How can God not exist?

If you don't like Anselm's argument, this simply means that you have poor imagination.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or a dumbed-down one.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't give anyone real power, but it can give you confidence. I don't think other animals (I should specify social primates) ever accept their low status position.

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
??????????????????????????????

Why do you say that question is irrelevant??

It seems unquestionable to me to think that that question must be asked and answered (of oneself and others).

Seriously, I want to know why you think that question is irrelevant.

You just call that source God. Oh. I'm stumped. One cannot just call things this or that!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with the part about confidence.


In fact, in Buddhism, they even say that it is conceit (ie. the conceit of "If others can do it, so can I", the conceit of "I deserve better than what I currently have, so I will strive for more") that starts people on the path.

 

Signal,

I agree that ''religion'' as in 'the Christian religion' was invented, but there
is documented evidence for that. As far as the concept of ''God'' being invented, thus far I see no evidence or reason of this being the case.

The idea of a 'bogeyman' could have been actual, not invented.
There could have been different types of humanoids living at various times.
And perhaps they were scary to other types.

That is understandable, but it doesn't necessarily follow that God
was a created concept by man. Religion could have been knowledge passed
down from generation to generation on how to live in order to keep the
earth nicely balanced.

The harm that has be done comes from the Judeo-Christian religion, am I correct?

jan.

 

You are saying that the Bible is not the Word of God?

Or perhaps it is a generalization from an actual occurence with an actual person; as in threatening someone with "Charles Manson is going to get you if you don't behave".

Sure, this is a theme common to many, if not most religious traditions.

The Abrahamic religions do take the lead in doing harm in the name of religion, yes.

But Hindus, too, often have a nasty supremacy trip against Westerners and others.

There is a lot of domestic violence in Hindu families and violence against women that is supposedly justified with the Vedic culture ("the husband is superior and always right, therefore, he can hold his wife's face to a hot stowe plate and she must accept this as just and right and godly"). Dowry deaths. Acid throwing.

The gross and subtle abuse that occurs in Western communities that have adopted Eastern religions.

 

That's deism and it's not a religion.

 

god is the adults' boogyman is the most interesting thought i heard in quite a long time.
i also got to understand the ontological argument after failing for quite some time then giving up.
this thread gets an excellent rating.
hats off to Signal

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

though, the boogyman serves a good purpose, and if it {religion} ever was bad for humanity natural selection would filter it out, however it's still persisting to today.

so even if god doesn't exist, and that was the truth, then atheists should stop trying to tell the rest of the world of that fact, no?

 

I think the jury is still out on that, religion combined with nukes could very well mean the end of our species.

 

I think that I might be inclined to agree with Dywyddyr there.

Right. (I wouldn't call it a "proof" though.) But the ontological argument simultaneously concerns the cognitive content of the concept of God. That ambiguity creates an inner tension the argument.

So can any of our human concepts really be a concept of God? That's a place where the ontological argument can perhaps be employed as a disproof of God.

'That than which nothing greater can be conceived' isn't really a concept of God at all. It's more of a formula or a function suggesting where the actual content of the concept of God is to be found: presumably in early medieval Christian Platonism's world of transcendental ideas. One would have to be an angel, and perhaps God himself, in order to fully conceive the concept of God.

Human beings are finite and imperfect by their nature. There would seem to be inherent limitations on the concepts that humans can entertain and in the language with which those concepts are expressed. All of our religious ideas are going to be inherently flawed and fall short of what might ideally be conceived.

So it would seem that any existing human concept of God can't really be a concept of God at all. We are left with a non-conceptual apophaticism in which the language of church doctrine and Biblical revelation lose their divine reference.

And that's not dissimilar to the atheist conclusion.

 

One of the common criticisms of the ontological argument is indeed exactly that; that only God could use it to prove to himself that he exists.

 

Whatever. How does this negate the idea that being provable to some suggests that God can be reduced to human understanding, which thus reduces his Anselm-based "greatness"?

According to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You might want to ask the Japanese, for example, whether a better understanding of earthquakes would aid survivability or not. :shrug:

If you think rationality is a straw then that may explain much with your thinking.

I'm not assuming they wanted to "so bad"... anthropomorphisation of that which they couldn't explain, giving those in power a supposed authority from which to hold power of their own over the rest of their people.

So now you resort to "la la la I'm not listening"??

First you are continuing to state that they are invoking something that does not exist (by which you mean not based on anything actually existing) yet you continue to stick your fingers in your ear when people provide you with what what you are looking for. You have been provided with such details, and now it is for you to counter those with more than just "la la la I'm not listening!".

Then go and read about it, Jan.
You could do much worse than wikipedia (e.g. here) as an initial read... and if you want more then look to the bibliography/references provided there.

That which will satisfy their curiosity, and which will aid survivability.

It was NOT alien to their day to day life. You keep bleating on about it being so, yet fail to register any actual point in your favour.

Then open your eyes, Jan, and take your fingers out of your ears. You are doing nothing here but saying "I disagree" with nothing else to support your position.

 

This!

Also, I think religion will eventually disappear. All this Atheism, agnosticism, neo atheism and others are just symptoms that this change is happening. Slowly but steadily as we become increasingly more aware of our surroundings. Please don't flame me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If I can conceive of a building taller than any skyscraper that will ever be constructed in all of humanity's future existence, does that mean such a building actually exists? Am I conceiving an infinite building, or just a building taller than any finite one we could ever imagine constructing?

 

The monkey on your shoulder. He is you friend he is you foe depending on which way the wind blows . He is the Monkey .

 

Congrats on your post number 1000 Me-Ki!!

Having said that: "HOW CAN YOU CALL GOD A MONKEY YOU GODLESS SODOMITE BLASPHEMIST!!!" (just kidding

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I doubt that, but it could be a minority, that would be an advancement.