While researching for something else I came across this, and while I still don't understand it after re-reading it a few times, some others of you here may find it interesting.

[quote]To be proved: God exists.

Proof by reductio ad absurdum

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.

2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."

3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.

4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.

5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.

6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.

7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality.

8. Therefore, God exists.[/quote]
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/hilde/Philhandouts/anselm.html

Edit: I'm not saying that this is proof, or that it proves anything, I just found it intriguing.

That made my brain hurt.

I'm so confused...

Although I am a Christian, I believe that Kurt Vonnegut deals with the idea of God very well. He asserts that whether the existence of God is true or false, it is neccessary for the betterment of society.

A counterexample was brought up by someone back when Anselm thought up of it, by a man named Gaunilo. He says to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. He then says that it is likely that no such island exists. But since it does not exist, it is not the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist. Since we can conceive of this greatest island, it must exist. This is, of course, absurd, but no more so than the original.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9330.msg86260#msg86260 date=1098839667]
Although I am a Christian,
[/quote]

OMG I'm not the only one!  My whole life I have been brought up to believe in God so it is kind of difficult for me to say if he does or does not.  Sometimes I do think about it and I come to thinking that there is a God but...a lot of the stories we have been told I do not believe.  Like it's just really mysterious and nobody can ever know until they die I guess.  So I don't think there really is any proof.

Catholic != Christian
Especially with the statement you just wrote.

[quote author=j0k3r link=topic=9330.msg86283#msg86283 date=1098847683]
Catholic != Christian
[/quote]
/signed.

[quote author=j0k3r link=topic=9330.msg86252#msg86252 date=1098837544]
7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality.
[/quote]

This is interesting. It basically means that you can never fantasize up something that is greater than what exists, because the value of existing is higher than any other value you might think of. By this reasoning, whatever is most existing much be the greatest. By that reasoning, God might be a diamond. Or a rock. Something that really exists very much and is hard to destroy.

That's silly. The entire thing depends on that rather specious definition of God at point 2. If you disagree with that definition, which you should (because it's factually wrong), the whole thing falls apart.

[quote author=j0k3r link=topic=9330.msg86252#msg86252 date=1098837544]
[quote]To be proved: God exists.
3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.
[/quote][/quote]
this reminds me on St. Augustus[quote][/quote]

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9330.msg86322#msg86322 date=1098891063]
That's silly. The entire thing depends on that rather specious definition of God at point 2. If you disagree with that definition, which you should (because it's factually wrong), the whole thing falls apart.
[/quote]

/signed.

I really don't think there is a way to "prove" God's existence through logic.  However, I do believe that logic does, in fact, point to God.

Really? I don't. Explain?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9330.msg86346#msg86346 date=1098911879]
Really? I don't. Explain?
[/quote]

Athiest........

He's an atheist because he doesn't believe logic points to God? Thanks for wasting my bandwidth, asshole.

[quote author=j0k3r link=topic=9330.msg87073#msg87073 date=1099357768]
He's an atheist because he doesn't believe logic points to God? Thanks for wasting my bandwidth, asshole.
[/quote]

Come on jok3r... You should know better than posting that?

Yup. Did a little experimenting yesterday, wasn't myself, I'll make sure to stay away from forums next time.

I would actually go so far as to say that, whether or not God exists, this being cannot be conceived, ever. Why? Well, let's think about what characteristics God possesses; specifically: Eternity. I ask anyone to try and fathom the essence of eternity. Since as human beings, we have a beginning. We also will have an end. Since the dawn of time itself there has been a beginning because, that is the definition of time. However, it is inconceivable by the human mind to try and comprehend such things. So, if there is a God, we cannot even begin to conceive its presence anyway, so how can it exist?

Also, supposedly this God as unlimited capabilities. Try thinking of a new color that does contain ANY of existing colors. Or, try thinking about a subtance that does not consist of solid, liquid, or gas; or any possible combinations of the such. It is completely impossible.

Hmm. I don't have any problem thinking of endless. I have much more problem thinking of not endless.

And a color that's no known color, or a substance that's no known form? What's so strange about that? It's not something we'd be able to see, since our eyes can only detect R G and B, but imagining otherwise isn't a problem?

Point number 1 is an opinion. God is supposed to be a being beyond conception so point number 2 is incorrect. What we perceive as "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is simply that, the most we can conceive. Like Arta said if you find point 2 incorrect the rest of the points are incorrect as well. Point 7 is just dumb. If I can conceive of aliens and they exist in my mind they must exist in reality right?(repeat sentence replacing aliens with anything you want) btw I'm a christian but I believe that wether or not God exists is something personal that you decide.

Adron, you missed the point. I didn't ask you to attempt to conceive the existance of said color/substance, but the actual object itself. Hell, I could say "there's a color out there that is not made of up any combination of RGB, and there are subtances that contain no solid nor liquid nor gas." But, that only addresses the existance of said object, not the actual object itself (as I said before).

[quote author=LivedKrad link=topic=9330.msg87336#msg87336 date=1099585928]
Adron, you missed the point. I didn't ask you to attempt to conceive the existance of said color/substance, but the actual object itself. Hell, I could say "there's a color out there that is not made of up any combination of RGB, and there are subtances that contain no solid nor liquid nor gas." But, that only addresses the existance of said object, not the actual object itself (as I said before).
[/quote]
Just because you have no visual basis for something does not mean you cannot acknowledge it's potential existance.  I don't see what the issue is?

[quote author=Skywing link=topic=9330.msg87337#msg87337 date=1099586341]
[quote author=LivedKrad link=topic=9330.msg87336#msg87336 date=1099585928]
Adron, you missed the point. I didn't ask you to attempt to conceive the existance of said color/substance, but the actual object itself. Hell, I could say "there's a color out there that is not made of up any combination of RGB, and there are subtances that contain no solid nor liquid nor gas." But, that only addresses the existance of said object, not the actual object itself (as I said before).
[/quote]
Just because you have no visual basis for something does not mean you cannot acknowledge it's potential existance.  I don't see what the issue is?
[/quote]

I don't think there is anything more effective than what sky said.
if you're trying to prove/disprove existance of God, good luck, you'll be trying a while. its a personal opinion and belief, faith. thats what religion is, faith. personally, i believe in God, not because i went to a lutheran school for 7 years (which i did), but because i find it hard (and disturbing) to believe that there is no creator, god, but only a freak accident (big bang) that created us all. i think its absurd.

http://www.geocities.com/tagonist/god.html

I'm not sure if he just put down random numbers though and said it was in pi.  But then again, If a number is irrational, doesnt every number pattern have to occur?  There for it also says "I'm god and I do not exist." some where.

[quote author=Skywing link=topic=9330.msg87337#msg87337 date=1099586341]
[quote author=LivedKrad link=topic=9330.msg87336#msg87336 date=1099585928]
Adron, you missed the point. I didn't ask you to attempt to conceive the existance of said color/substance, but the actual object itself. Hell, I could say "there's a color out there that is not made of up any combination of RGB, and there are subtances that contain no solid nor liquid nor gas." But, that only addresses the existance of said object, not the actual object itself (as I said before).
[/quote]
Just because you have no visual basis for something does not mean you cannot acknowledge it's potential existance.  I don't see what the issue is?
[/quote]

Once again, another person misses the point. I do not the dispute the ability to perceive the existance of said object, but the object itself. Try ACTUALLY thinking of a color that does not contain any RGB value, not thinking of the existance of said object.

[quote author=LivedKrad link=topic=9330.msg87389#msg87389 date=1099609467]
Once again, another person misses the point. I do not the dispute the ability to perceive the existance of said object, but the object itself. Try ACTUALLY thinking of a color that does not contain any RGB value, not thinking of the existance of said object.
[/quote]

Yes, I'm thinking of a color that does not contain any RGB value. Anything else?

No, that is all. :)