And this all men call God

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 29 2005, 11:19 PM']

Photons are, of course, all 100% identical but individually distinguishable upon detection.

Look at all this fun you have while I am responsibly trying to work!  I've enjoyed your... um, autodebate. 

We should have a quantum mechanics topic.
[right][snapback]839499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ah yes, a quantum mechanics topic would be phunny.

I need to tap into the brew if I'm gonna get into it though, its just the way I am.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 29 2005, 10:47 PM']well not really related, but following what jeff has posted on Anselm's arguments...

my book goes into a quick over veiw of arguments, the author gives examples of a 'perfect island' put foward by a monk named Gaunilo, but the author (as Anselm seems to have done) handles these with ease, stating that the definition of God itself is the highest of perfection while a perfect island is founded on our idea of island which is contingent.  The author moves to Kant's objections, but shows that Anselm devided existence in understanding and existence in reality, and that it was just as rational  to believe in God as it is to not believe in a squared circle.

The author does leave 2 arguments at a 'draw'.  He presents Hume's idea that God is merely a man made idea and just because we put together an idea of God doesn't mean it really exists.  But is just a restatement of Guanilo's argument?  Doesn't Hume have to actually attack the definition of God as being perfect to get anywhere with this line?  As soon as you accept Anselm's definition, it becomes more perfect that God actually exist :. He does.  Or am I way over simplifying the power behind Hume's argument?

The other objection is that there is some hidden contradiction not yet found in the term God that makes it a squared circle.

The last sentence regarding all this sums it as "the ontological argument establishes not the truth of theism but its rational acceptability"
[right][snapback]839477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


First, Gaunilo's rebuttle is trivial, and almost no scholar of the Ontological Argument really takes it seriously.

Second, Hume is not the person you want to go to in order to counter the Ontological Argument. In his [i]Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understanding[/i] Hume makes the argument that we cannot actually understand what we mean when we say the word "God" because (like causality) there is no way that we could come to an understanding of such an idea simply by way of sensory experience. However, if we agree with Hume and admit to not knowing what "God" means, then we leave ourselves utterly unable to refute the ontological argument, because we have made one of the terms meaningless (and you cannot refute what you do not understand).

Now, if you wish for a more serious critique of the ontological argument, I would suggest reading Section 4 in Chapter III of the second book of Immanuel Kant's [i]Critique of Pure Reason[/i], in which he argues that "exists" is not a real predicate.

Finally, the argument that "there is some hidden contradiction not yet found in the term God that makes it a squared circle" is not a valid argument, since it rests on nothing more than a future hope and a gut feeling.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:52 PM']you're so cool.
[right][snapback]839437[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

you rule more than I do :

[Semalsia]

[quote name='JeffCR07']and this being would in fact be even greater than either of the other two.[/quote]

But no infinity can be said to be greater than other infinities. So why would it be greater?

I think it would be equal. And thus no god takes away from the greatness of other gods.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 30 2005, 02:56 PM'][quote name='JeffCR07']and this being would in fact be even greater than either of the other two.[/quote]

But no infinity can be said to be greater than other infinities. So why would it be greater?

I think it would be equal. And thus no god takes away from the greatness of other gods.
[right][snapback]840047[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

With no offense intended, I think you have misunderstood the terms implicit in the discussion.

If you are speaking of a true infinity (rather than a mathematical infinity), then it is impossible to conceive of "two." This is because True Infinity connotes not simply an endless set, but rather that which is in relation to nothing but itself, and is therefore definitionally singular.