Posted by Roland (126.96.36.199) on May 31, 2004 at 06:00:02:
You said: Back to some earlier comments I made regarding ‘Necessary Existence’ [NE] (I believe you accused me of resorting to ‘sophistry’), your examples of angelic creatures, the plurality of the triune Godhead, etc., etc., do not discount the concept.”
Not only do they not discount the concept Frosty, they do not affect NE in any way at all. In fact, NE and my original points are totally unrelated, as I pointed out in my post to you. I am perplexed at why you place so much stock in NE when God’s existence is not pertinent to my original question about His behaviour and personality. I am happy to accept the existence of God to facilitate debate. I have never said otherwise.
You then posted Anselm's Statement: "If therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, then this thing (God) than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which a greater can be conceived. And this is clearly impossible. Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in reality."
You obligingly deciphered this convoluted piece of work for me, so thanx.
This was followed further by some observations from a Dr Tom Morris and an invitation by you, challenging me to “be the first” to find error with Anselm’s “proof”. There doesn’t seem to be any overwhelming reason why I should at this point. Besides, the fact that it is saying “God is a legend in His own mind”, supports my original contention.
As always, Frosty, your post has made fascinating reading, but I am still at a loss as to what your point is…?
Post a Followup