Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

rsl12 · 12-10-2003, 02:58 AM

Everyone seems to be bring up good points--it seems there are two arguments for god's existence:

1. the "god is the greatest thing possible to conceive" argument, which states that a god that doesn't exist is not as great as a god that does exist, and therefore, by definition of what a god is (the greatest thing), he must exist.

Analogous argument: The best way to travel from washington to tokyo is by teleportation, but teleportation is not available to us. However, if teleportation was available, the fact that it was available would make it a MUCH nicer option than some theoretical construct of teleportation that doesn't exist. Therefore, the best way to travel from washington to toyko is by using teleportation that does exist.

2. The "necessary" argument: Anselm seems to be saying that everything that exists is "necessary", whatever "necessary" means. Nothing is extraneous in the world. Moreover, if something doesn't exist, it's out of necessity that it doesn't exist! Since the universe does not need god's absence, since the universe is not dependent on god not being around, he must exist.

Analogous argument: had a hard time thinking of one. That's a MESSED UP argument right there. Hm--how about this: since the universe does not need a peanut butter sandwich on jupiter, since it's not dependent on a peanut butter sandwich being somewhere on jupiter, that sandwich must exist.

that's not a good analogous argument there though. you could say that the universe needs the laws of physics to be followed, and the laws of physics say you shouldn't have a peanut butter sandwich on jupiter.

how about this: it's not necessary that quarks (or whatever happens to be the most elementary particle) are not made up of 10,000 dancing flamingo-shaped particle-like things that, combined, behave like we expect a quark to behave. Since it's not necessary that they are not like that, they must be like that.

I'm not happy with that analogy either. THat's a MESSED UP argument right there.

12-10-2003, 02:58 AM	#8 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	Everyone seems to be bring up good points--it seems there are two arguments for god's existence: 1. the "god is the greatest thing possible to conceive" argument, which states that a god that doesn't exist is not as great as a god that does exist, and therefore, by definition of what a god is (the greatest thing), he must exist. Analogous argument: The best way to travel from washington to tokyo is by teleportation, but teleportation is not available to us. However, if teleportation was available, the fact that it was available would make it a MUCH nicer option than some theoretical construct of teleportation that doesn't exist. Therefore, the best way to travel from washington to toyko is by using teleportation that does exist. 2. The "necessary" argument: Anselm seems to be saying that everything that exists is "necessary", whatever "necessary" means. Nothing is extraneous in the world. Moreover, if something doesn't exist, it's out of necessity that it doesn't exist! Since the universe does not need god's absence, since the universe is not dependent on god not being around, he must exist. Analogous argument: had a hard time thinking of one. That's a MESSED UP argument right there. Hm--how about this: since the universe does not need a peanut butter sandwich on jupiter, since it's not dependent on a peanut butter sandwich being somewhere on jupiter, that sandwich must exist. that's not a good analogous argument there though. you could say that the universe needs the laws of physics to be followed, and the laws of physics say you shouldn't have a peanut butter sandwich on jupiter. how about this: it's not necessary that quarks (or whatever happens to be the most elementary particle) are not made up of 10,000 dancing flamingo-shaped particle-like things that, combined, behave like we expect a quark to behave. Since it's not necessary that they are not like that, they must be like that. I'm not happy with that analogy either. THat's a MESSED UP argument right there. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.