The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:41 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am
Not me, but the majority of theists claim their God [whatever that it] to be empirically real.
Whatever empirical qualify for scientific "proof".
Many theists rely on existing scientific theory to prove their God exists.
You do know that there is part of empiricism that is beyond scientific reach, right?

Human feelings and emotions. After all empiricism means experience. And we all experience emotions.
I can apply the scientific method to my feelings and you can apply the scientific method to your feelings, but you can't apply the scientific method to my feelings.

That is not a limit of science. That is a limit reality imposes on us.

And so it is entirely possible that whatever theists call God is a real, psychological or even a subconscious emergent empirical phenomenon.
While the majority of theists insist their God is empirically real, I have proven a God in the ultimate sense cannot be empirical rather God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a mere thought. The idea of God is impossible to be empirical in the ultimate sense.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am
Therefore on that basis, there is nothing wrong in my statement as addressed to the theists [not you], i.e.

"To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method."
Anybody who tries to "prove" anything outside of Mathematics is very misguided.
Courts which has proven murders beyond reasonable doubt and sentence some to death are very misguided?

Logik
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:41 am
While the majority of theists insist their God is empirically real, I have proven a God in the ultimate sense cannot be empirical rather God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a mere thought.
Thoughts are not transcendental? Thoughts happen in brains. Brains are not transcendental.
Neuroscientists can detect and even read thoughts.

To believe that thoughts are transcendental is a transcendental idea in and of itself!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:41 am
The idea of God is impossible to be empirical in the ultimate sense.
In the ultimate sense science is a subset of empiricism. All science is empiricism. All empiricism is not science.

Therefore it is possible for God to be empirical AND being outside the domain of science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am
Courts which has proven murders beyond reasonable doubt and sentence some to death are very misguided?
Courts which have "proven" murders beyond reasonable doubt are entirely subjective. Quantify "reasonable".

Is 1 in 100 probability of false positive "reasonable"?
Is 1 in 1000 reasonable?
1 in a million?
5 million?

What margin of error (e.g probability of wrongfully convicting and sentencing an innocent person to death) do you consider "reasonable"?
Where do you draw the line?

It is an ethical dilemma - a trolley problem.

Refer to Chapter 5, Bayesian Law ( https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712 ).

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:41 am
While the majority of theists insist their God is empirically real, I have proven a God in the ultimate sense cannot be empirical rather God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a mere thought.
Thoughts are not transcendental? Thoughts happen in brains. Brains are not transcendental.
Neuroscientists can detect and even read thoughts.

To believe that thoughts are transcendental is a transcendental idea in and of itself!
You are a loose cannon and shooting blindly. This is why I am not wasting time discussing with you.

I did not claim thoughts are transcendental.

I stated very clearly "God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a mere thought."
God is mere thought that is a transcendental idea.

My point is theists believe God exists in reality as a transcendental being beyond human-reality.
I am stating, I do not agree with the theists' view.
God is not a reality as claimed by theists.
The theists' claim 'God exists as real' is merely a transcendental idea, i.e. merely a thought, i.e. thinking.

Nb: transcendental idea [philosophy] = transcendental illusion.
An illusion is still a thought
  • thought = an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.
Looks like I have to write a book to explain this point.
Even then i believe you may not get it.

The above is basic, just imagine I will have to take so much trouble and time to explain other more subtler points.

You are shifty [blind] again above on the point re nothing can be 'proven' other than mathematics.
I will not waste time on this.

Logik
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
I stated very clearly "God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a mere thought."
God is mere thought that is a transcendental idea.
Strawman.

You also stated very clearly " I have proven a God in the ultimate sense cannot be empirical" and I dismantled your claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
The theists' claim 'God exists as real' is merely a transcendental idea, i.e. merely a thought, i.e. thinking.
Yes! And thoughts are real, empirical things!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
Nb: transcendental idea [philosophy] = transcendental illusion.
An illusion is still a thought
Yes! And illusions are real, empirical things!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
Looks like I have to write a book to explain this point.
Even then i believe you may not get it.
Yes! And illusions are real, empirical things!

I get it just fine. You have absolutely no clue how empiricism/science works.

That the idea OF god may be transcendental is moot, if the experience OF God is empirically valid.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
You are shifty [blind] again above on the point re nothing can be 'proven' other than mathematics.
Yes! And you conveniently ignored the point.

So I will bring it to your attention again in the hope of making you less stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
crucial difference is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems
All knowledge of reality is probabilistic.

So whatever you think is "proof" there is still non-zero probability of you being wrong.
Last edited by Logik on Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:24 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
I stated very clearly "God is a transcendental idea, i.e. a mere thought."
God is mere thought that is a transcendental idea.
Strawman.

You also stated very clearly " I have proven a God in the ultimate sense cannot be empirical" and I dismantled your claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
The theists' claim 'God exists as real' is merely a transcendental idea, i.e. merely a thought, i.e. thinking.
Yes! And thoughts are real, empirical things!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
Nb: transcendental idea [philosophy] = transcendental illusion.
An illusion is still a thought
Yes! And illusions are real, empirical things!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
Looks like I have to write a book to explain this point.
Even then i believe you may not get it.
Yes! And illusions are real, empirical things!

I get it just fine. You have absolutely no clue how empiricism/science works.

That the idea OF god may be transcendental is moot, if the experience OF God is empirically valid.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:42 am
You are shifty [blind] again above on the point re nothing can be 'proven' other than mathematics.
I will not waste time on this.
Because you can't back up any of the bullshit you spew.
Note I am just communicating minimally on the truth of the situation.
You can spew whatever you like, the ultimate discretion is still mine.

Logik
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:24 am
You can spew whatever you like, the ultimate discretion is still mine.
Obviously.

Ignorance is a choice.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2420
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:08 am

You cannot prove or disprove a non falsifiable concept such as God because anything that is non falsifiable cannot be subject to empiricism
Were this possible then the question of Gods existence / non existence would no longer be in doubt but is because it cannot be determined
And even though this most famously applies to God it equally applies to all other non falsifiables such as the multiverse and life else where

Logik
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:21 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:08 am
You cannot prove or disprove a non falsifiable concept such as God because anything that is non falsifiable cannot be subject to empiricism.
That is not universal.

Can you determine if you are bored? Of course you can.

It is testable? By you - yes. By me - no.
Is it falsifiable? No.

To claim falsifiability is to claim that you thought you were bored but you were mistaken. Uh! What? That simply means you lack self-awareness.

Either way it is empirical.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:08 am
Were this possible then the question of Gods existence / non existence would no longer be in doubt but is because it cannot be determined
The error being made is that empiricism is seen as something one directs externally of self.

It's the dumbest idea since. Ever. Great scientists trust their intuition and recognise the "spiritual" realm as empirical.

It's part and parcel of the human condition.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2420
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:04 pm

LOGIK wrote:
Great scientists trust their intuition and recognise the spiritual realm as empirical
What has spirituality got to do with science and in what way is it empirical ?
What evidence is there that it enhances the rigour of the scientific method ?

Logik
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:09 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:04 pm
What has spirituality got to do with science and in what way is it empirical ?
What evidence is there that it enhances the rigour of the scientific method ?
In the words of Richard Feynman "The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

If you are to avoid fooling yourself, first you must recognize all the errors and pitfalls of reasoning and to do that you must explore the depths of your own mind.

The spiritual realm can be summarised in the sentiment: Know thyself.
Introspection is absolutely vital to good science.

Call it spirituality, emotional intelligence, self-awareness or being in touch with your feelings. It is vital to developing great intuition.

What evidence is there? Experiencing it. From my perspective - it is an empirical fact.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2420
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:10 pm

The scientific method already has a mechanism for avoiding fooling yourself : it is inter subjectivity
First person subjective interpretation that you reference is neither rigorous or independent enough
In fact so unreliable is this method that it doesnt actually qualify as science for it cannot be tested
Furthermore science doesnt care about intuition - only what you can demonstrate and nothing else
Feelings mean absolutely nothing in science since it is a discipline where they arent at all required

Logik
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:49 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:10 pm
The scientific method already has a mechanism for avoiding fooling yourself : it is inter subjectivity
Do you know how that mechanism works? Best intentions.

The reasoning behind it is that two people are less likely to make the same error than a single person.
Two brains are smarter than one (as the wisdom goes).

But there is no mechanism by which the scientific method prevents two, three or ten people from committing the same error in reasoning. Correlated systemic failures occur all the time. This happens often when people use tools that they don't understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_collaboration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer- ... ncy_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:10 pm
Furthermore science doesnt care about intuition - only what you can demonstrate and nothing else
To come up with a viable experiment requires great intuition.
To unify two (seemingly) disparate fields of science requires great intuition and knack for pattern-recognition.

The first person I have to demonstrate anything to is myself!
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:10 pm
Feelings mean absolutely nothing in science since it is a discipline where they arent at all required
That's what all the 2nd grade scientists and lab monkeys keep telling other scientists. My feelings/intuition/rational mind are like a well-oiled machine.
They complement each other.

While some scientists are happy to brush inconsistencies under the carpet, my FEELING of "something is wrong here" usually pays off...

When I say that I am 'extremely sensitive' I don't mean 'I cry my eyes every time a puppy walks past'. I mean I have incredibly well-developed intuition for detecting logical inconsistencies. It's a gut feeling - I trust it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests