The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:49 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:47 am
We are only passing through and so none of what we do truly matters in the grand scheme of things
The Universe will carry on existing in total indifference long after the human race has ceased to be
The universe doesn't care what you say, think, believe or claim about its existence.

Only humans do.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2973
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:53 am

LOGIK wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
All categories are mental approximations / interpretations of physical reality
We use them in order to understand that reality better from our perspective
They are not necessarily fool proof and so may therefore need to be revised
They do however help to advance our knowledge which is why we use them
So what about the category which you call The Universe ?
The box in which you put all of your thoughts . What can you say about it ?
An incomplete approximation that is the product of an animal brain that is quite primitive
Mercifully an animal brain that actually knows it is primitive so does not assume otherwise

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:59 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:53 am
An incomplete approximation that is the product of an animal brain that is quite primitive
Mercifully an animal brain that actually knows it is primitive so does not assume otherwise
Then why does this brain, which knows it's primitive argue over inconsequential stuff like whether the universe exists or not?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2973
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:09 pm

LOGIK wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
An incomplete approximation that is the product of an animal brain that is quite primitive
Mercifully an animal brain that actually knows it is primitive so does not assume otherwise
Then why does this brain which knows its primitive argue over inconsequential stuff like whether the universe exists
Because it is interested in stuff like that and also because other minds might offer interesting perspectives which
it had not thought of so the acquisition of new knowledge and opinion is always welcome [ on other subjects too ]

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:13 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:09 pm
LOGIK wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
An incomplete approximation that is the product of an animal brain that is quite primitive
Mercifully an animal brain that actually knows it is primitive so does not assume otherwise
Then why does this brain which knows its primitive argue over inconsequential stuff like whether the universe exists
Till we fight wars over whose word for the concept of “ALL-that-exists” is better.


Because it is interested in stuff like that and also because other minds might offer interesting perspectives which
it had not thought of so the acquisition of new knowledge and opinion is always welcome [ on other subjects too ]

surreptitious57
Posts: 2973
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:34 pm

LOGIK wrote:
Till we fight wars over whose word for the concept of ALL that exists is better
No wars just simple conversation as most of what I think or say is not actually set in stone
And nor am I trying to convince other minds of anything I say because I know nothing at all

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:19 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:34 pm
No wars just simple conversation as most of what I think or say is not actually set in stone
And nor am I trying to convince other minds of anything I say because I know nothing at all
By Anselm's argument the greatest imaginable is "God".

And yet in our discussion we didn't call it "God", we called it "ALL".

But because language - you can call it ALL, or ALL-THERE-IS, or God, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Yahweh, or The Universe.

It doesn't matter what you CALL it. What matters is that the concepts are identical.

The rest is literally an argument over labels and ego while worshiping the Greatness of ALL.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am
I have already proven why you have the wrong view of reality when you claimed you do not have any beliefs and imply you are not a 'human being'.
WHY is when I did what I did, supposedly, having the "wrong view of reality"? And, HOW did you, supposedly, already prove that I have the "wrong view of reality"?
I have already stated my point above, i.e.

"I have already proven why you have the wrong view of reality when you claimed you do not have any beliefs and imply you are not a 'human being'."

I have argued why humans cannot exists without any beliefs.
But my point is you have NOT argued this at all. All you have done is express your own beliefs.

Human beings can express their own thoughts, seemingly as though it is an argument, and believe that what they are saying is an argument, but if what they are saying is not valid nor sound, then what they are saying is not really an argument at all. What they are saying is just a view they have, which they usually believe is true, right, and correct.

You have not produced sound nor valid arguments for your beliefs. You just BELIEVE you have. You may have "justified" your own "arguments" to your OWN self, but that does NOT make your "arguments" truly valid and sound arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am
I have asked you to provide links to whoever has the same thoughts as yours and you are unable to do so.
Of course I am unable to do so. I have yet to find another with the same thoughts.

But just because I can NOT yet find another with the same thoughts does NOT prove that My views are wrong, nor perverted, nor any thing else for that matter.

Did the first person, who was explaining that the earth actually revolves around the sun, who obviously also could NOT provide any "links" to any other person with the same thoughts as theirs, have the "wrong view of reality", and/or "perverted views"?

From all accounts if you existed in those days you would have been one of the first ones calling that person's "views of reality" WRONG, and/or even maybe "perverted views".
First person??? not in this more 'enlightened' current age.
You should have at least a hypothesis of your claim of possibility.
Note even Einstein had to stand on giant shoulders to present his hypothesis.
And NO person is any different either.

ALL of you human beings only see, understand and know what you know now only because of the "others" before you.

In fact, even I can only see and understand what I KNOW is thee actual and real Truth of things NOW only because of ALL of you, human beings.

The human brain, through the human being, has already fulfilled its purpose in life.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
Your claim is no different from the schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden exist as living entities because he had a direct conversation with them.
This is how YOU "argue" and how you BELIEVE that you have "proven" your self.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
I have argued all over, thoughts like yours, if not mentally sick, are driven and triggered by some sort of desperate existential psychology within your psyche.
But ALL you are doing is expressing your current views, which you BELIEVE wholeheartedly are true, right, and correct, and which are based solely on your OWN past experiences.

You actually BELIEVE that because you had some desperate existential crisis, and BELIEVED some completely insane things about the same, then because of that, then that means every one else who believes completely insane things also does that because of the exact same desperate existential reason that you have, and use as an excuse for BELIEVING in the absolutely ridiculous.

Do you have a reason/excuse for your current completely insane beliefs?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2973
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:56 am

Logic wrote:
By Anselms argument the greatest imaginable is God

And yet in our discussion we didnt call it God we called it ALL

But because language - you can call it ALL or ALL THERE IS or God or Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh or The Universe

It doesnt matter what you CALL it What matters is that the concepts are identical

The rest is literally an argument over labels and ego while worshiping the Greatness of ALL
The definition is more important than the label so I agree that what you actually call it is of no relevance at all

As long as any definition is agreed upon then discourse can occur otherwise it becomes just an argument about semantics

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:16 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
I have argued why humans cannot exists without any beliefs.
But if you were paying close attention, your disagreement was not over the nature of beliefs.
Your entire disagreement was over what to call this mental phenomenon commonly called 'beliefs'.

Age chooses to call his beliefs 'knowledge'.
ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which is AGAIN utterly WRONG.

You are so blinded by your own distorted thinking logik that you can NOT even see what I have been writing.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:41 am
And as all theism goes - it's a discussion over language, not substance.

Age refuses to adopt your language. Is all.
Once again logik you are so FAR OFF track that it is becoming beyond funny now.

Age
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:18 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
Your claim is no different from the schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden exist as living entities because he had a direct conversation with them.
But the gnomes in my garden do exist? Would you like some photos?

Maybe he was mistaken about the 'conversation'. I doubt it was more than a monologue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
I have argued all over, thoughts like yours, if not mentally sick, are driven and triggered by some sort of desperate existential psychology within your psyche.
Or simply a refusal to adopt your language and your values.
Why do you NOT reply to me and my questions logik, instead of just talking about me?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests