>> |
Ehhh.....
!N2Rn3IpqO2
>>548193 God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. This is a pretty safe definition of what all monotheistic religions seem to think their god is. This is a pretty safe definition of what many polytheistic religions seem to think their head god is.
Alright?
I never said that Anselm proved that God, in the Christian sense, exists. I said he proved that God exists. I think there aren't many people who, under the assumption that we aren't trying to give any connotations to the idea of God, other than something "great," would say that calling that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived God is right out. Most would probably, I think, after some discussion, say that it's fairly appropriate.
Anselm proved that something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists. Unless you have some objection to calling this God, there's not much that can be refuted.
Granted, it doesn't actually say much. It's just one of the coolest logical proofs ever, and should be brought up far more frequently than it is. On to statement number two. I am pretentious, but there isn't a person on the internet who isn't, so that isn't saying much. I'm clearly not a faggot, as I'm interested in the female form. But these were not your main points.
He was almost certainly referring to God in the same way any average American would refer to God, since he referred to him in the same way that any average American might. The generic American concept of God is informed primarily by Judeo-Christian ideology. Yes? Even most American atheists primarily target Judeo-Christian ideology as the source of their ridicule.
Finally, the Bible is, actually, a credible source when you're using it in reference to its own mythos.
In short, you should really try to understand what a person is saying _before_ you go flying off on some handle or another.
|