How are your business interests of renting flats / buying shares / erm, starting ongoing business concerns / buying your 7 kids each an iPad going anyway? You know, the ones you asked an internet forum full of maniacs for their advice on? Oh, and also, how are your 7 kids getting on at Harvard and MIT respectively over in the States? I'm sure they'll leave a manual labourer like yourself brimming with pride
Nice answer, thank you. Yes, Aquinasâ five proofs may ultimately satisfy only the dullest mind, unfortunately, and save for the last of these five â The Teleological Argument or Argument from Design â Iâm not sure theyâre taken seriously anymore at all, are they? (I sort of hope not.) The first three rely upon the idea of a regress and then invoke God to terminate it, true â whilst making the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress, of course. (For which depressed insight I must thank Richard Dawkins, the sneeringly vindictive tramp.) I feel these arguments have been elegantly and systematically demolished on so many occasions, however, that I no longer feel even the briefest glimmer of anything much at all when trying to come to terms with (or simply appreciate) Aquinas. Shame. His faith felt impressive for a while (in a manner not dissimilar to Maimonides). It may be said, I suppose, that Darwin took care of number five with a gaspingly beautiful precision â for all but the ultra religious, maybe, or those with so little faith in their faith, as it were, that they simply refuse to countenance an opposition â and I forget number four. Iâm guessing it was something similarly unstimulating. Or âfrustratingâ, perhaps, is a kinder word. The ontological argument of St Anselm is terminally skewered by, amongst others, David Hume and Immanuel Kant - and I personally find it near inconceivable that anyone, having read these brutalising demolitions, would chuck in their lot with Anselm. But people are strange and Iâm ****ed if Iâm going to keep on trying to understand the weird and wonderful ways their minds work. Iâve enough trouble coming to terms with my own. Which brings us more or less back to your AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, a neat articulation of the noise that goes through my head whilst trying to make sense of any of it. I find thinking about this stuff really hard, it's not a strong point. I only really know that I abjure certainty, finding it amongst the least impressive of human traits. You may find it in the religious and non-religious alike, this searingly anti-intellectual certainty, the belief that they have all the answers. This, to me, is the very definition of a stupid person â which is ironic, really, given how steadfastly, and with such a crushingly dreary regularity, they hail their own smartness whilst sneering in the face of dissent. But there we are.
Is it just me, or do other people have the urge to remove Joker's testicles with a blunt axe every time he posts?
The main use for Anselms proslogion (ontological argument) it seems was more as a prayer than as a proof for the existence of God. It's a very useful way for a theist to understand the concept of God better, rather than make an atheist religious. I think the reason why we can't reason to Gods existence is because He is a perfect being, whereas humans are inherently imperfect. You can't reason to a perfect conclusion with imperfect logic.
It's so easy to get you riled it's unreal. Your inane rantings and peurile homophobic insults are risible, much like the vast majority of your posts. By attempting to appear to be an iconoclast you simply continue to highlight your own incredible hubris. As for my "advice" it seems you have missed the point. My article on "internet debating techniques" is simply an observation of tactics employed by people - such as yourself - who have neither the wit nor wisdom to employ anything but the cliched methods I have mentioned. The fact that you have proved me correct is your concern but as usual you will doubtless blunder on regardless, ranting and raving at anyone who questions your opinions. It would be all rather sad if you were not such an easy individual to take a dislike to.
You have my sympathy ( but somehow don't think that masks' insults will bother you .) He thinks you're queer - I have to be thankful that he only called me pompous ! - happy days eh !
The question that this provokes in me though, is how can a perfect creature create something imperfect, unless it was intentionally made so?
Be fair thoouigh - if you were God wouldn't you start playing harmless little practical jokes on people - like letting them be born with 1 arm or developing Alzheimers for example - just for the laugh? I know i would
