/lit/ - Literature

awesome cat

0. I have a e-penis
1. It's bigger than yours
2. therefore you are jelly
3. and your argument is nothing more than a emotionally distorted attempt to get back at me
4.your argument is invalid

0. No you can't.
2. No it doesn't.
2. No it isn't.
3. No it doesn't.

>>1620874

Conclusion does not follow from premises. Classic disagreement with the ontological argument. BRAVO SIR, BRAVO.

>>1620873

Correct. But you haven't agreed or disagreed. Acknowledge that my conclusion is necessarily true, you pathetic piece of shit.

>existence is a perfection

I like the part where you make assumptions with no evidence and conjure it out of thin air to fit your argument

>>1620876
It is a pretty awesome cat, though, you can't deny that

i can conceive of the op making a good post and yet the op cannot make a good post therefore refuted as hell bitch

>>1620875

NARF NARF ASSERTIONS THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION

DOES MY OPINION MATTER?

NO

NO

IT DOES NOT

SORRY

>>1620884
OH MY GOD I CANT BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT

>>1620863
I like the part where your 12 year old logic is posted on 4chan

0. I can conceive of Santa Clause
1. He can pilot flying reindeers
2. Christmas is a perfection
3. Therefore, the Christmas being (Santa Clause) exists

>>1620876
>unable to disprove the fact that I'm right
>unable to prove me wrong
as a result, I am 100% right and you are 100% butthurt. Cry harder, little man

I like these people who think they can conceive of an infinitely perfect being could you explain that first step to me please? what does it look like or what are the beings mannerism or movements or how does it function at all?

>>1620886

Time to pay attention to Moore's point.

>>1620889

Nice try, but I predicted and headed off your nonresponse in the OP.

>>1620888

(0) and (1) look like the start to something, but the move to (2) is basically a non sequitur, you stupid fucking piece of shitfuck fuck.

>>1620863

Define the word conceive.

Captcha: Reli-jews erepun

>>1620897

Imagination (that is, mental looking at every one of its features) i9s different from conceiving. Conceiving is stating the principle with which you could generate all its properties, and then maybe you could use those properties to imagine it, as long as its small enough.

Parallel: you can conceive of an infinite line, but you cannot imagine one (you'd die before you finished).

>>1620899
lol, look at you, all angry and trying to prove that the ontological argument is true. you're funny.

0) I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being
1) It has every perfection
3) Nonexistence is a perfection
2) Therefore no perfect being could ever exist

>>1620908

What properties does it have then?

>>1620915

(3) is false, you fucking grizzled eye-offending bladder.

Existing things have power, and that's better than not existing and having no power, which means it's fucking nonsense to claim that nonexistence is a perfection, which is to say it's better than existing.

WOULD THE IDEALLY RATIONAL AGENT RATHER EXIST OR NOT EXIST? ANSWER THAT, YOU STUPID FUCK.

>>1620899
my move to 2 is as much an example of non-sequitur as your move to 2 was

'existence is a perfection'

enjoy your 12 year old santa clause logic dumb nigger

>>1620925
I like the part where you assume existing and power had anything to do with each other

>>1620916

It has all the perfections. That's (1) from the OP. Are you illiterate? That might explain why you don't realize that God exists.

Existence is not a property of beings.

/11th century

>>1620925
Why must it be true by reason that having power is better than having no power?

>>1620928

Have you ever seen a non existing object causally interact with an existing object?

this one will be in it's right until it's not

>>1620925
rofl that doesn't even make sense

power only applies to existing things

you can't measure the power of a non-existing thing therefore you can't automatically assume non-existence has less power than existence

dumb nigger

>>1620935
>>1620933

Would you rather have no power or power? If you would rather have power, God exists. Acknowledge the logic, you fucking infantile shitheels.

"Arguments that start "I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being", or whatever, can be quickly refuted by "Oh yeah? You just think you can conceive of one."

If you can't experience something directly, and you can't argue its existence based on some other kind of knowledge, you can't prove it exists."

/thread faggots. why are we so easily trolled?

>>1620934
have you ever observed a non-existing object?
>nope
then why do you assume a non-existing object has or does not have power?
>because you're a dumb nigger

>>1620943
>implying power is not a social construct measured only on social grounds

god you're dumb

>>1620943
Whatever I want has nothing to do with what must be true by reason. I see no logical reason that I must prefer power over lack of power.

>ramblings of some kid who for the first time learned about basic philosophy

You are fucking up Descartes logic you dumb shit OP. According to Descartes' logic, the only one who could conceive of an infinitely perfect being is an infinitely perfect being, go back and re-read him again you stupid shit.

>>1620957

COUNTER TROLL DENIED

AND I'M NOT EVEN A TROLL

NICE TRY SON

NICE TRY

>people responding as though it's not a troll thread
tryhards

>>1620962

hmm, too busy pushing law papers to do some real philosophy, eh? Everyone who acknolwedges obvious a prior truths is a troll, eh?

>>1620962
>tripfags responding in a troll thread about not responding
triphards

>>1620961

Why don't you refute
>>1620946

>>1620962

>says the tripfag

>>1620966
>>1620967

>>1620968

Fine, you irritating cunt.

>>1620946

You're a stupid shitty fucking skeptic. I can conceive of triangles. Guess what? They've got straight fucking edges, and none of those exist in experience. Fucking deal with it, son. Triangles exist and so does the fucking Lord God Almighty.

Existence is not a perfection.
I JUST BLEW YOUR MIND
Seriously, though, why are we engaging in Wikipedia Philosophy?

>>1620971
>tripfag posts in troll thread announcing stupidity of anon's replying in troll thread so that tripfag can establish his presence on the board as one who recognizes troll threads and anon's stupidity
>anon lashes out at tripfag for being a tripster faggot
>tripfag responds to lashes with image showing how little he cares and lightly he takes situation
>mfw every single post on 4chan follows universal 4chan archetypes that conform to a bell curve
>my same face when you're all predictable faggots anon and tripster alike
>your face when you also realize how boring 4chan is and finally decide to go to a real board
>umadfagdadbaghdadpolishdraconianrecognitionpolarity

>>1620974
Given this, an infinitely perfect being isn't 'god', it's something more like the Platonic form of the good. You can call that God but it seems an abuse of language; it's certainly not god in any Abrahamic sense.

>>1620981
because Wikipedia philosophy is light years ahead of 4chan philosophy? have you even been here??

>>1620974
Concieve deff.
To form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.

Synonyms: Imagine

try harder.

>>1620974

HEY OP

IF I WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE SOMETHING


WHY DOES ITS EXISTENCE MATTER AT ALL?


GG DUMB NIGGER

>>1620985
>dictionary
>philosophical conclusions

Well bless your little heart.

>>1620983

I ain't got some Bible God but I do sure fuckin' have a God that's an agent and surely the Good isn't an agent.

>>1620979
it's pretty fun if you don't take it seriously

>>1620989
Where's the connection between "infinitely perfect being" and "agent"?

>>1620988
>we do not experience mathematical objects
>but understanding them matters because you need to get good grades and scientists, well, do fucking work with them
>and you don'r realize this

I'm sorry that you're an unsuccessful person, and I do sincerely hope that you stop failing in the future.

>>1620994

The infinitely perfect being has free will. Boom, agency. Fucking checkmate.

>>1620995
Mathematical concepts aren't real, though, they're intellectual abstractions, in the same way that "an infinitely perfect being" is an intellectual abstraction. Speaking of them as actually-existing is contradictory - an actual infinitely perfectly being, if it existed, would have existence among its qualities, but the fact that we can conceive of such a being is no indication of its actual-existence.

>>1621001
>speaking as though the number "1" doesn't exist is contradictory

Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

>>1620995
>we do not experience mathematical objects

LOL DUMB NIGGER ALERT

YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT WHEN I PUSH A BOX, THERE ARE NO MATHEMATICS THAT RELATE THE FORCE OF MY PUSH TO THE WEIGHT OF THE BOX? I GUESS I DON'T EXPERIENCE FORCE AND PHYSICS IN GENERAL GUYS

WOW DUMB NIGGER ALERT OP SERIOUSLY

>>1621000
The fact that its perfections include free will does not imply that it exercises that will. Also, I think you're going to run into the problem of evil pretty fucking hard if you try and make that argument.

>>1621006

OH, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL? I AM GLAD YOU ASKED. I'M HERE TO HELP.

Continuing from OP,

4. Super-niceness and omnipotence are perfections.
5. So God is super-nice and omnipotence
6. If God were super-nice and omnipotent, he would only create the best of all possible worlds
7. So this is the best of all possible worlds.

Which is to say, sure, there's evil. But this is the best of all possible worlds- less evil is impossible.

>BUT WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN OMNIPOTENT GOD BAWWW?

Because the natural laws that govern this world, which does contain evil, are the best way for God to express His infinite perfection, which is a higher priority than human suffering.

>>1621006
WOW DUMB NIGGER ALERT #2 BECAUSE THE PROBLEM OF EVIL ONLY EXISTS IF GOD IS BOTH OMNIPOTENT AND BENEVOLENT

OP DID NOT STATE HIS GOD WAS BENEVOLENT

LEARN TO READ, DUMB
NIGGER


YO

SOMEONE RING THE FUCKIN BELLS TO WAKE UP THE CHICKENS

CUZ DUMB NIGGERS ARE AMIDST

>>1621016
So you have some kind of concept of 'infinite perfection' which does not include benevolence?

>>1621015
At that point, though, I think you have to resort to the concept of 'perfection' being beyond human understanding and that pretty much contradicts the whole argument.

>>1621016

It's an a priori truth that the infinitely perfect being has those properties, you silly lout.

>>1621021

It's not beyond human perfection. I understand it. You don't. But that's because you're either stupid or ignorant :((((

>>1621015
WOW DUMB NIGGER ALERT #3

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET MICHAEL JACKSON IN HERE THAT TRAITOR GONNA WHITE THINGS UP A BIT

BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT SHOULD ACTUALLY CONCLUDE THAT EVIL IS A SOCIAL AND HUMAN CONSTRUCT AND DOES NOT EXIST (IE: EVIL DOES NOT OCCUR IN NATURE OR IN ANY NON-HUMAN ENDEAVOR)

HENCE EVIL DOES NOT TRUMP PERFECTION

DUMB NIGGER

GET YOUR SHIT RIGHT

OP here.

>>1621022
DUMB NIGGER ALERT #4

BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE EVIL EXISTS AND IS NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE PERFECTION NECESSITATES BENEVOLENCE

BECAUSE YOU ATTRIBUTE HUMAN QUALITIES AND CONSTRUCTIONS (BENEVOLENCE AND EVIL) TO A NON-HUMAN BEING (GOD)

>>1621038

I don't know anything about religion. But why are you such a racist?

>>1621030
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHweed?HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHphone+1 212-406-5310HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>1621038
A being that claims a mastery on benevolence but then acts like a fascist.
Niggerwhatthefuckareyoudoing.jpg

Kant proved existence is not a property forever ago. why do people still even bother with ontological arguments?

/thread

>>1621042
Actually, a being that claims mastery of benevolence WOULD always act like a fascist. If you have clear and certain knowledge of the good, that justifies whatever means you take to achieve the good.

>>1621042
>>1621041

DUMB NIGGER ALERT #5 AND #6 BECAUSE THESE TWO ANONS THINK RELIGION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH A PHILOSOPHICAL GOD OR THAT ANY DISCUSSION ON GOD AUTOMATICALLY IMPLIES BENEVOLENCE WHEN IT CLEARLY DOES NOT

AND ALSO BECAUSE ONE OF THESE DUMB NIGGERS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT RACISM IS

>>1621050
It's kind of dumb to talk about a 'philosophical god' because talking about god implies religious-god.

>0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being.
No, you really can't. This is make believe.

>1. It has every perfection.
No, it doesn't. Again, this is impossible even in the conceptual stage.

>2. Existence is a perfection.
This ...now this is just fucking gibberish.

>3. Therefore the perfect being (God) exists.
Therefore you have the ability to write that sentence. And that's about it.

>existence is a perfection
>implying it is
>implying one perfection makes something perfect

It's like saying
>an eight inch cock is the perfect cock
>my cock is eight inches
>i am the perfect being

Why would human concepts of perfection apply to a truly perfect being?
Can flawed beings ever truly know what it means to be completely without flaw?
Can existence be considered a flaw?
Can sentience?
Morality?
Is "super-nice" even an objective quality?

>>1621059
If you accept the universally true and binding character of reason, then the first two objections aren't particularly challenging.

>>1621051
Even if that being
>Implies it loves all people
then creates a universe made of mostly throw away people to filter down to the good? Sounds like an insane murdering bastard, imo.
This world isn't close to perfect, only you coddled Westerners think that. The idea that something intelligent created a shitfuck this massive is depressing. I love people more than your god, ergo, your god is not benevolence.

>>1621068
>binding character of Reason

Fucking historians. Lighten up, man.

>>1621055

Your ignorance saddens me.

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect troll.
1. It has every perfection
2. Trolling is a art
3. Art is perfection
4. Therefore the perfect troll (OP) exists.

>pic related, its the perfect troll

>>1621055
DUMB NIGGER ALERT #7 BECAUSE THIS ANON THINKS GOD COMES FROM RELIGION AND NOT VICE VERSA

YO DUMB NIGGER YOU BETTER GET YOUR FUCKING WATERMELLO'S IN GEAR BECAUSE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU AND I WILL TELL YOU IT IN A DIALECT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND:

YO, YO, CHECK, 1, 2, 3,
WHEN MAN OPENED HIS EYES THOSE NIGGAS SAID SHIT SON I GOT THIS IDEA NIGGA, IDEA, SON NIGGA SON SON NIGGA NIGGA SON SON SON

OUT IN MY CRIB AT COMPTON WE NIGGAS CRAFTED OUR NIGGA-SELVES A MOTHAFUCFKIN CHURCH

AND THA MOTHAFUCKIN CHURCH WE USED IT TO APPLY OUR GOD IDEA LIKE RIDING HOES IN THE CAB, WRITING GOD IN THE GAP

IDEA OF GOD PRECEDES RELIGION DUMB NIGGERS YOU FEEL MY BEAT SON? SON NIGGA SON SON SON NIGGA NIGGA SON- OUT.

Fun Fact of the Day: Organizing ideas in numbered lists do not make them absolutes.

Unless you're making a grocery list.

IF I WRITE PRINGLES ON THE FUCKING LIST, YOU DAMN WELL GET SOME PRINGLES, MOM. FUCK. IF I DON'T HAVE ANY PRINGLES, I CAN'T POP! AND IF I CAN'T FUCKING POP, THE FUN WILL NEVER START! AND IF THE FUN DOESN'T FUCKING START, IT WON'T BE ABLE TO NOT STOP!

I skimmed through the thread and didn't see anyone who asked the basic questions:

Why in the fuck did OP index from zero?

and

Who was phone?

>>1621164

Skimmed this thread, why did OP use Niggers in his explanations and all caps? I just skipped all the all caps shit, to annoying to read.

>Existence is a perfection.

harlequin fetus

you god fags are so delusional it hurts

>>1621113
I like your style. Don't ever change.

>>1621185
I LIKE YOUR CHANGE

DON'T EVER STYLE

>>1621178

Now now, your post is no good without the image. Look at that tasty extant fucker right there. Pure perfection that is.

>>1621206
WTF IS THAT THE THING FROM FANTASTIC FOUR?

WHY ISNT IT SAYING CLOBBER TIME?

OR IS IT JUST A DUMB NIGGER

Fuck it, I spent all that time thinking it up, so I'll resurrect this thread just to post it. (1/?)

I've always hated that argument. It's completely incoherent. There is no reason to believe that existence is a perfection, and there's an antecedent error in the conclusion. Hell, just for all of our sakes and to set the record straight for some retards who are arguing the same point as me, let's presume the ludicrous premises, using shorthand.

In this case, I'll use "phlebot" as a placeholder for a variable. Think of it as a "thing" except without the conceptual baggage that comes with that word. In this case, a phlebot is god, though we don't have a fixed definition. It is nothing more or less than what is defined in the syllogism. If the lettered shorthand gets confusing, just hit CTL+F and type "where (letter) is". Simple enough, eh?

>>1621449
>0. A perfect being is conceivable.
We can take this as one proposition (A), or a conjunction (A phelbot can be conceived) (B) and (A perfect being is a phlebot) (C)
>It has every perfection
If we go route a, this is a new proposition (D). If we go route b, we actually have two statements
The first is a biconditional: (C) iff [(E)and(F)] where (E) is "there is a set [x,y,z...] of phlebotproperties called perfection" and (F) is "A perfect being posesses all of the phlebot properties in the set [x,y,z...]
The second is a conditonal: If (F) then (G) and (H) where (G) is "phlebotproperty "existence" is a part of the set [x,y,z...]" and where (H) is "a perfect being posesses phlebotproperty "existence"". This is necessary to account for the implicit belief that a thing can phlebotexist which is not perfect, but a perfect thing cannot lack the phlebotproperty of existence, and to isolate a single significant phlebotproperty from the set of perfect phlebotproperties.
>Existence is a perfection
In both routes, we have a proposition, (G). We could make up a new letter for route a, but this shit is convoluted enough already.
So, before the conclusion we have:
Route A:
P1: A
P2: D
P3: G

Route B:
P1: B^C
P2: C iff (E^F)
P3: F>(G^H)
P4: G
>Therefore the perfect being exists
Now we are at our conclusion. Let's see what we can do with those two setups.

>>1621450
Route A:
Nothing, except possibly Addition, which will get us nowhere.
Route B:
1) [C^(E^F)] v [(~C^~(E^F)] by ME, P2
2) C by Simplification, P1
3) REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
H1: ~C^~(E^F)
4) ~C by Simplification, 3
THEREFORE
5) ~[(~C^~(E^F)] by RAD 3,4
6) C^(E^F) by Dysjunctive Syllogism, 1,5
7) (C^E)^F by Association, 6
8) F^(C^E) by Commutation, 7
9) F by Simplification, 8
10) G^H by Good Ol' Modus Ponens, P3,9
11) H by Simplification, 10

In either case, we have a conclusion that is still a discrete proposition: (I). Phrase it however you want. "A perfect being exists", "A perfect being has the property of existence". In the first case, it of course does not follow logically at all. That's because we took our propositions as discrete. Discrete propositions don't relate to each other. In the second case, we came to some interesting conclusions, right? We seem to have proven that God exists, because we conditionally related our propositions to one another. And yet, there remains, like a dark cloud, that term "phlebotproperty". Why did we choose that term instead of merely saying "property"? Well, class, I'll tell you. It's because we were describing a property of an object in terms of that object. Thus we can say that God exists conceptually. Because we can conceive of him and discuss him, he exists to the extent that he is concieved. In order to establish that he exists MATERIALLY, however, we need a new term: the property of material existence. That's why our conclusion is (I) instead of (H), and that's why it doesn't goddamn follow logically from the premises.

End of class. Hope we've all learned something. You'll have a pop quiz in the morning.

That took some goddamn effort, and I'm going to bump this thread until I get a response.

Even if it's invective.

Especially if it's invective. That seems to be the only way to get a conversation started 'round here.

>>1621451
>>1621450
>elegant proof in OP
>tortured wall of text of logic chopping in reply
>nope.exe.tiff.rar

I went back and skimmed it out of pity. Your symbolization of route A is wrong.

>>1621794
its funny how theists always choose the easy way

people arent capable of conceiving infinity or perfection

>>1620888
>3. Therefore, the Christmas being (Santa Clause) exists
true

I never understood why this was used as a legit argument. It just sems so fucking stupid. It's basically I believe in it so it exists. Well, I don't believe so it doesn't!

this is the most random string of statements i have ever read

I don't believe in this thing called "perfection" what is it exactly and how does one recognize it?

>>1621822

1 is perfect in that it is every number wthin the whole that makes up every number.

>>1621824
dogs are also perfect becaus theyre fluffy and bring back sticks we throw

I am infinitely perfect

I have every perfection

I live a perfect life

therefore i am god

>>1621850
up early.

0. I can conceive of an OP with a gaping asshole so enormous, it can consume the earth.
1. This OP has every imperfection, including being a major faggot.
2. OPs existence radiates imperfection, and contaminates everyone he comes into contact with.
3. Therefore, OP is a huge faggot, with a huge gaping asshole, and his presence makes everyone worse for having experienced him.

>>1621850
that's good fab. gold star.

>>1621794
>symbolization of route A is wrong
How?

>>1621868

I am still here, putting together my plans to rape you!

>>1621901
you're kind of lame.

>ghtionte unfolding

>>1621850

Fabulous, good to see your contributions to the thread! We were all waiting for your input! Do you think you could post some French poetry later? And where's Brownbear? Lit should be all Brownbear, all the time!

>>1621905

>tybrax
>calling someone "lame"

herpy derpy!

>>1621910
i might be pathetic here. but im not lame.

>>1621915

okie dokie!

>>1621921
fine.

>Therefore the perfect being (Deep&Edgy) exists.

fixed

>>1621015
By your logic, God is super-nice, and yet he isn't super-nice to everyone because his perfection is beyond human understanding? Your argument there refutes 0, and goes against super-niceness. You're a fucking retard.

Decartes was a hack who made for good quotes. Knock this off.

But OP, why would /lit/ not want pusskin's face?

>>1621929

>>1621968
Also:
>Even if it is granted that a supremely perfect being carries the implication of existence in virtue of its very title, it still does not follow that the existence in question is anything actual in the real world; all that follows is that the concept of existence is inseparably linked to the concept of a supreme being. So you cannot infer that the existence of God is anything actual unless you suppose that the supreme being actually exists; for then it will actually contain all perfections, including the perfection of real existence.
mfw I'm Johannes CATerus

>>1621938
>implying Descartes Ontological argument needs logic

>>1621981
>semantic quibbling

lol'd. Existence is existence.

lol anselm...

0/10

>>1623279
>semantic quibbling
>Existence is existence.
No and no, but good effort and good job at bumping.

>>1623288

Did you just say that a tautology is false? Bro, I got news for you...

>>1623291
You need to reread the Caterus quote, but slowly this time. Don't rush it.

>>1623294

'Existence is existence' is necessarily true. Deny it on pain of irrationality.

See the 'no and no' above.

You can't know of anything a priori

other than i am, and even thats debatable...

Anselm's ontological argument is the biggest troll of the century.

you are all fucking idiots...

on a side note, its always hilarious to see analytic philosophers gouge their eyes out over validity...
continentals suffice to say "that's just fucking retarted"

all in all,

its just fucking retarded...

>>1623308

So, you can't derive A from A&B a priori?

So, you think an emotional response to an argument is enough to overturn it?

So, the only philosopher you've ever read is the Meditations and whatever Zizek Borders happens to carry?

>>1623297
You cannot into reading then. He's saying "Yeah, if we start with a perfect being, then that means existence is inseparably linked to it. But, why do we need to start with the idea of a supreme being? We can still have existence without one, but we can't have a supreme being without existence"

Also, spouting "tautology! Irrational!" won't necessarily work on the above argument. Both the arguments and the counters have to be non-logical. This is what OP was talking about when they said /lit/ cannot into it.

>>1623317

lol.

I really hope you're trolling...

>>1623335
me too

Can "existence" really count as a quality?

>>1623341
>thread with substantial philosophical discussion
>D&E stays largely the fuck quiet
>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

I can imagine a perfect island, wih perfect weather, and perfect everything, doesn't mean that island exists

/thread

>>1623352
But perfect things aren't divisible. The island will not last forever.

>>1623351
no d&e is probably burned out on Descartes cos its babby's first philosophy.

It seems quite incorrect to label existence a perfection; as qualifying it with a term like "perfect" means there's a gradient with which to grade existence. Considering, something exists, or does not -- there is no coming into existence -- then there needs to be an example of good existing, great existing, bad existing, worse existing, etc. Only then could there be something against which to measure "perfect."

>>1623358
>my fist when

You, sir, get points for both speed and philosophical expertise.

>>1623351

i fucking hate D&E. he's a queer...
but he's obviously prudent enough to not engage himself in disproving the biggest joke in philosophy...
anyone who takes this seriously is a fucking idiot, and should reconsider his/her major.

>>1623361
>tripfag choking on another tripfag's cock
>not even a little bit surprised

>>1623365
I wish I hadn't now, I'm worried this thread will just die...

This being exists within the context of the fictional world you've created for it. In the real world, however, things do not exist simply because you can conceive of them.

>>1623381

None of my premises introduce a world other than this one. What now, I have an unarticulated world shifting operator? Fuck that Chomsky shit.

>>1623364

It's true- existence certainly isn't a smooth sort of category. But there is more than existing and not existing- consider, for example, that numbers exist, but have no power (I will prove this if silly anons can't work it out for themselves...). Thus, existence isn't on-off either, and talking about a "better" existence is possible.

>>1623392
>numbers exist

just yesterday I had a delicious juicy 4 for dinner

>>1623358
Not the guy you responded to, but calling indivisibility a perfection is arbitrary. Why can't I just say that it's better for things to be made of many parts than to be irreducible?

But even granting that indivisibility is a perfection, suppose all aspects of the perfect island--the weather, the fauna, etc.--are inseparable from one another. Also, suppose the perfect island lasts forever. What now?

You could probably respond that the island is still divisible because you can consider one aspect of the island--say, its fauna--without considering the other aspects. But I could use the same argument on traditional conceptions of God; I could meditate on God's mercy without considering God's omnipresence. Or I could think about Jesus without thinking about the Holy Spirit.

So the rebuttal still holds. The OP's argument still works for the perfect island and is therefore refuted.

TODAY HAVE 4 YOUR'S NEW STUFF!! HOT C.P. CP!!!! CP!!!!! AND JAILBAIT MOVIES!!!!! 11-17 YRS OLD NAKED GIRLS!!!!!

http://4p5.com/60bf5d
http://4p5.com/515b1
http://4p5.com/a780bf
http://4p5.com/aed1
http://4p5.com/ee4b4f
http://4p5.com/fa26f8
http://4p5.com/0b8f76
http://4p5.com/c2aab7
http://4p5.com/281176
http://4p5.com/65a870
http://4p5.com/9b93ae
http://4p5.com/0b3b0c
http://4p5.com/cd887f
http://4p5.com/5dbd3f
http://4p5.com/a1a335
http://4p5.com/eda2d3
http://4p5.com/d60421
http://4p5.com/db
http://4p5.com/462f18
http://4p5.com/ba4a8e
http://4p5.com/526b66
http://4p5.com/6bb5c8
http://4p5.com/f0e33c
http://4p5.com/a74477
http://4p5.com/48e0f3
http://4p5.com/279acd
http://4p5.com/ffa663
http://4p5.com/e0caeb
http://4p5.com/582f2d
http://4p5.com/7c7b54
http://4p5.com/399c83
http://4p5.com/1068ae
http://4p5.com/da403c
http://4p5.com/57
http://4p5.com/72004b
http://4p5.com/8123a6
http://4p5.com/e0481a
http://4p5.com/81aac1
http://4p5.com/13908
http://4p5.com/e1f804
http://4p5.com/dd5369
http://4p5.com/2cbeac
http://4p5.com/24c
http://4p5.com/f695dd
http://4p5.com/ee84bf
http://4p5.com/2b2a38
http://4p5.com/bec23e
http://4p5.com/6215d5
http://4p5.com/ec1d4b
http://4p5.com/1dee8e

SAVE ALL LINK'S to new doc.txt before 404's AND DOWNLOAD AFTER TIME!!!!!!sndovodino

>begging the question by defining god to exist

try harder

YOU ARE ALL VERY VERY STUPID

ANY PHILOSOPHY MAJOR POSTING SERIOUSLY AGAINST (if you just rudely dismissed it then you are safe) OR FOR THIS TOPIC SHOULD IMMEDIATELY SWITCH MAJORS.

anyway
im out of here.
this fat librarian bitch where i work and suffer is about to belly dance...and i'm taping it, before slicing my wrists.
good night

>>1623399
>>1623399
>>1623399

/thread

>>1623420

OP here. God exists and is omnibenevolent, so He loves you no matter what!

>>1623435
God here. OP is a faggot, and you know how I feel about those.

>>1623448
>God
>feelings
>emotions
>mind body union
>not pure mind
>nope

What the fuck do they teach you shitheels in school, any fuckingways?

>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879
>>1620879

Oh, shut up, existing is clearly better than not existing. What would you rather?

The fact that something is conceivable doesn't lend to its reality.
Come back to us when you've finished Philosophy 101, OP.

>>1624105
>I accept 0 but not 1 2 and 3 because I'm irrational

K

>>1623420

Behold the caliber of the people who disagree with me.

>>1623416
>Accusing Descartes ontological argument of begging the question
Lol, no.

>0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being.
No you cannot, you can conceive the existence of a perfect being. But not the perfect being itself.

>1. It has every perfection.
Yeah that's what infinitely perfect beings have. That's like saying; "I can conceive a salami sandwich, it has salami on it".

>2. Existence is a perfection.
Subjective as fuck. Some would argue non-Existence is a perfection.

>3. Therefore the perfect being (God) exists.
hurr.


I am Christian and I think your arguments are dumb,

>>1624714

So wait, let's just focus on (2). You're a Christian. I'm going to assume that you think God exists. If you would really maintain that non existence is a perfection, then you're going to say that God is imperfect.

Welp. Enjoy Hell!

Hey OP try this fucking asshole logic with gravity after you leap out of a window.

dick

>>1624720
That's why I said 'some would argue'.

>>1624723

Okay, so you don't actually disagree with 2. Thus, if the argument is wrong, we need to look at 0 and 1.

>No you cannot, you can conceive the existence of a perfect being. But not the perfect being itself.

You aren't explaining yourself here, but anyways:

You, like everyone, are mixing up conceiving and imagining. Imagining is a sort of mental looking- one cannot imagine an infinitely sided figure, and similarly one cannot imagine God. However, conceiving is something different- it's a sort of intellectual apprehension. You don't grasp the whole thing, but you grasp something which allows you to understand the whole thing, and to imagine at least some parts of it. So you can conceive of, say, an infinitely long line.

So, let's see. I can conceive of beings. I can conceive of perfection. I can conceive of perfect beings. And I can, as we saw above, conceive of infinite shit. Thus: I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being.

>Yeah that's what infinitely perfect beings have. That's like saying; "I can conceive a salami sandwich, it has salami on it".

Oh, so you agree with (1). Fantastic then. God exists.

>>1624683

behold, the catholic virgin,
trolled by the biggest joke in philosophy.
Anselm's ontological argument is introduced to freshman philosophy students, in many colleges, as "an example of a bad argument for the existence of God", followed by an example of a good argument, which is some version of the Cosmological argument.
There is no philosopher in the world, other than priests teaching at Notre Dame, who take the ontological argument seriously...

you made write way more I wanted to...
fuck yourself, you idiot.


ps. there is no God.

>>1624733
> good argument, which is some version of the Cosmological argument.

lol. As I said a couple days ago,

>You incompetent shits always disagree with the conclusion but never actually have a rational reason to disagree.

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect sandwich.
1. It has every perfection.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore the perfect sandwich exists.

No it does not. The jump you make from point 2 to 3 is strange.

>>1624737

lol..
i dont think you understand...
and I'm not wasting my time to make you understand either...
you win...keep at it.

>>1624775

You've been predicted.

>>1623365
>>1623358

>>1624779
And I see
>>1623398
Gave a good counterargument.

>>1623398

The only way to get genuine "lasting forever" is immateriality. Then the argument does indeed go through for any number of immaterial perfect things which exist outside the spacetime continuum. This is consistent with Meinong's ontology, which is to say, it's not a refutation of the position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong

>>1623398
Distinction between essence and existence, or, in fact, the lack of such.

The difference between the perfect being and "perfect" objects is that the objects are derivative, composite and finite, and that it is not a necessary part of their essence that they exist. So the perfect being has necessary and perfect existence whereas the objects only have a possible/contingent existence.