Does anybody else hate this argument?

[Full Circle]

(01-02-2015 12:09 PM)Ace Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 11:53 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  - God is the most perfect imaginable asshole
- The fact we can conceive god as perfect asshole means there is nothing more perfectly assholic
- Therefore, god is an asshole and must exist

You can insert just about any adjective and I think it would work.

ok

- God is the most rotten piece of fish meat imaginable
- The fact we can conceive god as perfect piece of rotten fish meat means there is nothing more perfectly rotten than this rotten piece of fish meat
- Therefore, god is a rotten piece of fish meat and must exist

did I win ?

Yes, here you go

[gofish!]

(01-02-2015 09:28 AM)Blackout Wrote:  - God is the most perfect ('the greatest') being conceivable
- It is more perfect ('greater') to exist than not to exist.
- Therefore, God must exist.

Another variation of the argument of ontological perfection (if we can conceive god as a perfect being, he exists!):
- God is the most perfect imaginable being
- The fact we can conceive god as perfect means there is nothing more perfect
- Therefore, god must exist

--> I really hate this argument - So because we can mentally conceive something, it simply exists? It fails on the first premise already because I could argue there are things far more perfect than god - In fact, the Christian god isn't a good example of perfection.

Post theist arguments that you hate. Maybe we could make a tournament and see which one wins as the "most annoying"

Use of this argument pretty much qualifies you for your "sign".....

[Shadow Fox]

I agree with Mayuri in every respect.

[pablo]

I'm tired of the morality argument from Team God.
Can't have morals without god, god's objective morality, blah fuckety blah.

Another is the tactic of asking vague, confusing questions that dance around the subject they're trying to steer me toward. Just get to the point already!
Somehow getting me to unintentionally say something that conflicts with my point is intentionally dishonest and weak at best.
My worldview hasn't suddenly and completely changed because I misspoke.

[Can_of_Beans]

Gasking's proof

A piece of parody for the non-existence of god is as follows:

1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t....27s_proof

[Paleophyte]

(01-02-2015 09:28 AM)Blackout Wrote:  - God is the most perfect ('the greatest') being conceivable
- It is more perfect ('greater') to exist than not to exist.
- Therefore, God must exist.

Actually, this has recently become one of my new favorites. If we insert just one more premise:
- A god that is not bound by logic is greater than a god that is bound by logic.
The conclusion is that:
- If god exists, god must be irrational.

The ontological argument proves that all logical arguments regarding god are no more than hot air and arm waving.

[RobbyPants]

(01-02-2015 09:28 AM)Blackout Wrote:  - God is the most perfect ('the greatest') being conceivable
- It is more perfect ('greater') to exist than not to exist.
- Therefore, God must exist.

I remember when I first heard that argument. I was still Christian and in high school. I found the second premise utterly incomprehensible. I could never figure out why we couldn't just imagine "greater" things. I guess it's one of those "because they say so" things.

I got into a debate with a guy on this once, and he abandoned the thread as soon as he saw he was backed into a corner. Part of his problem was he wasn't arguing over "greatest", but rather "real". He said we couldn't conceive imaginary things, so this means God is real.

I brought up imaginary things I could conceive, and he would say that I wasn't conceiving them, but rather rearranging real concepts. So unicorn = horse + horn. I told him that we could construct God in the same way. God = human + builder.

[Rahn127]

Perfection to me, means unchanging.
A state of perfection cannot do anything.
It would be something frozen in that state from the beginning of time to the end.

And if that's the case, you might as well worship a strand of your own hair for all the good it will do ya

[onlinebiker]

(02-02-2015 07:16 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Perfection to me, means unchanging.
A state of perfection cannot do anything.
It would be something frozen in that state from the beginning of time to the end.

And if that's the case, you might as well worship a strand of your own hair for all the good it will do ya

A "Hairy Krishna"?

[ohio_drg]

(01-02-2015 01:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  The first time I heard that argument, I kept waiting for the rest of it.

It is the single stupidest God argument ever. It is nonsense from start to finish.

Anyone who thinks that argument has any meaning or merit is a fool.

That is exactly the way I first felt about it....

Then I started thinking about the person who attempted to use this argument with me..... And it became quite obvious that he was a fool.