Alan's borrowed ideas.

[Lawrey]

++++++===IDEAS ARE JUST IDEAS===++++++
NO MORE THAN THAT.

An answer to Alan Wostenberg's use of Anselm's Ontological
Argument. As it turns out it was no argument at all. WHY?:

Anselm (1033-1109) [Aosta, Bec, Canterbury]. He was
influenced very much by Augustine, who was his favourite author.
Augustine held in his interpretation of his deity, as the supreme
member in a scale of terms reaching to infinity.

But what Wostenberg does not seem to realise is, that this leaves
open the question as to whether such a last term could be looked
upon as anything more than an idea rather than a real being
which corresponded to it.

Anselm in his "Proslogium", argued that the "Being than whom
no greater can be thought" must exist, by definition, for an
unrealised idea is not so great as a realised one.
(called the ontological argument for the existence of a godthing).
What Wostenberg also does not understand is that a definition,
logically, has no "existential" import.

Theist's believe there must be a Neccessary Being, but we have
never found one in experience, WHY? simply because it is an
IDEA ONLY!

Further more when they try to prove the existence of a godthing
by the ontological argument (a neccessary being), the
cosmological (first cause), or the physico-theological (from
universal order), we find there are unwarranted assumptions in
each case. The soul, the universe, and the godthing are regulative
not constitutive ideas.

They may in fairness, enable us to organise experience and give
it a certain unity; but we can not establish their validity beyond
this.
In this case then, theoretical (or scientific) reason is thus limited
to an idea only.

[Observer]

Observer

Nicely Nicely !

Good to hear from you

Psychonomist

[Alan Wostenberg]

Borrowed? You betcha. Let us be perfect atheists to the god of
originality.

Intepreting St. Anselm's. Proslogium as an argument for God is the
most popular way to read the text. It is by no means the only way.

If readers look carefully, they will notice on the Blub thread Alan is
in fact not interpreting St. Anselm's Proslogium as an argument for
God.

Rather, the Saint can provide us with a definite description of this
proper noun God so that atheist and believer alike have the same
theoretical entity in mind.

Setting that stage, we would all be in position to examine
propositions such as "there is insufficient evidence of God".

Come on over to Blub and join the mad fun. Don't miss today's
installment in which we see Ranjit's and Drafterman's tough objections
combined with Kipper's key distinction drove us to identify The Blub
with .. a very surprising entity.

On May 15, 7:07 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 16, 1:37 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Borrowed? You betcha. Let us be perfect atheists to the god of
> originality.
>
> Intepreting St. Anselm's. Proslogium as an argument for God is the
> most popular way to read the text. It is by no means the only way.
>
> If readers look carefully, they will notice on the Blub thread Alan is
> in fact not interpreting St. Anselm's Proslogium as an argument for
> God.
>
> Rather, the Saint can provide us with a definite description of this
> proper noun God so that atheist and believer alike have the same
> theoretical entity in mind.
>
> Setting that stage, we would all be in position to examine
> propositions such as "there is insufficient evidence of God".
>
> Come on over to Blub and join the mad fun. Don't miss today's
> installment in which we see Ranjit's and Drafterman's tough objections
> combined with Kipper's key distinction drove us to identify The Blub
> with .. a very surprising entity.

Let us try to describe David Benke's* God. Would you like to take a
shot at it?
* Benke was a Lutheran bishop** who was suspended (and
ecclesiastically tried?) for jointly worshipping God along with pagans
in an interfaith service featuring Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims
and Sikhs.
** his precise title was District President which was his synod's
equivalent of what would be called a bishop in other denominations.

[Lawrey]

Alan,

There is no such thing as a god, it is simply a word
descibing nothing. It is not an entity.

"Any port in a storm", will not surfice here.
Simply substituting a name for an idea still leaves it an idea
how ever you dress it up in nice clothes.

As to your blub blag, it is total nonsense, based as it is on
a nonspecific unacceptable premise.

Your prattle leads no-where, there is no argument to be
argued, neither does it stand in integrity with any validity.

> > to an idea only.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Lawrey]

Obs',

Hello! my friend, and thanks.

I still look forward to you masterly contributions.
Take care!

> Psychonomist- Hide quoted text -

[Medusa]

On May 16, 4:07 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Alan,
>
> There is no such thing as a god, it is simply a word
> descibing nothing. It is not an entity.
>
> "Any port in a storm", will not surfice here.
> Simply substituting a name for an idea still leaves it an idea
> how ever you dress it up in nice clothes.

Well said!

> As to your blub blag, it is total nonsense, based as it is on
> a nonspecific unacceptable premise.
>
> Your prattle leads no-where, there is no argument to be
> argued, neither does it stand in integrity with any validity.

Great description of the "blub." I lost patience and quit reading it
days ago.

Others more articulate than I am were ripping it to shreds when I last
looked, though.

Medusa

[Alan Wostenberg]

Simply a word? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.

[student13]

Hi Alan,

what is your interpretation of that line" in the beginning was the
word, and the word
was with god , the word was god! " ? mind elaborating ?

cheers
st13

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lawrey]

Alan,

Some religious interpretationd have that quote:

"the word was with god, and the word was a god."

Refering to a son of the supposed god.

It goes on to say: "and the word was made flesh and
dwelt among us."

To save you the trouble, we have heard it all before.
It is still a bundle of words meaning nothing except
to the feeble-minded among us who need the story.

The FACT remains that in over 6000 years of human
recorded history No entity purported to be what-
ever a godthing might be, has been substantiated.
There are many names; all words, all meaning
slightly different or the same thing, be it Allah, God,
Word, Michael, uncle Tom Cobly and all. Still not an
entity between them that satisfies factual evidence.

It is logical and reasonable given no evidence; to
conclude that there is no, are no such things as god/s.
There are of course plenty of words and plenty of
people prepared to manipulate them, in order to
manipulate more superstitious folk who need to
believe there is something more to life and its
meaning. They will forever stay ignorant of reality
and or make their own reality in their minds.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Which goes to show that if your words are God, God is incapable of
making an argument.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

Hi Lawrey
It's not just Alan. It's a Christian tendency, isn't it? I mean
the whole darned Bible is borrowed. It's just been rewritten
time and again, tweeked a bit by the churches, and delivered
to everyone for a fee.
What a rip-off!!

[Lawrey]

Dev',

An astute observation which will be lost on Alan I fear.

[Lawrey]

phiosophy,

Hi! "Rip-off! is not the half of it, More correctly; a complete
and utter con-trick projected onto simple people looking
for something, they know not what.

[Lawrey]

Medusa,

Your support is welcome and appreciated.

I can sympathise with your frustration I often feel the same.
But one plugs on and I am loathe to allow theists too much
rope because contrary to the traditional saying, it never
seems to strangle them and if yours and my effort can by
logic and reason thwart their ranting raves we are well
justified in making that effort. :)

[Kippers]

On 17 May, 07:03, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> what is your interpretation of that line" in the beginning was the
> word, and the word
> was with god , the word was god! " ?  mind elaborating ?
>
> cheers
> st13
>

I interpret it as meaning that before the universe existed, that is
before matter, energy, time or space came into being there
nevertheless existed a human word. That is quite an extraordinary
claim considering most people consider that human words are contingent
on the existence of humans (never mind matter and energy!).

[Brock]

On May 15, 10:07 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>       ++++++===IDEAS ARE JUST IDEAS===++++++
>                          NO MORE THAN THAT.

And yet, the entirety of material existence is bounded, limited and
constrained by them. The law of non-contradiction is a great example
of an idea that completely dominates every aspect of reality. :)

> Theist's believe there must be a Neccessary Being, but we have
> never found one in experience, WHY? simply because it is an
> IDEA ONLY!

Found Him! Evidence here:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[student13]

pardon me, why do we need to add anything to the "word" ? like you
have
added "human" or anything else?

also, the statement continues the word was with god; the word was
god !

what does one need to think when there is a statement " word was god !
"

interesting to look at, don't you think so?

cheers
st13

[Neil Kelsey]

Circular reasoning fallacies are not evidence God exists - you're
using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. Irrelevant argument
rejected.

[Brock Organ]

Rather, Lawrey made an invalid claim, that no one has found God in
"experience"; and I referenced the document that details so much about
His character, attributes and nature.

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 18, 12:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rather, that document you referenced is the Bible, and your argument
to show that God can be experienced is circular.

[Brock Organ]

I referenced the document to show that Lawrey's claim is false, that
there is, in fact, evidence for humankind's experience of God, both in
the testimony of the Biblical authors, and the testimony of believers
who have found similar experiences from the principles articulated in
the Bible. It is a wonderful book!

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 18, 1:15 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Testimony isn't valid evidence that humans experience God.

> who have found similar experiences from the principles articulated in
> the Bible.

Using the Bible as evidence that the God can be experienced is a
circular reasoning fallacy.

> It is a wonderful book!

Arguments from emotion are not evidence that humans experience God.
And I prefer Winnie the Pooh to the Bible. In fact, the only book I've
liked less than the Bible is the one I'm reading now, Mein Kampf. I
don't find the Bible wonderful at all. I find it turgid and repetitive.

[Kippers]

On 18 May, 16:16, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pardon me, why do we need to add anything to the "word" ?  like you
> have
> added "human"  or anything  else?
>
> also, the statement continues the word was with god; the word was
> god !
>
> what does one need to think when there is a statement " word was god !
> "
>
> interesting to  look at, don't you think so?
>
> cheers
> st13
>

Words are human constructs. I added the word ‘human’ merely to
illuminate this point. Its typical of the Abrahamic religions to
insist that human attributes and creations (love, consciousness, words
etc..) existed even before the universe itself existed.

[Lawrey]

Brock,

Sorry to have to contradict you, but there is no evidence for
humankind's experience of a godthing.

There is evidence only of a belief that initially men thought
that unexplained natural events had to have been caused
by some super-human unknown quantity the form of which
could not be explained, because IT WAS NOT KNOWN.

I beg to ask your fore-bearance right now I have pressing
engagements that must be attented to and will return to
the matter soonest. I will thank you for your understanding,
this afternoon perhaps. :)
On May 18, 9:15 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brock- Hide quoted text -

[student13]

yes, words are human constructs. but it is interesting to note - is
it not the
"knowledge" that comes out as the words?

so when that line is read, " the word was god" - could they be trying
to say -
the knowledge was ( is ) god?

again, the abrahamic explanations of god will confuse since there is
no one
sitting there to choose one or other - to lift to heaven or throw
down to hell etc - since
such "imagination" may be born out of may be ignorance - inability
to think, question, learn,
understand etc?

some thought !! ??

cheers
st13

[Lawrey]

Brock,

Sorry for my intermittent appearance here today, have a lot
on my plate at the moment, but now have a few moments to
address your comments and without further ado I come back
at your comment: "Found Him! Evidence here":

That comment is incorrect, if you read what I say; I said:
"found one," which reamains a non-specific, when referring to
what-ever a god may be. There is no evidence of one.

On May 18, 8:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brock- Hide quoted text -

[Lawrey]

Brock,

The Hebrew Patriarchal Stories were not originally written
for anyone but the Hebrew people and they are what they
say they are i.e., STORIES.

In the main they were pagan ledgends, passed down from
ancient times, citing unknown charaters involved in make
believe senario's for the purpose of inculcating an idea of
an unknown force or being, we have come to understand
by the use of the term god, which originates from the
Germanic term 'gat' pronounced 'gohdt'.

The English term 'god', is synominous with the Anglo-Saxon
word for 'good," and is meant to give the impression of devine
goodness. Since there never has been proven to be a god (as
expressed by theist's and biblical references to the character
of one call Jesus), it follows there is nothing devine about it.

Since the subject has been brought up regarding the 'word),
I wish to start a new post to refute what is wrongly thought.



On May 18, 9:15 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Brock,
>
> Sorry to have to contradict you, but there is no evidence for
> humankind's experience of a godthing.

Evidence right here:

http://bible.cc

> There is evidence only of a belief that initially men thought
> that unexplained natural events had to have been caused
> by some super-human unknown quantity the form of which
> could not be explained, because IT WAS NOT KNOWN.

That's not what the Bible testifies to. I think you should not
confuse conclusions from an invalid humanistic (jaded?) analysis with
the testimony of the Bible. :)

Regards,

Brock