/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17744206]

>"God exists"
Why?
>". . . B-BECAUSE HE JUST DOES OKAY"

is there a worse """philosopher""" than Anselm?

[Anonymous No.17744207]

but he's right

[Anonymous No.17744209]

>>17744206

[Anonymous No.17744237]

>>17744206
>mfw the fact that we have a concept of god proves that he must exist

[Anonymous No.17744247]

>you need to prove Gods existence

[Anonymous No.17744266]

>>17744206
All else aside that is one fly looking nigga.

[Anonymous No.17744274]

>we have a concept of god
>if he is god, he must be the greatest of all possible beings
>what is good is better and more powerful if it exists in reality and not just conceptually
>so a god that exists in reality is better than a god that exists only conceptually
>but one greatest of all possible beings cannot be greater than another greatest of all possible beings
>therefore god must exist

What is this black magic? How do you refute this shit?

[Anonymous No.17744283]

>>17744274
Third argument is that 3d > 2d, which is where he totally lost me

[Anonymous No.17744290]

>>17744274
>How do you refute this shit?

[Anonymous No.17744298]

>>17744274
By positing that the greatest being would still be subject to the definitions and limitations of Being proper. To exist is to be limited. God, due to being almighty, can therefore not exist. Unless he is Being proper I guess. But than he wouldn't be the greatest being, but rather the distributor of greatness.

[Anonymous No.17744314]

'God' didn't come into being until man came into being. Conceptualization of God, therefore God, did not exist before that. Instead He was that He was, so to say.

[Anonymous No.17744316]

>>17744290
Some imaginary island isn't necessarily the greatest of all possible beings

[Anonymous No.17744320]

>>17744314
Or, father is not a father until a child is born.

[Anonymous No.17744327]

God doesn't "exist".

God is.

[Anonymous No.17744333]

>>17744274
I have a concept of /god/, the greatest board on 4chan

what is good is better and more powerful if it exists in reality and not just conceptually

so a 4chan board that exists in reality is better than a 4chan board that exists only conceptually

therefore /god/ exists

[Anonymous No.17744347]

>>17744274
>we have a concept of God
We have a concept of "non-God"

>so a God that exists in realty is better than a God that exists only conceptually

Why?

[Anonymous No.17744354]

>>17744347
>Why?

[Anonymous No.17744359]

>>17744347
if i'm starving to death, food in front of me is better than the idea of food right in front of me, no?

[Anonymous No.17744362]

>>17744274
it's an anagogical 'argument' or better meditation, read the proslogion and monologion.

[Anonymous No.17744370]

>>17744347
>Why?

Think of your perfect waifu. No matter what you think of, your perfect waifu will always be better if it exists opposed to being such a figment of your imagination. Even if you believe 2D > 3D (which is correct), your perfect 2D Waifu can still be real (and thus more perfect) than being imaginary.

[Anonymous No.17744371]

>>17744274
You can't. People have tried forever and it's impossible. God exists. Deal with it gaytheists

[Anonymous No.17744372]

>>17744333
But a greatest 4chan board does exist, and just because it isn't normally referred to as /god/ doesn't mean it doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.17744378]

>>17744372
>But a greatest 4chan board does exist

oh yea I forgot about /w/

[Anonymous No.17744382]

>>17744372
>But a greatest 4chan board does exist
/pol/?

[Anonymous No.17744389]

>>17744370
>Even if you believe 2D > 3D (which is correct),
holy based

[Anonymous No.17744401]

>>17744347
>Why?
because a being that is truly almighty in the strictest sense of the word would be the arbiter of truth, not mortal humans ergo a god that exists must be superior to a human fabricated god out of sheer necessity.

[Anonymous No.17744557]

>>17744274
Thomas Aquinas provides a refutation of this argument in the First Article of the Second Question of the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica:

Excerpt from: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

>On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:2). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

>I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (I:3:4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

[Anonymous No.17744575]

>>17744557
>>17744274
cont.
>Article 1. Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
>Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

>Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

>Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

These are the claims that Thomas refutes in his objections. cont

[Anonymous No.17744595]

>>17744557
>>17744575
>>17744274

>Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

>Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

>Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

[Anonymous No.17745109]

>>17744274
God existing in reality is only an assertion and not a logical conclusion. Existence of God adds nothing to the concept of God which is already all-powerful, all-encompassing etc.
If existence were to increase God's power in any way or whatever, then you weren't actually conceptualizing God.

[Anonymous No.17745198]

>>17744237
I have a concept of me getting head from michelle pfeiffer like she looked in 1983 right now but

[Anonymous No.17745266]

>>17745109
But we are dealing with ontology, anon. God is obviously above Being and even intelligibility, to anything exist both are necessary.

[Anonymous No.17745283]

>>17744206
that also happens to be every argument in favor of free will

[Anonymous No.17745298]

>>17744372
exactly, just because a maximally great being exist, it doesn't mean he is anythng like the god described in christian teachings

[Anonymous No.17745302]

>>17744274
something isn't reified by virtue of logical necessity. paradoxes seem necessary and yet they don't apply to reality.