Bulletproof Definition of God

Post Reply New Topic

"God is greater than that which can be concieved." (Anselm)

I'm an athiest, but I think this is a brilliant definition! I applaud the logic behind it!

What logic?? It's just a self-delusional definition argument.

The existence of God must be decided by the individual. The individual's perception and beliefs alone will determine whether or not they believe in a supernatural being which is greater than that which can be concieved. Really, if there's this almighty God, how can you prove that he isn't possible? Nothing is impossible, it's just a matter of relative possibility. This "God", being theorhetically omnipotent and omniscient, who's to say what it actually is?

My point is that a God is possible, due to its nature. I'm not saying that there is proof of a God, I'm saying that it's possible. I'm Agnostic myself. People didn't think that super computers were possible, yet it happened. The way the universe works, the way that everything is pieced together in such harmony, and that humanity itself is still continuing to advance, gives rise to the possibility that there is more at work than unguided Chaos.

God can also be used to describe the unknowns which science has as of yet not discovered and taken into account.

How do biological molecules fit so intricately and perfectly together? How does DNA, the source code of all carbon-based organisms work so beautifully? How did life even begin in the first place?

Unanswered questions, which have not yet been explained. No doubt, science will one day come up with an answer. But what will these answers reveal?

If it's so illogical, tell me why?

Maybe because there is more on that quote that is missing.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/an ... gical.html

I disagree. What more do you need to know?

"In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist. Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict."

The five points listed later in that article are obvious!

It is human to discover an ignorance and fill the hole in knowledge with anything that is handy to restore a sense of comfort. We know enough about how the universe works to fill a great many of the holes with logical and workable knowledge. Some of the holes still exist and some people are happier filling the holes with some sort of uncheckable junk because they cannot stand holes. I don't mind holes.

Bingo!

Logic is useful when it presents new areas to explore and validate. If it works, it's useful, if it doesn't work, then something else should be investigated.

It's a "god of the gaps" argument. It requires the human mind to concieve of it, therefore the question admits that man creates god, but at the same time, god is greater than that, so the statement ends up being self-contradicting.

What is the ultimate question? What do we hope to answer one day?

If it's greater than what can be concieved, and what can be concieved by the human mind is nothing, then it's greater than nothing, thus it does NOT require the human mind to concieve it.

Though you should still be able to see his methods here and get a piece of his reasoning, not saying we don't but that again leaves it wide open to interpretation.

If God can't be concieved by the human mind, then nobody could believe in him. If he can be concieved by the human mind, then he's not the God you claim to believe in. QED.


I see a lot of these arguments as essentially consisting of "God is greater than your mind can comprehend, but I'm special and can understand him just fine."

Him?

Unfalsifiable? Or simply false? Either way, destroy.