there´s a thing, the biggest thing in the whole kosmos, over which nothing else, nothing bigger can be thought, and it´s God.
there are things which doesn´t and can´t exist, yet we name them: cold flame, elephant having an intercourse with an orange, apples with hairy tails, etc. but this is different. those are derivates. you get what i mean?
Emma_85 wrote:Yes, we can say stupid things like cold fire and so on, even if we can't imagine them.
Kalailan wrote:I don't need to read horrific stories. i have read enough about the holocaust.
i cannot explain this so shortly.
now back to the topic!
In a nutshell, he talks about being able to imagine a being so great--powerful, perfect, omniscient-- that nothing greater can be imagined. But that's only the setup--the next step is that if we are imagining a perfect being with all perfect qualities, then surely existence is one of those qualities, because existence is more perfect than non-existence. And it's from there that he argues that God must then exist. I don't remember all the details but it is more believable (I didn't say entirely believable) when you read the whole argument.
Emma_85 wrote:After the first bit the rest may be logical, but if the premise is flawed so is the rest.
benissimus wrote:1) Any entity that is perfect must exist.
How did they arrive at this premise?
klewlis wrote:lol. this is true. the logic of old is very different than that today... there have been some pretty funny things said because of logic.
I'm sure in a couple of thousand years our current forms of logic will also be considered primitive and amusing.
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Humans did not excel until they threw classical logic behind their backs and replaced it with experimentalism. Classical logicians had it all wrong … they put the horse behind the cart … they used experimentation to prove the law. Only when the law came as a result of experiment did the world advance.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests