@Krumple,
Krumple;155037 wrote:So just because you can think of such a concept, it makes the concept true? I don't accept that definition of something to exist, just because I can imagine something, it does not make it a reality.
You are not reading the message appropriately. The argument is that God, as defined as "that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered," exists because there is no greater and the possibility that it could be considered as such justifies the position that said Creator exists. Next, Anselm argues that the person who, in considering God, conceives of that god as being in existence solely in the mind, is not truly considering that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered and is not considering the real God, who is that-that-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered. Again, considering any potential object of perfection, such as an island, the most perfect hamburger, etc. does not justify that thing's existence, but rather can be considered only on the basis of the prior existence of perfection from which we may know perfection. In a nutshell, considering the most perfect island is possible because of certain elements we inherently recognize from the One whom perfection originated.
Krumple;155037 wrote:I don't think you checked very far. One example I have previously stated was with the Japanese roughly within 12th to 19th century where the ruling class were the samurai. Within this class if any other classes were to insult any samurai it was well within the samurai's rights to kill that person. It was not considered murder to do so. Today it would be considered murder to kill someone for simply insulting you.
You are only referring to justification for the act of killing, which is not necessarily a constant. Nothing changes in my point.
Krumple;155037 wrote:I don't buy this at all. People change all the time, but what you are trying to suggest is that morality was already planted there but if that is the case then why do people change over time? Just look at slavery for example, the bible promotes slavery. It says that slavery is fine yet we have come to the point when we feel that slavery is not fine. So if god were behind these moral values then by all means humans have transcended what god feels is good.
The Bible does not promote slavery. We read that it is okay for the Israelites to take on slaves, but that they are to treat them kindly. As for the New Testament, we read of the command for slaves to obey their masters in the same way as Christ was obedient unto death.
Next, you are not being completely honest. The whole concept of instinct is self-preservation, which
is in sharp contrast to morality, which most often requires the denial of the self for the benefit of another.
Krumple;155037 wrote:I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Faith for me is nothing but a guess. Wishful thinking without any thing to base it on.
Actually, it was quite clear that I was actually, somewhat, agreeing with you. Subjectivity is not necessarily satisfactory as proof.
I read through your post and I am convinced that your entire argument suffers with the issue of inaccuracy through the very terms you were using. There must be a distinction between being infinite and being eternal, for the two are
not interchangeable terms. The infinite always has a starting point from which the progression or hypothetical regression of time is endless, whereas the eternal is without beginning or end. Concepts of infinite are much easier to understand than eternity, but the closest that I have come is to postulate that eternity and our concept of "present time,"
which is wholly unintelligible to us, are very similar for they both involve the savoring of moments of time equally. The reason for my position revolves around our inability to savor these moments which pass us by without ceasing, for the moment that a moment arrives, it has instantly passed. God is eternal, that is: without beginning or end.
Krumple;155037 wrote:Part of the problem is is to assume that moving is necessary. Is there any other force that would account for moving? For example gravity has as it's property to account for objects moving without any actual object to cause the moving. Gravity is not an object, yet it can cause objects to move. Did Thomas account for this possibility? No and did you consider it? No.
You have missed the point. It is the cause of all motion. The fact that anything moves shows that it must have been first moved and if that motion was started by another, which was, in turn, started by another
ad infinitum, there would be no preliminary mover which was first unmoved. Aquinas never had to account for your other possibility, nor did I.
Krumple;155037 wrote: See you clearly see that the flying pink elephant is "nonsense" yet I say the belief in god is just as nonsense. How do you know that Zeus is not the actual god and your belief in your god is actually the incorrect belief? How do you know that the flying pink elephant isn't the real god? It shows that you are just picking and choosing what you want god to be.
Actually, I was also agreeing with you here, in part, as well. This never specifies, nor could it in the way that it is currently presented. Your claim that we just pick and choose is preposterous, but understandable. Those who have been called to Christ Jesus and submit to Him are revealed the nature of who He is by the very Spirit, who's absence in your life keeps you on the outside and blind.
"'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?'
Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for
this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:15-17)
Krumple;155037 wrote: Yes you could make this claim, but I can also make the claim that your own interpretations of your experience is also a presupposition. I like how you accuse me of it but can not even recognize that you are in the same boat. I know why you do this though, because you believe that you are correct and anyone else is false. You make this claim without having any basis for it. So who is really the irrational person here? I am asking for a basis yet you provide none.
Anyone can make any claim that they wish. The failure rests on your end, though, which states that Christians presuppose God's existence and deity of Jesus. The reason for this failure is that we
all come to Jesus from the outside; that is to say that we all come to believe that Christ Jesus is who He said He is from a position of not believing. Many of us were atheists, agnostics, pagans, Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhists, Daoists, and I was, personally, an adherent to a mixture of Native American mythology and eastern mysticism, which was fueled by an extensive study of the martial arts.
Krumple;155037 wrote:This is all assumption. I don't agree with this premise because there is absolutely NO way to determine if it is true. You can argue all you want that humans would never have the ability to reason without the existence of god. I say nonsense since god does not exist and yet humans have the ability to reason. You wouldn't accept that argument would you? So Thoma's argument once again is not supplying a basis, it just assumes the reader would already be a believer in god to even accept his arguments.
Your perceived assumption is no less than individual revelation, which, as I stated before, keeps you on the outside. Kierkegaard, I credit, wrote much to say that individuals will
never be reasoned into heaven. Aquinas, however, is not stating that man is incapable of reason, but that many are severely unequipped to pursue a life of diligent inquiry.
I do not simply say that humans would be incapable of reason without God, but that all would be incapable of anything without God first existing, which is, of course, the foundation of this discussion.
