Here's what a priest told us today, to "prove" their god's existence.
St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm's proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm's proof).
The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm's proof is summarized here:
1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.
I'm not a Christian by the way, I just took notes on what the priest said. Doing some research, I found out he basically word for word stole it from here: http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html
Well, well, well...
This one always cracks me up and makes me wonder how anyone could keep a straight face presenting it as serious.
God is real because we imagined him to be real and our imagined god couldn't actually be this imagined all powerful being unless it is real therefore it is real.
I think someone was smoking something when they came up with it and others were like...wow, Man...that's deep. And the rest don't think it makes sense but assume they aren't smart enough to understand it.
I love #2 because it's basically saying "God is possible, because we say so, and doesn't contradict itself, because we say so."
The rest are also "because we say so"'s.
This is the most flawed argument I have heard for a long time. It implies that anything that can be thought could exist, it also states "the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions" which is blatantly rubbish with atheists that have come from a theistic belief being proof that the thought did cause contradictions, not to mention those that do believe but doubt their belief in a god at some point. This doesn't even belong in an A-level philosophy class it is that silly.
The Ontological Argument fails for one simple reason, it's a presuppositional argument. One must presuppose that a god exists, as what Anselm does. Then Anselm formulates the "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" proof, which is not proof at all. In all its forms, from Anselm, Descarte, Plantinga and others, the ontological argument has been debunked.
Anselm thought some things are good and some things are better than others. Something then must be the supreme good which nothing can be better, and this is God. Incredibly flawed argument. Anselm thought God is the supreme sum of all good qualities and argued for a very expansive view of god as perfect in all good qualities...and that includes logic and Anselm's inference that god is above logic. The problem is if God was above logic, he could make 2 + 2 = 5 if and when he desires. In Anselm's view, if god is omnipotent, then he must be truly omnipotent in the most expansive manner. Anselm simply never thought of God and logic in this way.
Postulating the existence of something (the ontological argument) does not necessarily mean that that something exists. Continuing this further, existence is not a predicate of something. It is not an attribute to be added to something. Existence is not a characteristic that something may have or lack. Anselm cannot say, "Put all the gods that exist in one cage and all the gods that do not exist in the other", which is what I asked Isok some time back. I didn't get an answer from him either. Nor could Anselm say "Put the God that is that than which nothing greater can be conceived in one cage and all the other lesser gods in another cage." There is a logical difference between saying "God is" and "God is X". Anselm tried to do both - mixing both and it didn't work, except for the gullible.
Funny thing is, the priest said "This is proof that God exists, and even a godless atheist can't argue against it." (He likes to stab atheists almost every day.)
I think it's interesting how he tried to explain what philosophy was, and he started by making this statement: "Everything in your mind comes from one of two processes, 1. Seeing and 2. Being told.
Ways> Seeing Being Told
What We Do> Learning Trusting
Sources> Reason Revalation
Knowledge> Philosophy Faith
He then went on to say that we use philosophy every day, and he gave the example of when somebody says "That's stupid" we're using philosophy to say "that's illogical." This makes absolutely no sense...
Then we went on to Relativism, which was defined as "depends on the situation and the person" while Absoluteism (sounded like a made-up word at first) meant in ALL cases, something is right or wrong.
If god is what I make him/she out to be, can he/she be Aslan from Narnia? He's a badass lion god.
I can't believe someone put that forward as 'proof' for the existence of god, without at some point thinking to themselves 'this argument is incredibly stupid and makes no sense and prooves nothing whatsoever...I'd better just keep this to myself'
it makes no logical sense to me, maybe the priest was just hoping to bamboozle you with his nonsensical argument
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 07, 2011, 12:40:10 PM
I can't believe someone put that forward as 'proof' for the existence of god, without at some point sthinking to themselves 'this argument is incredibly stupid and makes no sense and prooves nothing whatsoever...I'd better just keep this to myself'
it makes no logical sense to me, maybe the priest was just hoping to bamboozle you with his nonsensical argument
This is a classic example of exploiting the 'argument from authority' where one relies on the innate gullibility of the young in a teaching environment, where the pupil is not expecting the teacher to lie or mis-lead them. Classic indoctrination.
you could hear my bullshit alarm ringing from down the street as I was reading this 'proof'
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 07, 2011, 01:37:39 PM
you could hear my bullshit alarm ringing from down the street as I was reading this 'proof'
I agree. It almost hurts to read such rubbish!
This would almost be funny if it wasn't so disturbing that he meant it seriously.
Did he say this during a sermon?
I wish you guys would take it a bit easier on the Catholics.
Since use of the rack has gone out of favour they've had a hard time proving stuff.
Have some sympathy.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 03:06:46 PM
I wish you guys would take it a bit easier on the Catholics.
Since use of the rack has gone out of favour they've had a hard time proving stuff.
Have some sympathy.
:D too true. Sure we'd all have been tortured then burnt alive 500 years ago for laughing at such a 'proof' of god's existence
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 07, 2011, 03:30:49 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 03:06:46 PM
I wish you guys would take it a bit easier on the Catholics.
Since use of the rack has gone out of favour they've had a hard time proving stuff.
Have some sympathy.
:D too true. Sure we'd all have been tortured then burnt alive 500 years ago for laughing at such a 'proof' of god's existence
LOL
Why do you think they needed the Inquisition? They haven't got many other ways to convince the non gullible.
1) The Flying Spaghetti Monster flies
2) We know the FSM flies because it's defined as being a Flying Spaghetti Monster
3)There are things in nature that fly
Therefore,
4)The FSM exists.
I was thinking of submitting this to the Church of the FSM...so, what do you think? Good enough?
I like it, but it seems a little too simple to be a religious proof, you need to bamboozle me a bit with illogical statements and presuppositions!
Okay, throw that all out, how about just:
Spaghetti is good, therefore, FSM.
This is good concept, I just can't follow you there.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 05:20:06 PM
I thought you were doing OK but this good concept, I just can't follow you there.
Spaghetti is. Therefor, the monster also is. ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on September 07, 2011, 05:22:40 PM
Spaghetti is. Therefor, the monster also is. ;D
Yes it is, but it doesn't always chose to be, ya know it's often got better things to do.
at the risk of plagiarism, I'd just reuse St. Anselm's irrefutable proof, replacing the three letters 'GOD' with the three letters 'FSM'
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 07, 2011, 05:30:09 PM
at the risk of plagiarism, I'd just reuse St. Anselm's irrefutable proof, replacing the three letters 'GOD' with the three letters 'FSM'
You can't do that, because then it would be...it would be...just as ridiculous. :P
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 05:20:06 PM
I thought you were doing OK but this good concept, I just can't follow you there.
Blasphemy!
Trial: you shall eat nought but spaghetti till you change your ways and see that saucy noodles are good. Then, when you pass into the next world, you shall gorge yourself on spaghetti with other spaghetti affecionados till the end of eternity in the mighty presence of His Noodliness. Whoops, eternity has no end. ;D It's noodles forever. :(
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 05:47:20 PM
at the risk of plagiarism, I'd just reuse St. Anselm's irrefutable proof, replacing the three letters 'GOD' with the three letters 'FSM'
;D It's noodles forever. :(
[/quote]
That would be true for most but I've got a pirate surname, a dodgy office mso.dll and a tricorn hat.
This is hilarious. ;D
Damn it... Now I want pasta alfredo.
Wow, I'm tempted to make this a daily thing. "Crap from the Catholics." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. ;D
Quote from: highway17 on September 07, 2011, 11:50:41 PM
Wow, I'm tempted to make this a daily thing. "Crap from the Catholics." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. ;D
It could go on forever xD
NO ONE SUSPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 08, 2011, 12:14:16 AM
NO ONE SUSPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
LOL Now this thread's been made, that quote had to happen sometime ;D Though I think, if I'm correct in thinking that you're quoting Monty Python, it's 'expects' and not 'suspects'. Everybody but the Catholics suspect the Spanish Inquisistion :P
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 08, 2011, 12:45:32 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 08, 2011, 12:14:16 AM
NO ONE SUSPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
LOL Now this thread's been made, that quote had to happen sometime ;D Though I think, if I'm correct in thinking that you're quoting Monty Python, it's 'expects' and not 'suspects'. Everybody but the Catholics suspect the Spanish Inquisistion :P
"Those were the Catholics of old. We're not like that anymore."
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 08, 2011, 12:45:32 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 08, 2011, 12:14:16 AM
NO ONE SUSPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
LOL Now this thread's been made, that quote had to happen sometime ;D Though I think, if I'm correct in thinking that you're quoting Monty Python, it's 'expects' and not 'suspects'. Everybody but the Catholics suspect the Spanish Inquisistion :P
NO ONE SUSPECTS TO EXPECT THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Actually, we had a day where we talked about the Spanish Inquisition, and the priest basically passed the blame to the Muslims, saying "the Catholic's didn't really do that much...they we're fighting in the name of God, our almightly lord and savior." Well, if a Lutheran came-a-knockin' at my door telling me to convert or get out of the state I live in, yeah I'd be a bit pissed too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Quote from: Gawen on September 08, 2011, 12:55:52 AM
"Those were the Catholics of old. We're not like that anymore."
True, people aren't allowed to actually burn others these days...
Quote from: highway17 on September 08, 2011, 01:29:30 AM
Actually, we had a day where we talked about the Spanish Inquisition, and the priest basically passed the blame to the Muslims, saying "the Catholic's didn't really do that much...they we're fighting in the name of God, our almightly lord and savior." Well, if a Lutheran came-a-knockin' at my door telling me to convert or get out of the state I live in, yeah I'd be a bit pissed too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
They blame the secular powers, who would execute some that were found guilty of heresy, which of course, is a religious offense.
The type who don't want to get their hands, from palm to fingers, dirty. ::)
Yeah, those catholics are such NICE people, not responsible for anything. e_e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_(torture)
nothing going on here, just a friendly bit of Bible study...
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg641.imageshack.us%2Fimg641%2F9104%2Fcatholicchristiantortur.gif&hash=89f966bb3ada2e16a06ed416f5f1106eced7b3a5) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/catholicchristiantortur.gif/)
I remember when I was younger, I would go back and forth between "the catholics aren't that bad, some priests are nice" to "the catholic church is absolutely horrible."
They are absolutely horrible. People are nice, the church isn't, with all the stuff they shrug off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
It kinda makes you wonder, does this religion know what they're doing? Do they blantently shrug this stuff off, or is their mind so locked down, that they're just robots muttering the same excuse of "God does this, and God does that" etc.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 08, 2011, 10:00:43 AM
nothing going on here, just a friendly bit of Bible study...
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg641.imageshack.us%2Fimg641%2F9104%2Fcatholicchristiantortur.gif&hash=89f966bb3ada2e16a06ed416f5f1106eced7b3a5) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/catholicchristiantortur.gif/)
That picture is often wrongly attributed to the church.
It is actually a portrayal of an early meeting of the chiropractors guild.
There were of course close links between guild and church during the inquisition, some scholars even claim there were plans to absorb the guild as an order within the church. Both parties now deny this, but whatever the truth of the matter it is undeniable the church's need for the guild's services declined rapidly with the demise of the inquisition.
I always knew Chiropractors weren't really doctor's...
Quote from: highway17 on September 09, 2011, 04:11:43 AM
I always knew Chiropractors weren't really doctor's...
Yeah, they just like to call themselves "Dr". Those evil
chiro hands!
So scary @ photo. D:
to be fair, I heard the chap on the wheel never had any problems with his back again, he was cured for good. I do like the chiropractor on the left who's avidly taking notes, maybe it was a university class.
Hold on a tic....you may have it all wrong. That looks suspiciously like an early stress test. Apparently, the picture shows the victim...ummm...I mean, patient is not stressed enough, hence the coals and bellows. The man taking notes is clearly a doctor.
---------------------------------------
This could also be seen as a treatment for scoliosis and the heat is used to soften the bones in the body.
---------------------------------------
It has been purported that this picture is a depiction of an obscure and mostly hitherto unknown medievil (pun intended) society of cannibals living in the Urals. The towel was draped over the main dish's unmentionables and kept wet as that part was eaten raw. Females were never eaten because females were the sole creators of the food source. The man with the paper and pen is not a man at all, but a woman and the chief cook. The beard and male pattern baldness were indications of extreme levels of testosterone most likely brought about from eating exclusively male food.
Quote from: highway17 on September 09, 2011, 01:42:50 AM
I remember when I was younger, I would go back and forth between "the catholics aren't that bad, some priests are nice" to "the catholic church is absolutely horrible."
They are absolutely horrible. People are nice, the church isn't, with all the stuff they shrug off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
It kinda makes you wonder, does this religion know what they're doing? Do they blantently shrug this stuff off, or is their mind so locked down, that they're just robots muttering the same excuse of "God does this, and God does that" etc.
My Dad recently attended a meeting for Catholics about the sex abuse scandals. His position was that the church should stop settling out of court and start actually fighting some of the accusations because, surely, "some of the people must be making it up." Because yes, surely, so many grown men (and women) want to identify as being sexually assaulted, have their past and personal life totally invaded, possibly be ostracized from their church entirely, just to make a quick buck.
Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the church settles out of court a lot of the time because they KNOW how many sex abuse cases there are and they KNOW that not everyone has come forward. If there are more investigations, everyone might see how deep the rabbit hole really goes.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 09, 2011, 02:22:37 PM
If there are more investigations, everyone might see how deep the rabbit hole really goes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh-Ecttsn3o
I hope the pope watches South Park!
How disgusting that anyone would think a person would lie about the sexual assault in church. I hope these old crones go down SOON. I want to see them thrown rotten fruit, and much worse.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 09, 2011, 10:45:41 AM
to be fair, I heard the chap on the wheel never had any problems with his back again, he was cured for good. I do like the chiropractor on the left who's avidly taking notes, maybe it was a university class.
Could be...could be...they routinely claim that they invented the scientific method...
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 09, 2011, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 09, 2011, 10:45:41 AM
to be fair, I heard the chap on the wheel never had any problems with his back again, he was cured for good. I do like the chiropractor on the left who's avidly taking notes, maybe it was a university class.
Could be...could be...they routinely claim that they invented the scientific method...
Do they really? O_o
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 09, 2011, 05:26:13 PM
How disgusting that anyone would think a person would lie about the sexual assault in church. I hope these old crones go down SOON. I want to see them thrown rotten fruit, and much worse.
My father likes willful ignorance. My best friend is gay and, in the ten years that we've been friends, my Dad hasn't and won't acknowledge that my friend's sexuality even exists. He's nice as pie to him, and he knows that he's important to me, but that's his Catholic thinking. If you ignore the things you don't like, they don't exist. Which I guess is marginally better than trying outright persecute people? Maybe? a little?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 09, 2011, 06:46:38 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 09, 2011, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 09, 2011, 10:45:41 AM
to be fair, I heard the chap on the wheel never had any problems with his back again, he was cured for good. I do like the chiropractor on the left who's avidly taking notes, maybe it was a university class.
Could be...could be...they routinely claim that they invented the scientific method...
Do they really? O_o
Yes. At least the Catholics who post at a forum called Phatmass do, though most of them I guess are of the more conservative and doctrinal type. They credit The Catholic Church for indirectly inventing the scientific method, during the late Middle Ages and definitely incorporate that achievement as their own. They say that it was it came into existence as a way for philosophers to try and find natural reasons for god's existence, which is, of course, ridiculous.
^Oh geez, that's so stupid...
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 10, 2011, 06:14:50 AMYes. At least the Catholics who post at a forum called Phatmass do, though most of them I guess are of the more conservative and doctrinal type. They credit The Catholic Church for indirectly inventing the scientific method, during the late Middle Ages and definitely incorporate that achievement as their own. They say that it was it came into existence as a way for philosophers to try and find natural reasons for god's existence, which is, of course, ridiculous.
That's the same explaination this "Catholic Morality" class gave.