Does the ontological argument explicitly and singularly prove Christianity? Or does it also prove Judaism, Islam, and any other monotheistic religion?
>>1109188
In an incredibly subjective sense, provided that you hold such a stupidly concrete concept of perfection that a catholic might.
>>1109195
And that you're already willing to give both the idea of perfection and god the benefit of the doubt. Though it ought to be perfectly goddamn well obvious (finite brain you apes) that both are impossible to us by the nature which we coin them.
>>1109188
The thought exists as a thought but the thing you're thinking of does not have to exist in the natural world. Shit argument.
The ontological argument 'proves' whatever any person deems "the greatest" as real.
This is also a pretty good indication that it's a pretty shitty argument, since, by definition, there can only be one thing that is "the greatest"
>>1109188
It 'proves' nothing
>>1109188
if god came down to earth what evidence would be left behind, he wouldn't host a talk show every sunday
>>1109236
spooky
It relies on a basis that an abstract and subjective "greatest object" must exist. Greatest in what way? The adjective requires a context of comparison. Greatest in all ways? The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, and there is no evidence. No it does not prove Christianity or anything whatsoever.
If you pretended that logic didn't work, then it wouldn't prove anything because nothing could be proven.
>>1109235
Read the beginning of Spinoza's Ethics.
God can't "come down". That would imply that he isn't omnipresent since you imply He isn't already here. If He wasn't already here, He wouldn't be God.
(Did I get that right?)
>>1109188
>if you can imagine it, its real
the fuck is this? can someone explain how is this even an argument?
Greatness, perfection, etc. are all just arbitrary human abstractions. There's no reason to think that just because we can think of something that meets our standards of greatness or perfection that it has to exist; the universe doesn't give a shit about our standards.
That said, a perfect being (God, we can call it) would have to be all things at all times, utterly unchanging, and utterly satisfied in its own existence. So none of the Gods posited in monotheistic religions (except perhaps something like Neoplatonism) fit the bill. The best approximation I could imagine is the universe itself, but it would only fit the bill if you consider the passage of time (and thus, change) to be an illusion of human perceptions.
>>1111377
Because Anselm was not very bright.
>>1111377
something something logic
something something necessary existence
>>1111377
Think of the greatest shit ever
it is th greatest shit ever, so if it is the greatest shit ever you can add "existing" to it since it is the grteatest shit ever
now step back and think that greatest shit ever might not be the greatest. well now you're thinking of different shit, so the greatest shit ever (which has existence in it) exists
this is some vodoo magic pre ancient verbal words-have-power thing
>>1109358
>God can't "come down".
Uh what about Jesus??? God can be omnipresent and be physically manifested in one location at the same time if you believe Christianity is correct
>>1111822
>pre-ancient
Bruh. Anselm was a medieval "philosopher".
>>1109188
It fails to prove anything about reality. I agree, when I imagine greatest conceivable being it does indeed have the property of existing. but that it only how I am imagining it. if I try to imagine the greatest conceivable man he not only has the property of existing but also has his strength and IQ at the peak of what is physically possible with a human body. does this prove that such a man who has the peak strength and IQ possible for a human body exists? I think not
I'm imagining the greatest burger that my diningroom table could possibly have.
Such a burger would be less great if it did not exist and there were no burger on my dining room table.
therefore the greatest burger that my dining room table could ever have must exist.
hurr durr if you imagine things you can make them come true
>>1109188
lmao what? is this a 2010 troll physics meme?
>>1111901
Right, so he should have known better.
K A N T
A
N
T
retard thread
gj op
>>1109188
If you accept the retarded logical conclusions as true it would mean all religions are true. In fact anything you think of is true.
I just thought of a Super-God that is stronger than all other religions Gods, he has nightly orgies with them. Guess it exists.
Thoughts exist, as thoughts, it doesn't mean there is a some sort of secret world where every fantasy you have exists. They exist in the form of thoughts.
>>1111871
>>1112454
Another thing about Spinoza's ethics is that it makes God a part in every act.
Let's say you pull out a dagger and stab an orphane. Well God was in that dagger, he also in your hand, in you, and in the thoughts and will that made forced the hand. The same would be true for every ugly act you can think of.
God would have been in the Pharisee's and debating himself with Jesus. He would have been the Pilate condemning the Jesus. He would have even been in Satan himself.
>>1112226
this
Critique of Pure Reason BTFO's the five ways
>>1114065
