Conquer Club

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

Dude, "cogito ergo sum" is kind of shit all by itself. Hell, Descartes never actually said it.

Curmudgeonx wrote:The Saint Anselm version?

or just ontological arguments by their nature?

I am reminded of an old George Carlin routine: Can God create a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it?

KNown as the Paradox of Omnipotence. It comes in various froms (like the one you mention), also there is the old "Is God bound by his own laws/laws of physics/nature?

If he is bound by his own laws, then he is clearly not all powerful.
If he isnt bound by them, then his rules are not all powerful in the first place, so he isnt all powerful.
Which all seems to suggest that the idea of an all powerful God doesnt really make sense.
The most obvious way out of the paradox is to say:
"Well, God creates the all powerful rules of nature, and CHOOSES not to break them. But He could if He wants to."

But then the problem for the theist is:
"Well, what if some really bad shit happens, as a result of these rules (eg a Tsunami) - God can come in and change things then, right?"

Then the problem is back to the original dilema. If he breaks his own rules, he wasnt all powerful in the first place.

If He chooses not to, then God is not kind/benevolent - and most theists would argues benevolence is a fundamental characteristic of God.

So its a bugger

The ontolgical is brilliantly clever and persuasive, but sadly illogical/invalid.

It presupposes that perfection entails existence.

But it doesnt.
I think of a beautiful island. I say that it is perfect.

Then Anselm/Descartes says to me :

"Ah, but if that island actually existed it would be better than the one than you are merely imagining, yeah?- because it exists. Obviously something that exists is better than something that doesn't exist."

Which sounds great - but nonetheless, that doent mean such an island exists.
Maybe it would be better if it did exists - but i dont know if it does.

Or, as Kant put it: "Existence is not a predicate".
(ie existence is not a quality).
You dont say when desrcibing a dog: "It has four legs, a nose, a tail - and it exists".
The existing of the dog is not a quality/predicate of the dog.

Likewise with Anselm?Descartes, existence is not a quailty of a perfect being.

spurgistan wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

Dude, "cogito ergo sum" is kind of shit all by itself. Hell, Descartes never actually said it.

He did say it - in "the Discourse on the Method".

suggs wrote:The ontolgical is brilliantly clever and persuasive, but sadly illogical/invalid.

It presupposes that perfection entails existence.

But it doesnt.
I think of a beautiful island. I say that it is perfect.

Then Anselm/Descartes says to me :

"Ah, but if that island actually existed it would be better than the one than you are merely imagining, yeah?- because it exists. Obviously something that exists is better than something that doesn't exist."

Which sounds great - but nonetheless, that doent mean such an island exists.
Maybe it would be better if it did exists - but i dont know if it does.

Or, as Kant put it: "Existence is not a predicate".
(ie existence is not a quality).
You dont say when desrcibing a dog: "It has four legs, a nose, a tail - and it exists".
The existing of the dog is not a quality/predicate of the dog.

Likewise with Anselm?Descartes, existence is not a quailty of a perfect being.

is it just me, or does anyone else find suggs worryingly attractive right now?

The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

suggs wrote:The ontolgical is brilliantly clever and persuasive, but sadly illogical/invalid.

It presupposes that perfection entails existence.

But it doesnt.
I think of a beautiful island. I say that it is perfect.

Then Anselm/Descartes says to me :

"Ah, but if that island actually existed it would be better than the one than you are merely imagining, yeah?- because it exists. Obviously something that exists is better than something that doesn't exist."

Which sounds great - but nonetheless, that doent mean such an island exists.
Maybe it would be better if it did exists - but i dont know if it does.

Or, as Kant put it: "Existence is not a predicate".
(ie existence is not a quality).
You dont say when desrcibing a dog: "It has four legs, a nose, a tail - and it exists".
The existing of the dog is not a quality/predicate of the dog.

Likewise with Anselm?Descartes, existence is not a quailty of a perfect being.

Ok...

Now, I'm not saying that I personally think the ontological argument is valid, but surely if you accept the concept of necessary existence which string theory seems to be confirming is correct, and then accept that the ontological argument applies to God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived (or the sum total of all perfections), thereby meaning that Gaunilo's island is disanalogous, since it is limited as being just an island, you have a case?

The only problem I do have with the ontological argument though, is that it is seems to be analytical a priori, which you can dismiss as a tautology, right? I think. Suggs, please correct me here if I err...

mandyb wrote:
is it just me, or does anyone else find suggs worryingly attractive right now?

You mean...girls do find themselves attractd to men who pontificate on the subject of proofs from ontology? Why wasn't I told this before?

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

Thanks for your condolences Guis but I'm bearing up pretty well at the moment. I'm sure at some point the shock will really hit me and then I'll probably feel compelled to wear black clothing and maybe even listening to My Chemical Romance before whining intolerably to anybody who'll listen but for now I'm doing just fine.

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

Thanks for your condolences Guis but I'm bearing up pretty well at the moment. I'm sure at some point the shock will really hit me and then I'll probably feel compelled to wear black clothing and maybe even listening to My Chemical Romance before whining intolerably to anybody who'll listen but for now I'm doing just fine.

On the up side, as you've been away for six months you've missed out on Nappy altogether so far! You'll appreciate that more and more if you browse the forums more regularly from now on, believe me...

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

Thanks for your condolences Guis but I'm bearing up pretty well at the moment. I'm sure at some point the shock will really hit me and then I'll probably feel compelled to wear black clothing and maybe even listening to My Chemical Romance before whining intolerably to anybody who'll listen but for now I'm doing just fine.

On the up side, as you've been away for six months you've missed out on Nappy altogether so far! You'll appreciate that more and more if you browse the forums more regularly from now on, believe me...

Ooooh look at me I'm Guiscard, umm.... I'm teh historian and I dont like napoleon cuz I mite catch the NON-PC virus from him

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

Thanks for your condolences Guis but I'm bearing up pretty well at the moment. I'm sure at some point the shock will really hit me and then I'll probably feel compelled to wear black clothing and maybe even listening to My Chemical Romance before whining intolerably to anybody who'll listen but for now I'm doing just fine.

On the up side, as you've been away for six months you've missed out on Nappy altogether so far! You'll appreciate that more and more if you browse the forums more regularly from now on, believe me...

Yes, Le Premier (the nickname for Napoleon I use in my head) may actually be reasonable in this thread. However, I can't quite tell, since everybody who responded with links to explain it tried to Rick-roll me!

And no, Wikipedia is not my friend! I happen to love Wikipedia!

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

That's the same thing; You think of something (in this case, yourself), therefore it (you) exist. Circular logic buddy-boy.

Wow, eloquent yet brief. I think it.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

That's the same thing; You think of something (in this case, yourself), therefore it (you) exist. Circular logic buddy-boy.

Wow, eloquent yet brief. I think it.

but if i think of someone other than myself, do i cease to exist?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

Thanks for your condolences Guis but I'm bearing up pretty well at the moment. I'm sure at some point the shock will really hit me and then I'll probably feel compelled to wear black clothing and maybe even listening to My Chemical Romance before whining intolerably to anybody who'll listen but for now I'm doing just fine.

On the up side, as you've been away for six months you've missed out on Nappy altogether so far! You'll appreciate that more and more if you browse the forums more regularly from now on, believe me...

Ooooh look at me I'm Guiscard, umm.... I'm teh historian and I dont like napoleon cuz I mite catch the NON-PC virus from him

You're such a hypocrite. Stop trying to sound smart when Guiscard doesn't actually type with that illiterate shit, and then stop posting altogether.

Skittles! wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Bertros Bertros wrote:The first time I visit Conquer Club in 6 months and the first thread in whatever this forum is called these days is a vote on the ontological argument thus proving the omnipotence of idiocy and entirely reassuring me that you can leave civilisation for half a year and absolutely nothing changes.

Sorry for your loss...

Thanks for your condolences Guis but I'm bearing up pretty well at the moment. I'm sure at some point the shock will really hit me and then I'll probably feel compelled to wear black clothing and maybe even listening to My Chemical Romance before whining intolerably to anybody who'll listen but for now I'm doing just fine.

On the up side, as you've been away for six months you've missed out on Nappy altogether so far! You'll appreciate that more and more if you browse the forums more regularly from now on, believe me...

Ooooh look at me I'm Guiscard, umm.... I'm teh historian and I dont like napoleon cuz I mite catch the NON-PC virus from him

You're such a hypocrite. Stop trying to sound smart when Guiscard doesn't actually type with that illiterate shit, and then stop posting altogether.

The concept of satire has ntirel eluded this poor fool...never mind. I',m sure Guiscard noticed your sycophantic ass-licking and will reward you woth pseudo-intellectual crumbs next time someone exposes your sophistries.

Big words for a total idiot.

Skittles! wrote:Big words for a total idiot.

What's that? You do have something genuinely interesting to say about necessary existance as a property?

No? You and Guiscard just came here to throw around petty insults and masturbate each others neurones?

Quelle surprise...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Skittles! wrote:Big words for a total idiot.

What's that? You do have something genuinely interesting to say about necessary existance as a property?

No? You and Guiscard just came here to throw around petty insults and masturbate each others neurones?

Quelle surprise...

It's funny how you used the word masturbation there, Naps, seeing as pretty much everything you write is a literary ejaculation. You started a thread about the ontological argument - I don't think it's possible for a 15 year old to sound more like a wanker (If it's not possible for me to conceive anything being a bigger wanker than yourself, does that mean I've proved that you are the biggest wanker in existence?)

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

That's the same thing; You think of something (in this case, yourself), therefore it (you) exist. Circular logic buddy-boy.

Well it's different, because the idea behind cogito ergo sum is that there has to be something doing the thinking. It's not that you think about yourself, but that you can think at all.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

That's the same thing; You think of something (in this case, yourself), therefore it (you) exist. Circular logic buddy-boy.

Well it's different, because the idea behind cogito ergo sum is that there has to be something doing the thinking. It's not that you think about yourself, but that you can think at all.

I like cogito ergo sum. If you think, it means, whatever you perceive may be, you at least, as a entity processing data (which may or may not be illusionnary) exist...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

mandyb wrote:
is it just me, or does anyone else find suggs worryingly attractive right now?

You mean...girls do find themselves attractd to men who pontificate on the subject of proofs from ontology? Why wasn't I told this before?

yes indeed - it's the old marilyn/miller thing. Of course suggs then goes and spoils it by saying something like 'fancy a shag?', but there ya go...

btw - you're not looking too shabby yourself Napoleon..

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Skittles! wrote:Big words for a total idiot.

What's that? You do have something genuinely interesting to say about necessary existance as a property?

No? You and Guiscard just came here to throw around petty insults and masturbate each others neurones?

Quelle surprise...

Still waiting on the quote of my last 'fallacy', yappy... Or does it not exist?

Skittles! wrote:Big words for a total idiot.

Luns pointed this out before, people like you and Guiscard may satirize theists all hours of the day, but (the non-existant) GOD FORBID any believer attempts such a thing. Oh no, that would be blasphemy (if you acknowledged that you guys tend to think that way, if not the concept per say) should it ever happen. The way I'm seeing it, Naps is just doing the same thing, only with less of Luns's tact.