm going to do this one more time, and then I am going to not respond to you in the future.

:eek: