Question for atheists.

[atanu]

I have read the argument. The exact wording of it is not relevant to me - I see all such arguments in the same category: if I (or the fool) can think of it (or understand the definition of it), then (some convoluted rigmarole about existence being superior to non-existence and much butchery of language) it exists.

Except that it doesn't. I have still not received one single delivery of poutine and fireball, despite holding in my mind a very firm notion that it would be even greater than the greatest conceivable thing.

So. Do you hold "if I can think of something, that means it is real" is what Anselm is saying?
Or not?

 

[Alceste]

I think it may seem ridiculous to those who don't understand it. It's totally not "if I can think of something, it is real", it is way more complex than that.

Beware of complex arguments. Humans are very good at talking themselves into believing complete nonsense.

Have you ever heard a song on the radio that's just too busy? What happens is, the artist records something and thinks "This just isn't working", so they add to it, and add to it, and add to it until it's just a godawful racket, unfit for human ears. The endless layers of extra sound (the artist often feels) disguise the underlying badness of the song. Also, since they spent hours, days, or months working on it and assembling it piece by piece, they can hear and appreciate every excess layer, and they have spent a lot of time convincing themselves it sounds good. After they have invested all that time, it had BETTER sound good, right?

So it is with ontological arguments. "This sounds ridiculous - how can I disguise the ridiculousness of it? I know - I will add layer upon layer of additional words!"

Humans are silly creatures.

 

[Alceste]

So. Do you hold "if I can think of something, that means it is real" is what Anselm is saying?
Or not?

"if I (or the fool) can think of it (or understand the definition of it), then (some convoluted rigmarole about existence being superior to non-existence and much butchery of language) it exists."

Yes, that is what he is saying.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Beware of complex arguments. Humans are very good at talking themselves into believing complete nonsense.

Have you ever heard a song on the radio that's just too busy? What happens is, the artist records something and thinks "This just isn't working", so they add to it, and add to it, and add to it until it's just a godawful racket, unfit for human ears. The endless layers of extra sound (the artist often feels) disguise the underlying badness of the song. Also, since they spent hours, days, or months working on it and assembling it piece by piece, they can hear and appreciate every excess layer, and they have spent a lot of time convincing themselves it sounds good. After they have invested all that time, it had BETTER sound good, right?

So it is with ontological arguments. "This sounds ridiculous - how can I disguise the ridiculousness of it? I know - I will add layer upon layer of additional words!"

Humans are silly creatures.

What you're misunderstanding is the word 'think'. You're taking it softly.

When you believe in something so much, it becomes true to you. An example is when you think there are ghosts, you will see them. That's because of perception. But if you don't believe in ghosts, you will not see them, you'll see something else. Now, who's to say which perception is the correct one?

 

[Alceste]

What you're misunderstanding is the word 'think'. You're taking it softly.

When you believe in something so much, it becomes true to you. An example is when you think there are ghosts, you will see them. That's because of perception. But if you don't believe in ghosts, you will not see them, you'll see something else. Now, who's to say which perception is the correct one?

It depends whether or not is a ghost standing there. I suppose I might consider getting in touch with these guys:

 

[Straw Dog]

What you're misunderstanding is the word 'think'. You're taking it softly.

When you believe in something so much, it becomes true to you. An example is when you think there are ghosts, you will see them. That's because of perception. But if you don't believe in ghosts, you will not see them, you'll see something else. Now, who's to say which perception is the correct one?

This is why we must rely on empirical evidence and rational verification because we can't fully trust our perceptions at face value. They have to be tested. This is the benefit in suspending judgments when paying attention as to avoid entaglement with preconceptions that will in turn create a feedback loop distorting further perception.

 

[Straw Dog]

That's because of perception. But if you don't believe in ghosts, you will not see them, you'll see something else. Now, who's to say which perception is the correct one?

As far as "ghosts" are concerned: You notice how ghost hunters always claim electromagnetic fields as evidence for spirits? What they all fail to mention is that powerful enough electromagnetic fields can cause people to have hallucinations. You know what might also cause hallucinations? Leaking gas in old buildings. Between electromagnetic fields, leaking gas, imperfect perception, and the power of suggestion, I have reasons to doubt such phenomenon occurs outside the mind.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As far as "ghosts" are concerned: You notice how ghost hunters always claim electromagnetic fields as evidence for spirits? What they all fail to mention is that powerful enough electromagnetic fields can cause people to have hallucinations. You know what might also cause hallucinations? Leaking gas in old buildings. Between electromagnetic fields, leaking gas, imperfect perception, and the power of suggestion, I have reasons to doubt such phenomenon occurs outside the mind.

And really, what phenomenon, that we perceive, exists outside of the mind? How we perceive everything is based on what's inside the mind, so it doesn't really matter if God exists "outside of the mind" (which I put in quotes because you keep forgetting the outer mind), what matters is if God exists to the individual. If the individual really believes in God, they will find God.

 

[Willamena]

And really, what phenomenon, that we perceive, exists outside of the mind? How we perceive everything is based on what's inside the mind, so it doesn't really matter if God exists "outside of the mind" (which I put in quotes because you keep forgetting the outer mind), what matters is if God exists to the individual. If the individual really believes in God, they will find God.

It mattered to Anselm.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It mattered to Anselm.

It matters to a lot of people, for some reason, but I don't understand why it does?

 

[Willamena]

It matters to a lot of people, for some reason, but I don't understand why it does?

I would say, don't worry about it. That you understand that it does is well enough.

As long as you can tie your shoes with the rest, you're doing it right.

 

[atanu]

So. Do you hold "if I can think of something, that means it is real" is what Anselm is saying?
Or not?

"if I (or the fool) can think of it (or understand the definition of it), then (some convoluted rigmarole about existence being superior to non-existence and much butchery of language) it exists."

Yes, that is what he is saying.

No, maam. Because you think that way does not make that way true.