god is only necessary when it goes along with each individual's specific [moral/religious/whatever-they-want-to-call-it-that-being-god-or-their-religion-or-anything] beliefs.
Person w/ Narcolepsy?weebs42October 5 2005, 06:37:55 UTC
Your point gets at the root of why the argument is unsound. But if one understands the modal definition of necessity, it can be inferred that God is, in fact, not a necessary being, regardless of each individual's beliefs
( ... )
Re: Nort sor farstweebs42October 5 2005, 17:16:57 UTC
First off, we have to accept that the proof is out to prove a certain thing. While we may have deep, reflective discussions queued to James Taylor songs about God being a leaf, that is not what this proof is aiming at. In fact, this proof is not really aiming at "God" at all, if your definition of God is different than "greatest conceivable being." In this case, scrap the idea of God, and let's just talk about "greatest conceivable being" (though I would assert that the common Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God might, at minimum, include "greatest conceivable being" in their description). This proof is not out to prove the creator aspect of God, which is also a primary facet of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept. But Anselm was a busy man, and he only had time for that than which no greater can be conceived
( ... )
Comments 3
so, following that, god both exists and doesn't.
*by far the best internet abbreviation, after pwn
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment