be sad if you want. but dont act as if you have any significant problems

There are lots of significant problems a person with water and food can have.

not as significant as those who have no food, water, shelter etc.

I'll admit that's rare, but it doesn't change the fact that a person has the right to hate, and talking about how they hate, any of the other shit they're going through.

they can hate and be sad. but they have no place in thinking they have harder problems than people who live with flies covering their faces

No one said anything about having it worse than them, it's about complaining at all.

fair enough

Thats not what I'm saying, sure you can be unhappy, everyone has to go through tough shit in their life, I'm saying you people who live in freedom shouldn't bitch and complain about it and just be grateful for what they have.

Yes, but if you say atheists are like non-smokers, that can't be true, as you're not acting like non-smokers.

That wasn't the point of my post, but either way, again, it's very different from people, not their views, I've meet Christians and I've meet Atheists who wouldn't shut up about their beliefs and I've meet Christians and Atheists who do.

thats not analagous because atheism isn't just a lack of religion

You're correct, complete atheism is just as much of a religion as not smoking is habit.

Atheism is another matter entirely.

Yeah, but non-smokers usually shut up on how they don't smoke.

We're on a religious forum, expecting people to shut up about their views isn't a very good idea, and if you're talking about real life then it's greatly different from person to person, not religion or lack thereof.

Yes, but if you say atheists are like non-smokers, that can't be true, as you're not acting like non-smokers.

That wasn't the point of my post, but either way, again, it's very different from people, not their views, I've meet Christians and I've meet Atheists who wouldn't shut up about their beliefs and I've meet Christians and Atheists who do.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

You're saying that the concept of God doesn't exist?

"maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necesary. "

I'm saying that a maximally great being would have to possess the property of necesary existence in order to be maximally great

necesary existence = existence in all possible worlds

Both of the things you mentioned were probably involved in the creation of the universe though.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

The only things that have this necessary property which requires them to exist in a world is whatever created the world, if it stays there after the creation. Nothing else has a necessary existence. Which means that if it was anything but a god, a god doesn't have to exist.

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

There's a difference between believing in the concept of god as an abstract object, and god as an abstract object.

You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist, that's not the case.

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

The concept of god exists, the concept of a lot of things that aren't real exist.

Well then, there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist.

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

1. all abstract objects are non-physical, non-temporal and non-spacial.

2. the ontological argument is not a theory of how the universe was created

Sure they are, doesn't mean a god exists as one.

That's what it boils down to, because when you say that a maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necessary.

You're saying that the concept of God doesn't exist?

"maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necesary. "

I'm saying that a maximally great being would have to possess the property of necesary existence in order to be maximally great

necesary existence = existence in all possible worlds

Both of the things you mentioned were probably involved in the creation of the universe though.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

The only things that have this necessary property which requires them to exist in a world is whatever created the world, if it stays there after the creation. Nothing else has a necessary existence. Which means that if it was anything but a god, a god doesn't have to exist.

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

There's a difference between believing in the concept of god as an abstract object, and god as an abstract object.

You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist, that's not the case.

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

The concept of god exists, the concept of a lot of things that aren't real exist.

Well then, there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist.

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

"That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory"

the laws of the universe only apply to material things effected by time, and space.

you're trying to argue that it's impossible for things that are unaffected by physics to exist, but you cant prove this.

And you can't prove me wrong, and you can't prove every other non-religious theory for the creation of the universe wrong.

1. all abstract objects are non-physical, non-temporal and non-spacial.

2. the ontological argument is not a theory of how the universe was created

Sure they are, doesn't mean a god exists as one.

That's what it boils down to, because when you say that a maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necessary.

You're saying that the concept of God doesn't exist?

"maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necesary. "

I'm saying that a maximally great being would have to possess the property of necesary existence in order to be maximally great

necesary existence = existence in all possible worlds

Both of the things you mentioned were probably involved in the creation of the universe though.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

The only things that have this necessary property which requires them to exist in a world is whatever created the world, if it stays there after the creation. Nothing else has a necessary existence. Which means that if it was anything but a god, a god doesn't have to exist.

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

There's a difference between believing in the concept of god as an abstract object, and god as an abstract object.

You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist, that's not the case.

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

The concept of god exists, the concept of a lot of things that aren't real exist.

Well then, there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist.

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

would you agree that in order for something to be maximally great, it would have to exist in every possible reality?

That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory, but yes I guess.

"That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory"

the laws of the universe only apply to material things effected by time, and space.

you're trying to argue that it's impossible for things that are unaffected by physics to exist, but you cant prove this.

And you can't prove me wrong, and you can't prove every other non-religious theory for the creation of the universe wrong.

1. all abstract objects are non-physical, non-temporal and non-spacial.

2. the ontological argument is not a theory of how the universe was created

Sure they are, doesn't mean a god exists as one.

That's what it boils down to, because when you say that a maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necessary.

You're saying that the concept of God doesn't exist?

"maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necesary. "

I'm saying that a maximally great being would have to possess the property of necesary existence in order to be maximally great

necesary existence = existence in all possible worlds

Both of the things you mentioned were probably involved in the creation of the universe though.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

The only things that have this necessary property which requires them to exist in a world is whatever created the world, if it stays there after the creation. Nothing else has a necessary existence. Which means that if it was anything but a god, a god doesn't have to exist.

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

There's a difference between believing in the concept of god as an abstract object, and god as an abstract object.

You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist, that's not the case.

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

The concept of god exists, the concept of a lot of things that aren't real exist.

Well then, there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist.

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

please understand that the argument doesnt attempt to prove a specific God, it's meant to prove the existence of a 'maximally great being' which is what the argument defines God as.

every possible state of affairs=every logically possibly thing. the only things that are excluded are things like a 'square-circle' since it could not possibly exist in any reality

Still, doesn't really change anything, the argument is circular logic, a god has to exist because he has to, it's making the assumption that the universe couldn't have been caused in any other way at all.

It's not very logical to break the laws of the universe in my book.

would you agree that in order for something to be maximally great, it would have to exist in every possible reality?

That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory, but yes I guess.

"That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory"

the laws of the universe only apply to material things effected by time, and space.

you're trying to argue that it's impossible for things that are unaffected by physics to exist, but you cant prove this.

And you can't prove me wrong, and you can't prove every other non-religious theory for the creation of the universe wrong.

1. all abstract objects are non-physical, non-temporal and non-spacial.

2. the ontological argument is not a theory of how the universe was created

Sure they are, doesn't mean a god exists as one.

That's what it boils down to, because when you say that a maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necessary.

You're saying that the concept of God doesn't exist?

"maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necesary. "

I'm saying that a maximally great being would have to possess the property of necesary existence in order to be maximally great

necesary existence = existence in all possible worlds

Both of the things you mentioned were probably involved in the creation of the universe though.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

The only things that have this necessary property which requires them to exist in a world is whatever created the world, if it stays there after the creation. Nothing else has a necessary existence. Which means that if it was anything but a god, a god doesn't have to exist.

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

There's a difference between believing in the concept of god as an abstract object, and god as an abstract object.

You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist, that's not the case.

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

The concept of god exists, the concept of a lot of things that aren't real exist.

Well then, there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist.

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

"No one said that it has to exist in every world because it's a concept,'

I agree. but thats not what the argument says. it says that God is a necesary being, so He must exist in every possible world, if he possibly exists at all.

secondly, you're misunderstanding the term "possible world". in the argument a "possible world" just refers to a possible state of affairs, it does not refer to actual, physical worlds.

God is in no way necessary, even if all other non-religious theories were proved wrong, there would still be all the religious ones, god is way back on the list.

I understand perfectly, my argument still stands, every possible state of affairs is possible, which means that it doesn't break the laws of the universe.

please understand that the argument doesnt attempt to prove a specific God, it's meant to prove the existence of a 'maximally great being' which is what the argument defines God as.

every possible state of affairs=every logically possibly thing. the only things that are excluded are things like a 'square-circle' since it could not possibly exist in any reality

Still, doesn't really change anything, the argument is circular logic, a god has to exist because he has to, it's making the assumption that the universe couldn't have been caused in any other way at all.

It's not very logical to break the laws of the universe in my book.

would you agree that in order for something to be maximally great, it would have to exist in every possible reality?

That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory, but yes I guess.

"That'd be impossible, and again, breaking the laws of the universe and every theory"

the laws of the universe only apply to material things effected by time, and space.

you're trying to argue that it's impossible for things that are unaffected by physics to exist, but you cant prove this.

And you can't prove me wrong, and you can't prove every other non-religious theory for the creation of the universe wrong.

1. all abstract objects are non-physical, non-temporal and non-spacial.

2. the ontological argument is not a theory of how the universe was created

Sure they are, doesn't mean a god exists as one.

That's what it boils down to, because when you say that a maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necessary.

You're saying that the concept of God doesn't exist?

"maximally great being has to be necessary, then the only real reason is the creation of the universe, if that could be proven otherwise then a maximally great being wouldn't be necesary. "

I'm saying that a maximally great being would have to possess the property of necesary existence in order to be maximally great

necesary existence = existence in all possible worlds

Both of the things you mentioned were probably involved in the creation of the universe though.

numbers don't exist in causal relationships as far as we know

The only things that have this necessary property which requires them to exist in a world is whatever created the world, if it stays there after the creation. Nothing else has a necessary existence. Which means that if it was anything but a god, a god doesn't have to exist.

there are other things with the property of necessary existence. numbers, and shape definitions for example. it is impossible for these things to not exist, so they exist in every possible world

There's a difference between believing in the concept of god as an abstract object, and god as an abstract object.

You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist, that's not the case.

actually i don't believe that God is an abstract object, He is a being. the concept of God is an abstract object

"You're basing all of this of the fact that something does exist in a way if it can exist"

i'm not arguing that everything that possibility exists actually exists. i'm saying that something with the property necesary must actually exist, if such a thing can possibly exist

The concept of god exists, the concept of a lot of things that aren't real exist.

Well then, there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist.

concepts exist as abstract objects. you said in #23671 that God doesn't even exist as an abstract object.

" there are no maximally great beings since there is no necessity for them to exist. "

so.....you're saying that a maximally great being is impossible because necessary existence is impossible?

but if necessary existence is logically impossible, that'd just mean that a maximally great being exists without having the property of necessary existence. if you could prove this, you'd disprove the argument, but you wouldnt actually disprove God

oh really?
I liked David
although some of the writing stuff bugged me
not really like huge plot things just like, he was always kissing people, and he had Christmas special in London three consecutive years in a row

I prefer the 11th Doctor for a multiple of reasons
I hope you enjoy watching

Why thank you, I think I will, from what I've heard his stories sound very interesting.

Matt Smith can be my God anytime

I have to admit, I'm a huge fan of the series, but I haven't gotten to Matt yet, I'm at Tennant's last two episodes right now actually.

oh really?
I liked David
although some of the writing stuff bugged me
not really like huge plot things just like, he was always kissing people, and he had Christmas special in London three consecutive years in a row

I prefer the 11th Doctor for a multiple of reasons
I hope you enjoy watching

Why thank you, I think I will, from what I've heard his stories sound very interesting.

So......what you are saying...is....that The Doctor...is God

There is actually a relatively large group of people who really believe this, who have Doctor Who as a religion.
Quite cool actually.

Matt Smith can be my God anytime

I have to admit, I'm a huge fan of the series, but I haven't gotten to Matt yet, I'm at Tennant's last two episodes right now actually.

oh really?
I liked David
although some of the writing stuff bugged me
not really like huge plot things just like, he was always kissing people, and he had Christmas special in London three consecutive years in a row

I prefer the 11th Doctor for a multiple of reasons
I hope you enjoy watching

Why thank you, I think I will, from what I've heard his stories sound very interesting.