[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 80 KB, 341x512, anselm of canterbury.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17744206 No.17744206 [Reply] [Original]

>"God exists"

is there a worse """philosopher""" than Anselm?

>> No.17744207

but he's right

>> No.17744209
File: 1.93 MB, 320x454, Deal.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.17744237
File: 493 KB, 1080x1036, 1615013156432.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mfw the fact that we have a concept of god proves that he must exist

>> No.17744247
File: 2.35 MB, 200x200, 1615149537745.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>you need to prove Gods existence

>> No.17744266

All else aside that is one fly looking nigga.

>> No.17744274
File: 208 KB, 480x480, 1599461752055.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>we have a concept of god
>if he is god, he must be the greatest of all possible beings
>what is good is better and more powerful if it exists in reality and not just conceptually
>so a god that exists in reality is better than a god that exists only conceptually
>but one greatest of all possible beings cannot be greater than another greatest of all possible beings
>therefore god must exist

What is this black magic? How do you refute this shit?

>> No.17744283

Third argument is that 3d > 2d, which is where he totally lost me

>> No.17744290
File: 58 KB, 1000x470, e5e2ebf7c028f743dfd2ae2a1b39cc4e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>How do you refute this shit?

>> No.17744298

By positing that the greatest being would still be subject to the definitions and limitations of Being proper. To exist is to be limited. God, due to being almighty, can therefore not exist. Unless he is Being proper I guess. But than he wouldn't be the greatest being, but rather the distributor of greatness.

>> No.17744314

'God' didn't come into being until man came into being. Conceptualization of God, therefore God, did not exist before that. Instead He was that He was, so to say.

>> No.17744316

Some imaginary island isn't necessarily the greatest of all possible beings

>> No.17744320

Or, father is not a father until a child is born.

>> No.17744327

God doesn't "exist".

God is.

>> No.17744333

I have a concept of /god/, the greatest board on 4chan

what is good is better and more powerful if it exists in reality and not just conceptually

so a 4chan board that exists in reality is better than a 4chan board that exists only conceptually

therefore /god/ exists

>> No.17744347 [DELETED] 

>we have a concept of God
We have a concept of "non-God"

>so a God that exists in realty is better than a God that exists only conceptually


>> No.17744354
File: 25 KB, 640x292, EjRfGTpX0AEEKCL.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.17744359

if i'm starving to death, food in front of me is better than the idea of food right in front of me, no?

>> No.17744362

it's an anagogical 'argument' or better meditation, read the proslogion and monologion.

>> No.17744370


Think of your perfect waifu. No matter what you think of, your perfect waifu will always be better if it exists opposed to being such a figment of your imagination. Even if you believe 2D > 3D (which is correct), your perfect 2D Waifu can still be real (and thus more perfect) than being imaginary.

>> No.17744371

You can't. People have tried forever and it's impossible. God exists. Deal with it gaytheists

>> No.17744372

But a greatest 4chan board does exist, and just because it isn't normally referred to as /god/ doesn't mean it doesn't exist

>> No.17744378

>But a greatest 4chan board does exist

oh yea I forgot about /w/

>> No.17744382

>But a greatest 4chan board does exist

>> No.17744389

>Even if you believe 2D > 3D (which is correct),
holy based

>> No.17744401

because a being that is truly almighty in the strictest sense of the word would be the arbiter of truth, not mortal humans ergo a god that exists must be superior to a human fabricated god out of sheer necessity.

>> No.17744557
File: 209 KB, 725x400, thomas...easy on the communion wafers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Thomas Aquinas provides a refutation of this argument in the First Article of the Second Question of the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica:

Excerpt from: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

>On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:2). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

>I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (I:3:4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

>> No.17744575
File: 1.46 MB, 895x1200, =).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Article 1. Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
>Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

>Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

>Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

These are the claims that Thomas refutes in his objections. cont

>> No.17744595
File: 354 KB, 1220x1600, iesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

>Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

>Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

>> No.17745109

God existing in reality is only an assertion and not a logical conclusion. Existence of God adds nothing to the concept of God which is already all-powerful, all-encompassing etc.
If existence were to increase God's power in any way or whatever, then you weren't actually conceptualizing God.

>> No.17745198

I have a concept of me getting head from michelle pfeiffer like she looked in 1983 right now but

>> No.17745266

But we are dealing with ontology, anon. God is obviously above Being and even intelligibility, to anything exist both are necessary.

>> No.17745283

that also happens to be every argument in favor of free will

>> No.17745298

exactly, just because a maximally great being exist, it doesn't mean he is anythng like the god described in christian teachings

>> No.17745302

something isn't reified by virtue of logical necessity. paradoxes seem necessary and yet they don't apply to reality.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.