The only thing that has to exist is the consciousness capable of conception. Nothing else MUST exist. We accept the existence of everything else based on sensory evidence, except for concepts (like freedom) which are labels for things that MAY have a sensory component but nonetheless ARE evidenced in reality. None of this proves that a god exists, much less any particular god. Solipsism - to which I do not subscribe - is no worse than your a priori argument. Neither PROVES anything.
@MISHKINPUSH You are making a lot of counter-claims, but you are not dealing with the logic of my argument. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Also, you could reply to my replies so that this conversation is in a single stream, instead of posting a brand new comment every time.
@NomosCharis The logic of your argument is flawed because no matter how you try to dress it up or manipulate semantics, you are claiming to prove the existence of a being on the sole basis of the intellectual conception of that being. Period. If there is any justification in your argument other than intellectual conception please state what that is, because I don't see it. Is this the best argument you have for god's existence? Is it the only one?
@MISHKINPUSH I don't see why it should be impossible to prove the existence of something based only on the conception of it. What justification do you have for your claim that empirical evidence is necessary in order to prove the existence of a thing? I'd like to hear that.
@NomosCharis "I don't see why it should be impossible to prove the existence of something based only on the conception of it." I do. If conception is enough to prove existence, that should be a useful tool for proving that all sorts of "somethings" exist. Can you list some of the other things that can be proven to exist just by conception alone? Do you realize that this is exactly what you denied doing in an earlier post: conception = existence.
@MISHKINPUSH Conception cannot be used as proof for the existence of anything, ...UNLESS the conception of that thing's non-existence is impossible. And, in this case, it is.
It is the same principle that applies in Descartes' proof, Cogito Ergo Sum. He reasons that, since it is impossible to conceive of himself not-existing (right now), he must therefore exist (right now). The same principle works with that being which cannot not exist.
@NomosCharis It is not impossible. Descartes says "the proposition, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived by my mind." What you are proposing is to say "the proposition, god exists, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived by my mind." By Descartes' reasoning, god - or Descartes himself - may cease existing at any point that his mind cannot conceive it.
@MISHKINPUSH Precisely. However, the being conceived in this argument is a different kind of being from Descartes or myself. The principle is still the same however, which is this: whatever cannot be conceived of as not existing RIGHT NOW, must exist right now. That being can be anything depending on the circumstances. In this case, the reason we cannot conceive of God not existing RIGHT NOW, is because he cannot be conceived to not exist ANYWHERE or at ANY TIME. Ergo, he exists right now.
@NomosCharis I'm telling you - for at least the third time - that I CAN conceive of the being you describe as not existing. If there are NO conscious minds to conceive of such a being, does it still exist? If the answer is "no" then you are saying that conception = existence. If the answer is "yes" than there must exist other proof of the being's existence besides your inability not to conceive of it. Please provide the other proof or admit that you are saying that conception = existence.
@MISHKINPUSH ///I'm telling you... that I CAN conceive of the being you describe as not existing.///
I can make claims too. Watch: No you can't, and for that reason you are making claims and deliberately refusing to deal with the logic of my argument.
@MISHKINPUSH ///Is this the best argument you have for God's existence? Is it the only one.///
No, not the only one. I'm not sure what argument is best, to be honest. I believe this one is compelling, which should be enough, but there are others that are equally compelling in my view.
Problem is, at the end of the day, I think they all boil down to the same basic proof, which is: Nothing does not and cannot exist; therefore, an infinite, uncreated, immutable, necessary something exists.
@NomosCharis I agree, that is a problem, because that reasoning - even if correct - in no way implies that the "infinite, uncreated, immutable necessary something" is god, or even a conscious being. It could simply be the universe itself and whatever the universe was prior to the big bang. Do you reject Kalam's cosmological argument? Do you believe there is any empirical evidence for the existence of god?
@MISHKINPUSH It does imply that it is a conscious being. I explain why at the end of my part 2 video. It cannot be just the universe, because the universe does not exist necessarily in the sense described; it is finite (and yes, I would refer to something like the Kalaam argument to prove this). Even using the language you did when talking about it (i.e. "whatever the universe WAS before," etc.) admits that it is mutable, contingent, and otherwise finite, not the necessary being in question.
@NomosCharis You don't know that the universe is finite. Cosmology suggests only that the current incarnation of it is. And you have not proven that an infinite conscious being exists, because you have not proven that we cannot conceive of it not existing. For Kalam to have teeth, you would first have to prove that it was possible for the cosmological constants to be anything other than what they are, and that has not been done.
@MISHKINPUSH Kalaam does not rely on modern Cosmology at all. I would refer to the philosophical proofs of Premise 2. For instance, you call this the "current incarnation" of the universe. How many have there been? Is there a first? If not, how did we arrive at the current one (how did it come to exist), since an actually infinite number of incarnations had to precede it before that could happen?
@MISHKINPUSH You never did answer my question to you about how many "incarnations of the universe" there have been before the current one, and whether or not you admit that there must be a first. ???
@MISHKINPUSH Here's an attempt to help you deal with the logic of my argument: You say that "nothing else has to exist." So, are you claiming that there is no such thing as a thing that objectively, in and of itself, has to exist? That everything and anything, considered individually, might somehow not exist?
@NomosCharis Going from "something must exist" to "the greatest unlimited being must exist eternally" is unjustified. I agree A THING which exists cannot NOT exist, but that in no way implies that any SPECIFIC thing that can be conceived MUST exist, which is the bottom line of your argument. Your conclusion "god's being is established because we cannot NOT have a concept of his existence" is wrong. I can conceive of ANY specific thing as not existing when there is NO evidence for its existence.
@MISHKINPUSH ///...when there is NO evidence for its existence./// You keep insisting that empirical evidence is necessary in order to prove the existence of something. I don't see why that has to be the case.
What do you mean by this sentence: ///I agree A THING which exists cannot not exist///
Do you admit then that logically something must exist which does not have the ability to not exist?
@NomosCharis I mean A PARTICULAR GIVEN THING (a tree, the universe) which WE KNOW DOES exist (IDEALLY through empirical evidence, which is the best way we have of knowing anything) cannot NOT exist. That doesn't mean it exists eternally; it doesn't mean that ANYTHING MUST exist simply because we can conceive of it, ESPECIALLY if there is no empirical evidence to support a belief in its existence. I DO NOT agree that some particular thing must exist because you can't conceive of it NOT existing.
@MISHKINPUSH Let's get one thing clear: I have never claimed that God exists because we can conceive of him. That's nonsense. This argument only deals with how we can know if God exists; our knowledge, and reasons for that knowledge. It does not pretend to delve into the nature of the thing known or to explain why it exists. There is a difference.
That said, you're just wrong about the tree, the universe, etc. Just because we know that it does exist now, doesn't mean it cannot not exist.
@NomosCharis Then why are you giving that thing the label "god" knowing full well the doctrinal and dogmatic baggage that such a label carries? That seems completely insincere or purposefully obtuse.
@MISHKINPUSH How would you describe and define "God." Maybe that's where our problem lies.
I would define God something like this: The eternal, infinite, unchangeable, and personal being that purposefully created and constantly sustains the existence of the "universe" (which is defined, basically, as everything that exists, or that has ever existed, that is not God).
@NomosCharis Based on your definition, I can conceive of a greater being. To paraphrase Dawkins: a god who could create and constantly sustain the universe while simultaneously bearing the handicap of not existing would be an even greater god. Therefore, god does not exist.
And if you can perceive how ridiculous that argument is, you need to take another look at your own.
@MISHKINPUSH Neither you, nor anybody else, can conceive what you say. A thing that does not exist cannot do ANYTHING. In order for it to do anything, it would have to exist. That is a logical certainty. Your claim that you can conceive of such a being is a lie--an empty claim. Contradictions and formally false assertions cannot be conceived by anyone. You might as well claim to conceive of a square-triangle.
I hate regurgitations of bad Dawkins arguments (btw, that's not originally his).
"something cannot not exist." In other words, "something cannot possess the property of non-existence." The "something" we're referring to - by your argument - is something that we are conceiving of, in other words, a concept. So: a concept cannot possess the property of non-existence. That is completely false, regardless of what the concept is, or how many different conceptualized "somethings" we're talking about, including the being spoken of in your argument, since that being is a concept.
@MISHKINPUSH That is a simple misunderstanding of the language. I am not saying that whatever we conceive of existing must exist. What I am saying is that there must be something which cannot not exist. We must conceive of something (at least one thing--a particular thing) that somehow does not have the ability to not exist. It does not follow from that that whatever we conceive of has to exist in the same way. You're just insisting that my argument is claiming something that it doesn't.
@MISHKINPUSH In other words, I am not claiming that ANY something must exist. I am only claiming that there must (logically) be "A" (as in "one") something that must exist, and that we cannot conceive otherwise (because we would then have to conceive of the possibility of nothing existing).
Prove that we cannot conceive of something infinite as not existing. An infinite bigfoot does not exist. "We always conceive of god existing, and never conceive of him not existing." Not true. I do conceive of him not existing, as I conceive of the flying purple elephant not existing. Your rebuttal is "to deny this, one would have to contradict himself claiming that he is able to conceive of what he admits cannot be conceived." NO. I can conceive of what I admit DOES NOT EXIST. Big difference.
@MISHKINPUSH You cannot conceive of the being spoken of in my argument as not existing. Depends on how you define God I guess. Perhaps, by your definition, even I would agree "God does not exist."
It's not the same thing. Do you agree that "non-existence" is a possible property of something that can be conceived? If you do not, then everything which can be conceived must exist. Is that what you believe?
Because in no case does conception equal existence. And, in reality, if "non-existence" were not a true state, ALL conceivable things would exist, which is clearly not true. While "nothing existing" may be logically false, "something not existing" is not, otherwise any "something" that could be conceived would have to exist. A flying purple elephant that orbits my head dropping candy on children possesses the property of "non-existence" even though I can conceive of no greater elephant.
@MISHKINPUSH I admit your point at the beginning of my part 2 video. It's the first objection to my argument that I bring up and deal with. Watch that video and get back to me.
@MISHKINPUSH Besides, you're wrong. "Something cannot not exist" is simply the converse statement of "nothing cannot exist." In other words, it's just two ways of saying the same thing, so if you admit that one of them is a contradiction (which you do), you must admit that the other one is just as much a contradiction. One follows from the other simply as a matter of strict logic.
Do you really not see how flawed this argument is? I feel sorry for you that you must use mental calisthenics to justify a belief that has no justification.
Jonathan, i thought whilst we were discussing this issue i would ask you a question I have regarding this argument. Now we, unlike Anselm, understand the context of our arrival here on earth, how does this argument fit into an evolutionary context? By that I mean as we go back in time the greatest conceivable being becomes progressively less great so does this mean that 500,000 years ago God was less great and in the Cambrian non-existant?
I don't understand how the greatest conceivable being would become less great as we go back in time. The existence and nature of this being does not at all depend on us.
How can the nature of the greatest conceivable being not depend on the limits of conception? As the limits of conception have advanced so has the greatest being of which we can conceive, how can that not be the case?
i am sure the ontological argument could be reworded to get around this in some way but in anselms form is seems dependent entirely on our intellectual limits.
Well, I agree with you that anselm's form suffers from that problem, which is why I made this video presenting what I think is a more correct form. I answer this problem in particular in my part 2 video. It's the first point I make there.
However, I don't think that was Anselm's point either. He wasn't saying that the greatest being a particular creature can conceive must exist; only that the greatest being WE can conceive of happens to be such a being that it must exist.
"He wasn't saying that the greatest being a particular creature can conceive must exist; only that the greatest being WE can conceive of happens to be such a being that it must exist."
I agree but go back 500,000 years and the argument either ceases to be logical or we must apply it to another creature (our ancestors.
Anyway, leaving all that aside, whatever happened to your videographic career, where are your promised videos on the cosmiological argument?
Yeah... I kinda dropped the ball there. I got busy with other things, and I guess I lost motivation. Not even sure why. Maybe partly because not many non-christians seemed to be interested in my videos. But I'll pick it up again soon I hope.
You need to give it time and, as someone with few subs, do video responses and stuff as well. i would doubt many atheists even stumbled by your videos, so the lack of interest was actually pure ignorance.
@jasoncanadian, Oh, I see why you might not have seen the definition of "nothing" in the description box. It's under the definition for "Non-being" (which is the same thing).
@jasoncanadian, You might be able to say it's "half-full of NOT-water," which I suppose is a KIND of nothing, though the glass is still not half full of truely nothing.
@jasoncanadian, 3) This question doesn't seem to be relevant, but my answer is, I supposr it depends on the direction of change. Is the glass "filling," or is it "emptying?" If it's filling, then it's half full. If emptying, then it's half empty. But as you pointed out, saying a glass is "half-empty" (OF WATER) is not to say that it's "half-full of nothing!" That's just silly.
@jasoncanadian, 1) I gave definitions for my terms in the description box. Is that definition somehow not to your satisfaction? 2) It's the only possible definition for nothing, or else we'd have to say it's something, which is nonsense.
I have three questions - (1) What is your definition for 'Nothing' and (2) from where do you get that definition?
Also, you come across a glass which has 50% water in it - (3) Is the glass, half empty or half full?
Or is the (3rd) question a trick question because the area above the 50% water is not nothing, there is 50% air (a gas) of which you cannot see, so the check answer would logically be - the glass is full - yes-no?
@AnonymousComrade, No one can think of what you describe. When you say this being, while not existing, CREATED everything, you imply that it existed, because what does not exist does not do anything. It would be equivalent to literally "nothing" creating everything (nothing is "non-being" not a being). So what you have is a being that both existed and did not exist at the same time, & if you say "But not in the same sense," you simply admit that this being DID exist, so you're wrong.
@AnonymousComrade, Besides, "greatness" can only describe something that exists. If it IS "great" then it IS. If it is NOT, then it is NOT great. If you say, "Well, it was not great before it existed, but after it exists it is great," then how did it begin to exist? By something even greater? You cannot say that it created itself, for that has the same problem as above: In order for a thing to create itself, it must already exist. Did nothing create it? Then it is not created; it is not. ?
Before i move on to the second part i have to say, i fully except your Ontological argument. And the reason i except it is the same reason many Christians apologists would never use it. It points to the wrong "Being".
The only thing that has to exist is the consciousness capable of conception. Nothing else MUST exist. We accept the existence of everything else based on sensory evidence, except for concepts (like freedom) which are labels for things that MAY have a sensory component but nonetheless ARE evidenced in reality. None of this proves that a god exists, much less any particular god. Solipsism - to which I do not subscribe - is no worse than your a priori argument. Neither PROVES anything.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH You are making a lot of counter-claims, but you are not dealing with the logic of my argument. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Also, you could reply to my replies so that this conversation is in a single stream, instead of posting a brand new comment every time.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis The logic of your argument is flawed because no matter how you try to dress it up or manipulate semantics, you are claiming to prove the existence of a being on the sole basis of the intellectual conception of that being. Period. If there is any justification in your argument other than intellectual conception please state what that is, because I don't see it. Is this the best argument you have for god's existence? Is it the only one?
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH I don't see why it should be impossible to prove the existence of something based only on the conception of it. What justification do you have for your claim that empirical evidence is necessary in order to prove the existence of a thing? I'd like to hear that.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis "I don't see why it should be impossible to prove the existence of something based only on the conception of it." I do. If conception is enough to prove existence, that should be a useful tool for proving that all sorts of "somethings" exist. Can you list some of the other things that can be proven to exist just by conception alone? Do you realize that this is exactly what you denied doing in an earlier post: conception = existence.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Conception cannot be used as proof for the existence of anything, ...UNLESS the conception of that thing's non-existence is impossible. And, in this case, it is.
It is the same principle that applies in Descartes' proof, Cogito Ergo Sum. He reasons that, since it is impossible to conceive of himself not-existing (right now), he must therefore exist (right now). The same principle works with that being which cannot not exist.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis It is not impossible. Descartes says "the proposition, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived by my mind." What you are proposing is to say "the proposition, god exists, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived by my mind." By Descartes' reasoning, god - or Descartes himself - may cease existing at any point that his mind cannot conceive it.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Precisely. However, the being conceived in this argument is a different kind of being from Descartes or myself. The principle is still the same however, which is this: whatever cannot be conceived of as not existing RIGHT NOW, must exist right now. That being can be anything depending on the circumstances. In this case, the reason we cannot conceive of God not existing RIGHT NOW, is because he cannot be conceived to not exist ANYWHERE or at ANY TIME. Ergo, he exists right now.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis I'm telling you - for at least the third time - that I CAN conceive of the being you describe as not existing. If there are NO conscious minds to conceive of such a being, does it still exist? If the answer is "no" then you are saying that conception = existence. If the answer is "yes" than there must exist other proof of the being's existence besides your inability not to conceive of it. Please provide the other proof or admit that you are saying that conception = existence.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH ///I'm telling you... that I CAN conceive of the being you describe as not existing.///
I can make claims too. Watch: No you can't, and for that reason you are making claims and deliberately refusing to deal with the logic of my argument.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH ///Is this the best argument you have for God's existence? Is it the only one.///
No, not the only one. I'm not sure what argument is best, to be honest. I believe this one is compelling, which should be enough, but there are others that are equally compelling in my view.
Problem is, at the end of the day, I think they all boil down to the same basic proof, which is: Nothing does not and cannot exist; therefore, an infinite, uncreated, immutable, necessary something exists.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis I agree, that is a problem, because that reasoning - even if correct - in no way implies that the "infinite, uncreated, immutable necessary something" is god, or even a conscious being. It could simply be the universe itself and whatever the universe was prior to the big bang. Do you reject Kalam's cosmological argument? Do you believe there is any empirical evidence for the existence of god?
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH It does imply that it is a conscious being. I explain why at the end of my part 2 video. It cannot be just the universe, because the universe does not exist necessarily in the sense described; it is finite (and yes, I would refer to something like the Kalaam argument to prove this). Even using the language you did when talking about it (i.e. "whatever the universe WAS before," etc.) admits that it is mutable, contingent, and otherwise finite, not the necessary being in question.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis You don't know that the universe is finite. Cosmology suggests only that the current incarnation of it is. And you have not proven that an infinite conscious being exists, because you have not proven that we cannot conceive of it not existing. For Kalam to have teeth, you would first have to prove that it was possible for the cosmological constants to be anything other than what they are, and that has not been done.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Kalaam does not rely on modern Cosmology at all. I would refer to the philosophical proofs of Premise 2. For instance, you call this the "current incarnation" of the universe. How many have there been? Is there a first? If not, how did we arrive at the current one (how did it come to exist), since an actually infinite number of incarnations had to precede it before that could happen?
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH You never did answer my question to you about how many "incarnations of the universe" there have been before the current one, and whether or not you admit that there must be a first. ???
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Here's an attempt to help you deal with the logic of my argument: You say that "nothing else has to exist." So, are you claiming that there is no such thing as a thing that objectively, in and of itself, has to exist? That everything and anything, considered individually, might somehow not exist?
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis Going from "something must exist" to "the greatest unlimited being must exist eternally" is unjustified. I agree A THING which exists cannot NOT exist, but that in no way implies that any SPECIFIC thing that can be conceived MUST exist, which is the bottom line of your argument. Your conclusion "god's being is established because we cannot NOT have a concept of his existence" is wrong. I can conceive of ANY specific thing as not existing when there is NO evidence for its existence.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH ///...when there is NO evidence for its existence./// You keep insisting that empirical evidence is necessary in order to prove the existence of something. I don't see why that has to be the case.
What do you mean by this sentence: ///I agree A THING which exists cannot not exist///
Do you admit then that logically something must exist which does not have the ability to not exist?
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis I mean A PARTICULAR GIVEN THING (a tree, the universe) which WE KNOW DOES exist (IDEALLY through empirical evidence, which is the best way we have of knowing anything) cannot NOT exist. That doesn't mean it exists eternally; it doesn't mean that ANYTHING MUST exist simply because we can conceive of it, ESPECIALLY if there is no empirical evidence to support a belief in its existence. I DO NOT agree that some particular thing must exist because you can't conceive of it NOT existing.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Let's get one thing clear: I have never claimed that God exists because we can conceive of him. That's nonsense. This argument only deals with how we can know if God exists; our knowledge, and reasons for that knowledge. It does not pretend to delve into the nature of the thing known or to explain why it exists. There is a difference.
That said, you're just wrong about the tree, the universe, etc. Just because we know that it does exist now, doesn't mean it cannot not exist.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis Then why are you giving that thing the label "god" knowing full well the doctrinal and dogmatic baggage that such a label carries? That seems completely insincere or purposefully obtuse.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH How would you describe and define "God." Maybe that's where our problem lies.
I would define God something like this: The eternal, infinite, unchangeable, and personal being that purposefully created and constantly sustains the existence of the "universe" (which is defined, basically, as everything that exists, or that has ever existed, that is not God).
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@NomosCharis Based on your definition, I can conceive of a greater being. To paraphrase Dawkins: a god who could create and constantly sustain the universe while simultaneously bearing the handicap of not existing would be an even greater god. Therefore, god does not exist.
And if you can perceive how ridiculous that argument is, you need to take another look at your own.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Neither you, nor anybody else, can conceive what you say. A thing that does not exist cannot do ANYTHING. In order for it to do anything, it would have to exist. That is a logical certainty. Your claim that you can conceive of such a being is a lie--an empty claim. Contradictions and formally false assertions cannot be conceived by anyone. You might as well claim to conceive of a square-triangle.
I hate regurgitations of bad Dawkins arguments (btw, that's not originally his).
NomosCharis 1 month ago
"something cannot not exist." In other words, "something cannot possess the property of non-existence." The "something" we're referring to - by your argument - is something that we are conceiving of, in other words, a concept. So: a concept cannot possess the property of non-existence. That is completely false, regardless of what the concept is, or how many different conceptualized "somethings" we're talking about, including the being spoken of in your argument, since that being is a concept.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH That is a simple misunderstanding of the language. I am not saying that whatever we conceive of existing must exist. What I am saying is that there must be something which cannot not exist. We must conceive of something (at least one thing--a particular thing) that somehow does not have the ability to not exist. It does not follow from that that whatever we conceive of has to exist in the same way. You're just insisting that my argument is claiming something that it doesn't.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH In other words, I am not claiming that ANY something must exist. I am only claiming that there must (logically) be "A" (as in "one") something that must exist, and that we cannot conceive otherwise (because we would then have to conceive of the possibility of nothing existing).
NomosCharis 1 month ago
Prove that we cannot conceive of something infinite as not existing. An infinite bigfoot does not exist. "We always conceive of god existing, and never conceive of him not existing." Not true. I do conceive of him not existing, as I conceive of the flying purple elephant not existing. Your rebuttal is "to deny this, one would have to contradict himself claiming that he is able to conceive of what he admits cannot be conceived." NO. I can conceive of what I admit DOES NOT EXIST. Big difference.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH You cannot conceive of the being spoken of in my argument as not existing. Depends on how you define God I guess. Perhaps, by your definition, even I would agree "God does not exist."
NomosCharis 1 month ago
It's not the same thing. Do you agree that "non-existence" is a possible property of something that can be conceived? If you do not, then everything which can be conceived must exist. Is that what you believe?
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH absolutely not. But that's not what "something cannot not exist" means. It means something. Not everything and anything.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
Because in no case does conception equal existence. And, in reality, if "non-existence" were not a true state, ALL conceivable things would exist, which is clearly not true. While "nothing existing" may be logically false, "something not existing" is not, otherwise any "something" that could be conceived would have to exist. A flying purple elephant that orbits my head dropping candy on children possesses the property of "non-existence" even though I can conceive of no greater elephant.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH I admit your point at the beginning of my part 2 video. It's the first objection to my argument that I bring up and deal with. Watch that video and get back to me.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Besides, you're wrong. "Something cannot not exist" is simply the converse statement of "nothing cannot exist." In other words, it's just two ways of saying the same thing, so if you admit that one of them is a contradiction (which you do), you must admit that the other one is just as much a contradiction. One follows from the other simply as a matter of strict logic.
NomosCharis 1 month ago
Do you really not see how flawed this argument is? I feel sorry for you that you must use mental calisthenics to justify a belief that has no justification.
MISHKINPUSH 1 month ago
@MISHKINPUSH Actually I don't see how flawed it is. Could you show me?
NomosCharis 1 month ago
Jonathan, i thought whilst we were discussing this issue i would ask you a question I have regarding this argument. Now we, unlike Anselm, understand the context of our arrival here on earth, how does this argument fit into an evolutionary context? By that I mean as we go back in time the greatest conceivable being becomes progressively less great so does this mean that 500,000 years ago God was less great and in the Cambrian non-existant?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
I don't understand how the greatest conceivable being would become less great as we go back in time. The existence and nature of this being does not at all depend on us.
NomosCharis 5 months ago
@NomosCharis
How can the nature of the greatest conceivable being not depend on the limits of conception? As the limits of conception have advanced so has the greatest being of which we can conceive, how can that not be the case?
i am sure the ontological argument could be reworded to get around this in some way but in anselms form is seems dependent entirely on our intellectual limits.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
Well, I agree with you that anselm's form suffers from that problem, which is why I made this video presenting what I think is a more correct form. I answer this problem in particular in my part 2 video. It's the first point I make there.
However, I don't think that was Anselm's point either. He wasn't saying that the greatest being a particular creature can conceive must exist; only that the greatest being WE can conceive of happens to be such a being that it must exist.
NomosCharis 5 months ago
@NomosCharis
"He wasn't saying that the greatest being a particular creature can conceive must exist; only that the greatest being WE can conceive of happens to be such a being that it must exist."
I agree but go back 500,000 years and the argument either ceases to be logical or we must apply it to another creature (our ancestors.
Anyway, leaving all that aside, whatever happened to your videographic career, where are your promised videos on the cosmiological argument?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
Yeah... I kinda dropped the ball there. I got busy with other things, and I guess I lost motivation. Not even sure why. Maybe partly because not many non-christians seemed to be interested in my videos. But I'll pick it up again soon I hope.
NomosCharis 5 months ago
@NomosCharis
You need to give it time and, as someone with few subs, do video responses and stuff as well. i would doubt many atheists even stumbled by your videos, so the lack of interest was actually pure ignorance.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
That's good advice. Thank you.
NomosCharis 5 months ago
@jasoncanadian, Oh, I see why you might not have seen the definition of "nothing" in the description box. It's under the definition for "Non-being" (which is the same thing).
NomosCharis 10 months ago
@jasoncanadian, You might be able to say it's "half-full of NOT-water," which I suppose is a KIND of nothing, though the glass is still not half full of truely nothing.
NomosCharis 10 months ago
@jasoncanadian, 3) This question doesn't seem to be relevant, but my answer is, I supposr it depends on the direction of change. Is the glass "filling," or is it "emptying?" If it's filling, then it's half full. If emptying, then it's half empty. But as you pointed out, saying a glass is "half-empty" (OF WATER) is not to say that it's "half-full of nothing!" That's just silly.
NomosCharis 10 months ago
@jasoncanadian, 1) I gave definitions for my terms in the description box. Is that definition somehow not to your satisfaction? 2) It's the only possible definition for nothing, or else we'd have to say it's something, which is nonsense.
NomosCharis 10 months ago
I have three questions - (1) What is your definition for 'Nothing' and (2) from where do you get that definition?
Also, you come across a glass which has 50% water in it - (3) Is the glass, half empty or half full?
Or is the (3rd) question a trick question because the area above the 50% water is not nothing, there is 50% air (a gas) of which you cannot see, so the check answer would logically be - the glass is full - yes-no?
jasoncanadian 10 months ago
I can think of a being which is conceivably greater than god: a being which created everything while at the same time not existing
AnonymousComrade 10 months ago
@AnonymousComrade, No one can think of what you describe. When you say this being, while not existing, CREATED everything, you imply that it existed, because what does not exist does not do anything. It would be equivalent to literally "nothing" creating everything (nothing is "non-being" not a being). So what you have is a being that both existed and did not exist at the same time, & if you say "But not in the same sense," you simply admit that this being DID exist, so you're wrong.
NomosCharis 10 months ago
@AnonymousComrade, Besides, "greatness" can only describe something that exists. If it IS "great" then it IS. If it is NOT, then it is NOT great. If you say, "Well, it was not great before it existed, but after it exists it is great," then how did it begin to exist? By something even greater? You cannot say that it created itself, for that has the same problem as above: In order for a thing to create itself, it must already exist. Did nothing create it? Then it is not created; it is not. ?
NomosCharis 10 months ago
@NomosCharis Lets just be honest here for a second, this whole argument is simply fluff. I stand by Kant in rejecting this theory
AnonymousComrade 10 months ago
@AnonymousComrade, Kant rejected a completely different argument. This is a new formulation. Did you listen to the whole video or just the beginning?
NomosCharis 10 months ago
The existance of God is not to be debated or "argued". If you don't want to burn forever in hell, repent and be forgiven.
smurfboywv 11 months ago
*shakes head* --- huh???
Naw, I got ya. ;-)
justchemicalz 1 year ago
@justchemicalz Is he just talking jibberish, or trying to prove a point, or just bored and rambling?
smurfboywv 11 months ago
I fully except your Ontological Argument. And the reason that i except it is the same reason most Christian Apologists would not use it.
Scientialist 1 year ago
@Scientialist
Ha. Damn Youtube!
Scientialist 1 year ago
@Scientialist
Hahaha! What should I say? Praise God! :)
...We'll just have to wait and see what you think of my future arguments then, huh?
NomosCharis 1 year ago
Before i move on to the second part i have to say, i fully except your Ontological argument. And the reason i except it is the same reason many Christians apologists would never use it. It points to the wrong "Being".
Scientialist 1 year ago