Hey, I was reading the first Philosophy lecture on MIT's OCW (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html) and it's on the ontological argument (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-00Problems-of-PhilosophyFall2001/D4C79E77-93BA-4A7F-9B77-FE705E0F2095/0/fa01lec01.pdf) (PDF) for God.

The premise seems to be that since the concept of God is a perfect being, and existence is a form of perfection, God must exist in order to be God. "The concept of God is the concept of an existent being." But how does this Anselm fellow make the connection from that to saying that God must necessarily exist?

Seems like a very fallacious argument. How could it be taken seriously?

It is inconsistent. It is a circular argument. You cannot prve a theory by quoting part of the theory as your proof.

Balder,

First off, you have to remember context. Anselm was writing in the 11th Century when scientific theory was, to put it mildly, rudimentary. The basic gist of the argument is that nothing so wonderfully complex ('perfect') as the world we live in could possible exist by mistake; it must have been created, and the best contemporaneaous candidate was God. It's not so much circular as it is an attributive category mistake.

Interestingly, the overall idea isn't too far away from the current quantum mechanical interpretation of our world. :-)

glaucon, that isn't the argument that is being presented. The argument by Anselm that Balder1 is talking about is an entirely different one.

apolo, the problem isn't the argument's circularity (though... you may be right about that, I'd have to consider it more). The major problem is what Balder1 himself brings up, the leap that Anselm makes from saying "this is what this being must consist of" to saying "therefore this being must be so."

Balder1, it is a problem, that is for sure. In fact, it's such a large problem that the vast majority of philosophers recognize the argument's inconsistency, even philosophers who believe in God. Therefore, you are right, it is a leap, and while this argument makes sense, it certainly doesn't prove God's existence.

I looked at it and wondered if I was missing something to make it compelling enough to discuss, but it seems likely that it's just an exercise in pointing out flaws in some logic.

The most comepelling argument there seems to the cosmological argument for God:

"Everything is either a dependent being or an independent (self-existent/self-caused) being; not everything is dependent; so, something (=God) is independent."

This seems fallacious in that we don't know of any being that is truly self-caused, but how do you deal with the paradox of an infinite chain of dependent beings? Something has to be at the root of it, doesn't it?

Balder1, that's precisely it. If all beings were dependant, then, in fact, none could exist, since they all rely on something else for existence. Whether God is the independent being or otherwise is a matter of debate. Whether there is only one independent being is also another matter of debate. If there is more than one independent being, then how can we be so sure that God is one of them? See what I mean?

Hey, I was reading the first Philosophy lecture on MIT's OCW (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html) and it's on the ontological argument (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-00Problems-of-PhilosophyFall2001/D4C79E77-93BA-4A7F-9B77-FE705E0F2095/0/fa01lec01.pdf) (PDF) for God.

The premise seems to be that since the concept of God is a perfect being, and existence is a form of perfection, God must exist in order to be God. "The concept of God is the concept of an existent being." But how does this Anselm fellow make the connection from that to saying that God must necessarily exist?

Seems like a very fallacious argument. How could it be taken seriously?

This theory has no ground. From where did you get that everything is perfect?
It seems perfect for us, because we inhabit this universe. If the conditions weren't perfect for our existance, we wouldn't exists. But if there existed some other kind of beings then the universe would be perfect for them, because they exist in it. They are a part of that universe. If , however, for a moment we could exist in another universe (which would also have to be a creation of your god) then I highly doubt that we could exist just for a few seconds.
To all beings who exist in this universe the conditions seem to be perfect, but for those who don't exist, the conditions are highly hostile.

God said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" << First commandment

And then your friends argument that (paraphrasing) God must exist because we have conceptualised perfection.
How the hell could we conceptualise perfection without that single commandment?

Let me break it down to reveal a little about God.

The voice says ...

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

I say

Wow, now thats a voice that knows what it is to 'command' and I tell you what, if that voice is saying that to man then man better shut the hell up.
But now I want to discern why God is saying that ...

The attitude is like this "I love you. Dont you dare love anyone but me!"
This is the spirit of a husband to a wife. Now God's church is often refered to as a bride waiting to marry her husband in the Holy Bible. The husband waits at the alter as the bride enters the church. The bride walks towards her husband and they marry. The bride vows to be faithful to her husband, to honor and obey him. The husband vows to love and cherish his wife.
God's love is not mean and angry - he just requires faithfulness and loves his wife jealously. Any good husband would because he is a good husband.
If you are thinking that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is mean and puffed up, then think again. This is God's requirement of you, but God doesnt say "Thou shalt have no other men before me" nor does He say "Thou shalt have no other women before me" instead He says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Guess what that makes you in His eyes? A little god! Well one he made anyway, kind God that He is so that you may know His love for you.
But little gods, I say to you ... you have all missed the mark, all fallen short of the Glory that is yours by design. To 'sin' is to miss the mark and your little arrows are well off target. As for me, I reckon I hit the hot damn bullseye! I have won the race, I get the prize. Follow me ...

c20

And you try to argue for what?

Avatar, you missed the meaning of the argument. By saying "existence is part of perfection," all that is meant is that if something is to be perfect, it must exist, since to exist is more perfect than to not exist. The argument in no ways says that existing things are perfect.

Yet, you are right, the argument is faulty, just not for the reasons that you think.

c20, while your comments may be appreciated in a religious forum, this is one deals with philosophy. Your comments are entirely religious, and do not deal with classical philosophy. Preach all you want, but if you are doing it here, it should pertain to the topic, and should be presented in an argumentative form. Perhaps it's just me, but in your post I can't find any arguments for the existence of God, nor can I find commentary on what has already been posted.

I was using the Holy scripture as an argument for the existence of God. i think I was more than 'on the right path'.

I have the impression that you argue on the basis of an already existing god, but that is be the wrong start to discuss if god really exists.

If your argument is:
And then your friends argument that (paraphrasing) God must exist because we have conceptualised perfection.
How the hell could we conceptualise perfection without that single commandment?
(the only thing that resembles an argument)
Then I would answer that perfection is not existent, it is an ideal that was created by humans. And humans can make laws and gods.

My argument is that everything that exists is perfect for the conditions existing
and one couldn't be right and simultaneously have the ability to say (exist), that something is not perfect.
My thought is that for all those who exist, the conditions are perfect, thus they feel grateful and seek something to be grateful to.
My point is that it's a natural law, not a proof of godly manifestation. Just as we don't think that 2+2=4 is a divine message.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the first time or if I have misunderstood it once again

c20,

If that is the case, then the argument is circular, since to believe that God said "thou shalt have no other gods before me" is first to believe that God exists. So, basically, your argument says this:

An existing entity said words that must be abided, simply by nature of their authority and beauty, hence that existing entity must exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If this is your argumentation, then there is plenty here to call invalid. First, it is a circular argument. You presuppose the existence of God to prove God's existence. It's like saying "an existing thing exists," which isn't a proof, it's a tautology, and it may be said about anything. However, it certainly doesn't prove that the thing in question really does exist.

Secondly, there is no definite connection between the premises and conclusion. Just because there is an existing thing that says something beautiful and authoritative, doesn't in any way say that that thing is right. Nor do the words said necessarily mean that there is an existing God from which they came.

Perhaps it is the case that you have never taken formal logic, but an argument consists of clearly stated and composed premises that can be affirmed as either true or false that lead necessarily to a conclusion (this being a valid argument). I suppose yours can be considered an argument, although it is not clear, the premises are not confirmed to be true, and they do not necessarily lead to a conclusion. Furthermore, the argument is circular and the very first premise presupposes the conclusion. It is entirely weak and invalid. I'm not trying to pick on you, it's just that you've presented something that no serious philosopher or logician would take seriously or give credit to. Take this as a lesson, and before you present another such argument to your own discredit, study up on argument form and argument validity.

You seem to be a very religious person, a very passionate person, and this is good. It is for your own sake, and for those whom you intend to bring to clarity and light, that I make this suggestion.

The premise seems to be that since the concept of God is a perfect being, and existence is a form of perfection,

How can you say "existence" is "perfect?" A thing that exists isn't necessarily perfect, it may need modification.

Everything natural is "perfect;" only things created by man can be questioned in quality. "Perfection" is really a man-made collection of sounds, letters, and meanings; merely man's concern. A silly concern. Thus, if man created god, man can call god perfect but god isn't necessarily perfect. If god created man, then god is perfect, as we call it, and man is also perfect. But this doesn't interest anyone except for some men.

My argument is that everything that exists is perfect for the conditions existing
and one couldn't be right and simultaneously have the ability to say (exist), that something is not perfect.
My thought is that for all those who exist, the conditions are perfect, thus they feel grateful and seek something to be grateful to.
My point is that it's a natural law, not a proof of godly manifestation. Just as we don't think that 2+2=4 is a divine message.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the first time or if I have misunderstood it once again

Alright, let's set aside Anselm's argument for now. I will address your present argument as such. It seems to be that you are arguing perfection according to a relative standard. With this I would agree. If the relative standard is reality as it is, then yes, every existing thing is perfect according to what it is. Perfection is simply totality, or completeness. If we are to say that the standard to which I am being measured is me, then I am perfect according to that standard. In fact, if matter is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, then the same amount of energy that exists now existed at the beginning of the universe, and therefore the same amount of matter exists now as it did at the beginning of the universe (since matter and energy are one and the same, if Einstein is right). Hence, according to the standard of present reality, and quantitative reality, the universe is perfect.

However, it seems to me that when most people speak of perfection they do not refer to the standard of that which is. It seems to me that when people speak of perfection they speak about the ideal standard. Most people have a vague notion of what the ideal standard is, ergo I will attempt to illuminate this idea. Assuming that original creation is the ideal standard, and we are no longer experiencers of the original intended course of creation (this due to free will and intellect), it can be said that we are not experiencing the ideal standard. The ideal standard is that form to which all of a given specie is derived from. For example, all types of triangles might be said to come out of an equilateral triangle (humor me and just go along with the concept). Any triangle that is not equilateral does not conform to the form of the species, and therefore, when measured against the form of the species, is said not to be perfect. One may measure the triangle against itself, and say that it is perfect according to its own specifications, but this doesn't saying anything about perfection according to it's natural form, that is, it's species-form.

Likewise, it may be said, that humans too have a species-form that none now conform to. For example, the human face is supposed to be wholly symmetric, but no human being that now lives has a wholly symmetric face. The more healthy a person is, the more symmetric the face will be, and also the more beautiful the face will appear to be to onlookers. Health is beautiful, and (at the very least) in the case of humans, symmetry is indicative of health. It seems to be logical that the ideal, the most healthy human, and hence the human in orginal creation, would have been entirely symmetric according to the human form. Ergo, none now live that are perfect according to the ideal human standard (again, due to free will, which chose a course of destruction and non-alignment).

While it may not be proof of Godly manifestation, this argument certainly speaks volumes about perfection. This is because supreme perfection would simply be that which is entirely complete, utter totality, not simply according to its own nature, but according to the standard of positive possibility. In other words, the actually infinite would be an example of supreme perfection. Such a supreme perfection is what we deem to be God.

whitewolf, you have made the same error that avatar made. Balder1 simply stated the premise in an unclear way. The premise isn't that existence is perfect. Rather, all that is being said in the argument is that existence is better than non-existence, and hence existence would be part of a supremely perfect being, since otherwise, non-existence being an imperfection, a said supremely perfect being wouldn't actually be supremely perfect (not-existing).

existence is better than non-existence

And this is precisely what needs to be argued against. For fun, I say, a thing that exists is imperfect, for it is inevitably worse than the initial idea in the mind of the creator of the thing (this does not imply deity). This is a classic idea that was known to artists and others for centuries, refer to Durer's "Melancholy." "Better" is already relative and relevant to some minds and not to others.

That god may be perfect I can accept; I don't see why he's necessarily more perfect than man.

and we are no longer experiencers of the original intended course of creation (this due to free will and intellect), it can be said that we are not experiencing the ideal standard.

We are not what god intended us to be? God faultered and made a mistake while making us? A mistake? Imperfection! :p

For fun, I say, a thing that exists is imperfect, for it is inevitably worse than the initial idea in the mind of the creator of the thing (this does not imply deity).

I don't know about this. I imagine that there are some who have an idea fully fleshed within their minds before the actual creation in physical form is done, but I should think that most only have a vague conception. Open-ended. It is only when it is put into physical form that it is defined and limited. Perfection is a fallacy. Even perfection of an ideal is an impossible state.

The only thing going for a thing that is thought rather than made is that it contains within it more possibilities for expression than the thing that has been made. I expressed this idea in that thread where you were asking for choices on which pixie to draw for school. I liked the one that was most unfinished because it had more possibility and was more likely to end up in a form that I would like than the other two.

Which did you pick, by the way? The one that you wanted to all along? #3?

whitewolf, yes we are WHAT God intended us to be, we are human. However, we are not AS God intended us to be. There is a distinct difference, since one refers to essence and the other refers to state. The essence of every human being is humanity. The state of every human being is different, and imperfect according to the standard of human form (as opposed to human actuality).

invert_nexus, you say that perfection is a fallacy, that perfection of an ideal is an impossible state. While, to an extent, I might agree with this, I would first ask how you define perfection. It has been my experience that perfection means something different (and is usually a vague concept) for most people. The problem with this is that if most people have a different concept in mind, then we are all talking about something different, and not actually having a meaningful conversation.

I imagine that there are some who have an idea fully fleshed within their minds before the actual creation in physical form is done, but I should think that most only have a vague conception. Open-ended. It is only when it is put into physical form that it is defined and limited. Perfection is a fallacy. Even perfection of an ideal is an impossible state.

Ah, honey to my mind! It follows, "perfection" as a concept is perfect; once it is materialized, it is no longer perfect (words may escape me, but it's a paradox which is obvious). Thus, god is perfect as long as he doesn't exist; that is how he can manage being limitless. But once you start scrupulously defining him, you're taking his perfection away.
We must compare the theory to true experience. Are we happier with god or without him? I say, without god we're much happier and more free.

whitewolf,

Actually, you are talking about form and matter. It is a concept spoken of in metaphysics. In metaphysics, there are two modes of reality, form and matter. Form is said to be perfect, and unchanging. Matter, however, is said to be imperfect, and ever-changing. Angels and demons are said to be pure form, and hence, unchanging (though some may argue about demons being perfect... but I suppose that would have to do more with moral perfection). However, unlike what you believe, form and concept are not identical realities, though form is conceptual. In other words, angels and demons are not simply concepts, but realities. Likewise, God is said to be form, as opposed to matter. God, however, unlike demons and angels, is infinite, supreme, and hence, most perfect. That is, most complete, total, whole, for what can be more complete than that which is actually infinite?

In saying, "God is perfect as long as He doesn't exist," I assume that you believe that existence consists of the universe. As such, all existence therefore is material (except perhaps energy... but according to einstein energy and matter are the same things simply moving at different speeds). Hence, by such logic, it would make sense that for God to exist would imply imperfection, since, metaphysically speaking, matter is imperfect. However, if one is to say that God is infinite, it may not necessarily be that for God to exist means that God is material, and therefore imperfect. If Form exists as a reality, then God may be said to be an existing entity, and still retain supreme perfection and an infinite being.

In metaphysics, there are two modes of reality, form and matter.

Matter has form. What you say sounds unfamiliar. Further explain, refer to a text, or give it up.

Well, if you have time, you can read up on this.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-met.htm#Forms,%20Wholeness,%20and%20Thinghood

For the sake of time-saving (if you want it), I'd suggest reading just the parts about form in detail:

Forms, Wholeness, and Thinghood
Matter and Form in Aristotle

Joy. Now we come to it. Epistemology and Aristotle.
You realize that these are just conventions.
And that demons and angels aren't real.
And neither is god.
At the least they haven't been proven to exist in form or matter or any other way.
They're stories and ideas. No more.

And that demons and angels aren't real.
And neither is god.

Full proof? As fellow atheist, I understand you. But, proof.... And please do better than merely saying "Well, we can't see them."

Joy. Now we come to it. Epistemology and Aristotle.
You realize that these are just conventions.
And that demons and angels aren't real.
And neither is god.
At the least they haven't been proven to exist in form or matter or any other way.
They're stories and ideas. No more.

God is a living wind but you cannot say from where the wind originates or where it will go too. But you are carried on it. Trust me you have sustainence through it.


I AM THAT I AM


peace

c20

Full proof? As fellow atheist, I understand you. But, proof.... And please do better than merely saying "Well, we can't see them."

I really don't care to argue the existence of God. I'm afraid this is a topic that bores me. I only came in earlier because of your words on perfection.

All I'm saying here is that it is annoying when people start talking about angels and demons as if they have accepted traits that can be discussed. I'm not going to attempt to prove that angels and demons don't exist because I don't care, but don't you think that if someone goes around talking about them as if they are categorizable and defined in any way then they should show proof of how they know that these entities exist for one and have said properties for two?

That's all I'm saying.

but don't you think that if someone goes around talking about them as if they are categorizable and defined in any way then they should show proof of how they know that these entities exist for one and have said properties for two?


Likewise for somehone who goes around talking about them as if they don't exist.

Likewise for somehone who goes around talking about them as if they don't exist.

Uh. Yeah. That's my point. Do you see me talking about their form? What kind of matter they're made of? Or anything like that?

No.

So shutup.

You're the one who brought up angels and demons not me. Says a lot.

You're the one who brought up angels and demons not me. Says a lot.

Oh? Really?

Angels and demons are said to be pure form, and hence, unchanging (though some may argue about demons being perfect... but I suppose that would have to do more with moral perfection). However, unlike what you believe, form and concept are not identical realities, though form is conceptual. In other words, angels and demons are not simply concepts, but realities.

And what does that say? That you're a thread-flirting asshole?
I don't blame you. This is the kind of thread where you can't really be expected to read all the half-ass apologist crap anyway, but this used to be your bailiwick.

How's that search for your lost faith coming? Still going to hell?

To get back to the point....

Balder1: you seem to be looking for a decent argument for the existence of God (sic). If that's the case, you won't find one.

Could you quickly refute the cosmological argument that I brought up, then?

Could you quickly refute the cosmological argument that I brought up, then?

"Everything is either a dependent being or an independent (self-existent/self-caused) being; not everything is dependent; so, something (=God) is independent."

This one is rife with errors. To begin, lets play semantics with 'dependant'. If one interprets this to mean that no organism can possibly survive without relying on other organisms then premiss one is dead in the water. It's impossible for an organism to be completely self-sufficient (I'm assuming here that by 'everything' you meant to excluse inanimate objects). If you roll with the 'self-caused' interpretation,well, that's clearly toast; nothing comes ex nihilo, all life is spawned. Second premiss: this is to be taken a priori?? There is no recorded case of anyhting in human history that could be recognized as being not dependent. Waxing metaphysical here for a moment, let's assume such a thing did exist. Would it make sense to say that such a thing could even be recognized as such? Conclusion: Even if one were to make this jump, why would one move to posit that this thing is God??
Overall, the logic is sound ( A or B, B, therefore B [I wasn't about to mess around with the quantifiers]) but muuch too open to interpretation, and, the instantiation in the conclusion is seriously questionable.

a thing that exists is imperfect, for it is inevitably worse than the initial idea in the mind of the creator of the thing

First of all, this is is a non sequitur. The idea of a thing and the thing itself are not the same; if they would/could be, we would not distinguish between the two of them anyway. The idea of a thing is phenomenologically different from the thing itself, and as such, the two are incomparable. Ie. we can't say that one is perfect and the other one isn't, in comparison to the first.


Secondly,

"a thing that exists is imperfect"

You need to look at existence's "imperfection" up close: Existence may be imperfect *in a certain individual time point*, but existence *as a whole*, *in all the time and space of its being* is perfect.

It is all a matter of perspective: from a short-term perspective, existence is imperfect, from an all-term perspective, existence is perfect.

What your argument introduces is a clash of perspectives in which we observe something.


* * *

Joy. Now we come to it. Epistemology and Aristotle.
You realize that these are just conventions.

What is not "just a convention"?


And that demons and angels aren't real.
And neither is god.
At the least they haven't been proven to exist in form or matter or any other way.
They're stories and ideas. No more.

I dare you to prove you have two legs!

I can prove that you don't have two legs.

You know, eventually, I could come to you, hear you claim you have two legs, you pointing at them -- then I'd take a chainsaw and saw one leg off and you wouldn't have two legs. And I would prove that you don't have two legs. Q.E.D.

It is impossible to prove anything unless there is a common standard we both agree to. What you are doing is that you in advance discard any possibility of a proof for God -- you take a chainsaw and actively prevent that anyone could prove they have two legs.
Of course, this is the strategy with which you are always proven to be right ...

Rosa,

First of all, this is is a non sequitur. The idea of a thing and the thing itself are not the same; if they would/could be, we would not distinguish between the two of them anyway. The idea of a thing is phenomenologically different from the thing itself, and as such, the two are incomparable. Ie. we can't say that one is perfect and the other one isn't, in comparison to the first.

So, you're saying that you can't compare blueprints with the finished building? That would sure throw a monkeywrench into the construction industry if this were the case.

I admit that the thing and the idea of a thing are different, but they are close enough to be compared. In most cases, if you look in the idea of a thing you will find the thing buried amidst all the other possible means of expression of the idea. And, if you look at the thing you will find the idea of the thing. Even though it is a pale sampling of the full scope of the original idea. It is a limited expression of a limitless idea.

What is not "just a convention"?

Death. Gravity. Sex.

You know, eventually, I could come to you, hear you claim you have two legs, you pointing at them -- then I'd take a chainsaw and saw one leg off and you wouldn't have two legs. And I would prove that you don't have two legs. Q.E.D.

It is impossible to prove anything unless there is a common standard we both agree to. What you are doing is that you in advance discard any possibility of a proof for God -- you take a chainsaw and actively prevent that anyone could prove they have two legs.
Of course, this is the strategy with which you are always proven to be right ...

Look. It's quite simple. Maybe I can't prove that I have two legs to you. Maybe you can prove that I don't have two legs. But, the point is that you have seen legs. You know what legs are. You know what properties legs have. You and I can sit here and discuss legs and their properties. But, angels and demons are another matter (you might notice that I have been avoiding the subject of god. And I wouldn't even bother to reply to this if the forums weren't extremely boring at the moment.)

Have you seen demons, Rosa? Do you agree on the properties that BeyondTimeAndSpace has attributed to them? If so, then you and he can have a wonderful conversation on these beings of which you both accept the stated definition. I don't. I won't. Simple as that.

And, how exactly does one prove the existence of god by simply attributing arbitrary properties to things that one has never seen or examined? This is called fantasy.

Hey, I was reading the first Philosophy lecture on MIT's OCW (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html) and it's on the ontological argument (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-00Problems-of-PhilosophyFall2001/D4C79E77-93BA-4A7F-9B77-FE705E0F2095/0/fa01lec01.pdf) (PDF) for God.

The premise seems to be that since the concept of God is a perfect being, and existence is a form of perfection, God must exist in order to be God. "The concept of God is the concept of an existent being." But how does this Anselm fellow make the connection from that to saying that God must necessarily exist?

Seems like a very fallacious argument. How could it be taken seriously?

The fool says in his heart that God does not exist. The definition of God is that He is a being than which no greater can be concieved. Since the fool understands the words which define God, God must exist in the mind.
For the fool to say that God (a being than which no greater can be concieved) does not exist, he is saying that that being is only an idea and therefore cannot exist in mind or reality, even though God does exist in his mind.
For (the defined) God to exist in the mind alone, is actually not God as defined (a being than which no greater can be concieved), but is actually a being than which greater CAN be concieved, which is totally impossible.
So as God (as defined) cannot possibly exist in the mind alone (as it is self contradictory), He must exist both in mind and reality.
Therefore God does exist. :)

Jan Ardena.

The fool says in his heart that God does not exist. The definition of God is that He is a being than which no greater can be concieved. Since the fool understands the words which define God, God must exist in the mind.
For the fool to say that God (a being than which no greater can be concieved) does not exist, he is saying that that being is only an idea and therefore cannot exist in mind or reality, even though God does exist in his mind.
For (the defined) God to exist in the mind alone, is actually not God as defined (a being than which no greater can be concieved), but is actually a being than which greater CAN be concieved, which is totally impossible.
So as God (as defined) cannot possibly exist in the mind alone (as it is self contradictory), He must exist both in mind and reality.
Therefore God does exist. :)

Jan Ardena.

I would go one step further with that word God.
That Word was made flesh. His name was Jesus. The miracles He did were at that Word's command to show that He was indeed The Word made flesh

peace

c20

I admit that the thing and the idea of a thing are different, but they are close enough to be compared.

Yes, but this comparison is not a matter of course, even though it may seem so. That comparison is possible only because we function on the basis of some principles and standards that make such comparisons possible.

A child may be very able to compare two houses; but it won't be able to compare a house and its blueprint. It takes certain knowledge to make comparisons.

This knowledge is not to be taken for granted.


In most cases, if you look in the idea of a thing you will find the thing buried amidst all the other possible means of expression of the idea. And, if you look at the thing you will find the idea of the thing. Even though it is a pale sampling of the full scope of the original idea. It is a limited expression of a limitless idea.

A "limitless idea"?! Oh. [And he dares to speak about the non-existence of angels and demons!] How can you talk about properties of things that you ... can't touch, measure, see (not really, not clearly)?


“ What is not "just a convention"? ”
Death. Gravity. Sex.

1. Death: It really isn't medically clear when someone is dead or not. Ie. in cases of severe trauma and coma, for example, it is quite unclear whether someone is to be thought dead or not. It's a convention.
2. Gravity: Give me a break. Until they made defintions and equations, describing a certain phenomenon, nobody cared about "gravity". It's a convention.
3. Sex: What about sex is not convention in some way or another?

The thing is that *anything* can be treated as a matter of convention; a thing cannot prevent from being treated as a convention.

I think I know where you're headed: Things are. If they are, this means they aren't about conventions. But this is so general that it says absolutely nothing; such a definition is applicable for *everything*.


Look. It's quite simple. Maybe I can't prove that I have two legs to you. Maybe you can prove that I don't have two legs. But, the point is that you have seen legs. You know what legs are. You know what properties legs have. You and I can sit here and discuss legs and their properties.

NO. My case was: "I dare you to prove you have two legs!" Two legs.


But, angels and demons are another matter

It is all a matter of what you are *prepared* to believe.


And I wouldn't even bother to reply to this if the forums weren't extremely boring at the moment.)

Oh merciful mother of all goose-skins! We thank you that Mr Invert Nexus has stepped off his throne and bothered to reply in this forum!


Have you seen demons, Rosa? Do you agree on the properties that BeyondTimeAndSpace has attributed to them? If so, then you and he can have a wonderful conversation on these beings of which you both accept the stated definition.

I'm sure a discussion with beyondtimeandspace over a cup of tea would be absolutely charming! Certainly incomparably nicer than with you.


I don't. I won't. Simple as that.

Then what the hell are you doing here, talking about them?!


And, how exactly does one prove the existence of god by simply attributing arbitrary properties to things that one has never seen or examined? This is called fantasy.

Uh. You have in advance decided that God cannot be known, so no argument, nothing could convince you.
It is this decision you have made in advance that is the same as deciding to saw off someone's legs, just to prove their claim of having two legs to be wrong.

Rosa,

This knowledge is not to be taken for granted.

This knowledge is part of human nature. We compare. That's what we do.

A "limitless idea"?! Oh. [And he dares to speak about the non-existence of angels and demons!] How can you talk about properties of things that you ... can't touch, measure, see (not really, not clearly)?

Limitless as in it can be expressed in a multitude of ways. Limitless is hyperbole, but it is near limitless. Thought is open. The possibilities are endless.

1. Death: It really isn't medically clear when someone is dead or not. Ie. in cases of severe trauma and coma, for example, it is quite unclear whether someone is to be thought dead or not. It's a convention.

This is time of death. Death is not a convention. You will die someday. Is that a convention? Did we all get together to agree that we are all going to die? Rather civilized of us.

2. Gravity: Give me a break. Until they made defintions and equations, describing a certain phenomenon, nobody cared about "gravity". It's a convention.

You're talking about G. Lose the equations and you're still stuck to the ground.

3. Sex: What about sex is not convention in some way or another?

Ok. Sex is a touch sketchy in this context. But, I like it anyway. Sex is warm, wet, and sticky. This is not convention. This is nature.

I think I know where you're headed: Things are. If they are, this means they aren't about conventions. But this is so general that it says absolutely nothing; such a definition is applicable for *everything*.

Not everything. Not things that aren't. (And, by this I don't mean to imply that angels and demons aren't. This is what I believe, but that's beside the point. The point is that they have not been seen to be. They are theory at best. It would be like saying gravity exists when you live in freefall.)

NO. My case was: "I dare you to prove you have two legs!" Two legs.

I know what your case was. I changed it to fit the point better. I'm speaking about the properties of things not how many there are. You agree that there is something called legs that have certain properties, yes?

Oh merciful mother of all goose-skins! We thank you that Mr Invert Nexus has stepped off his throne and bothered to reply in this forum!

How colorful. And I offer you my thanks for your most gracious welcome, fair lady.
(Seriously. Sorry. That's not how I meant it. I'm just saying that discussing god is boring and that's not why I entered this thread. I came in only to comment on Whitewolf's statement on ideas and things.)

I'm sure a discussion with beyondtimeandspace over a cup of tea would be absolutely charming! Certainly incomparably nicer than with you.

Oh. What a cruel, cruel barb! Rosa, I thought you liked me. :(
(I might not be charming, but I am me.)

Then what the hell are you doing here, talking about them?!

I'm trying not to. All I'm saying about them is that one shouldn't be allowed to just describe things as if they were physically measureable and had properties that we can all understand and agree upon.

Uh. You have in advance decided that God cannot be known, so no argument, nothing could convince you.
It is this decision you have made in advance that is the same as deciding to saw off someone's legs, just to prove their claim of having two legs to be wrong.

If you showed me an angel or a demon to 'saw off' then I assure you that I would be open to debate them. I would not cut them off. You could convince me, Rosa. You just don't have the means available to you. You are convinced by fancy. I am convinced by solidity.

God can be seen in the things of nature so plainly. A child does not need to be prompted to stand in awe of nature. The child cannot possibly conceive how these things came into being and so naturally (again unprompted and unfettered) will say "Wow! Look dad, look at this butterfly"
The dad looks at his childs face, the awe the wonder and then looks at the butterfly and feels humbled. The dad is seeing wonderment fill his childs heart and yet he did not bring the thing into being that is causing the wonderment. To the child the butterfly is a gift, to the dad the butterfly is a gift, the love that flows between them as they marvel in this mystery is a gift - it did not originate from them and yet they saw that it was 'good', a good gift unto them not through them. The butterfly takes to the wind and the walk continues with many more wonderments to be enjoyed. These people are walking in God's Kingdom for these things came through God. God's love for man is evident in nature and it is our appreciation of the good gifts that He has given us that produce thanksgiving in us.

Hebrews 6:9
But one has testified somewhere, saying, "WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM? 7 "YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 8 YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET." For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him. 9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

I'm trying not to. All I'm saying about them is that one shouldn't be allowed to just describe things as if they were physically measureable and had properties that we can all understand and agree upon.

Who is doing that?
I think my cat is loving and social -- but I'm quite sure many people disagree. Is therefore my cat any less loving and social to me? Not at all.

Of course, God is phenomenologically different than my cat. But what remains is that those who believe in Him are just as sure about Him as I am about my cat. Even though there are people who think otherwise.

[DISCLAIMER: Do not make light of my cat example!]


If you showed me an angel or a demon to 'saw off' then I assure you that I would be open to debate them. I would not cut them off. You could convince me, Rosa. You just don't have the means available to you. You are convinced by fancy. I am convinced by solidity.

NO. What you have sawed off is the possibility of anyone ever showing you an angel.
This is why you can't see any, no matter what other people do or say.

And as for being convinced by solidity: Tell me -- what is real?

Rosa,

Who is doing that?

BeyondTimeAndSpace.

I think my cat is loving and social -- but I'm quite sure many people disagree. Is therefore my cat any less loving and social to me? Not at all.

Your cat is a physical entity which you can examine. You observe and your observations lend weight to the thought within you that your cat is loving and social. Now, if you had never seen a cat before and yet still tried to say that it was loving and social then you'd have problems. Yes?

[DISCLAIMER: Do not make light of my cat example!]

Would I do that? I love cats. You know that. ;)

NO. What you have sawed off is the possibility of anyone ever showing you an angel.
This is why you can't see any, no matter what other people do or say.

I deny this.

And as for being convinced by solidity: Tell me -- what is real?

My leg. To me.
Your cat. To you.
Apparently angels and demons according to Beyondtimeandspace.

$0.02

If there is a scale of perfection its apex must be unchanging.
Nothing that exists is unchanging.
Ergo: Nothing perfect exists.

~Raithere

c20H25N3o,

Do you ever actually discuss anything or do you just evangelize?

Invert Nexus, let's make one thing absolutely clear. If you go back to my first statement concerning Demons and Angels, you will see that I neer once claimed to know anything about them. I simply relayed what has been said about them. Moreover, whether I believe in them or not, to speak about angels and demons is just the same as to speak about thoughts and abstracts. One cannot talk about numbers as if they were physically measurable, but we CAN understand their properties, and agree on them. Numbers are abstracts, not physical entities. You understand them, then, because they have been given physical representations. Yet, even this might be said to be silly, since numbers are abstract representations of the physical. Hence, what you perceive and call a number is a physical representation of an abstract representation of physical properties.

The key here is that we are able to make physical representations of abstracts, and non-physical ideas. Have you ever seen a thought? No, but you can represent thoughts with physical figures, like pictures, symbols, sounds, etc. Likewise, if someone were to speak of angels or demons, entities that are said to be abstract, and non-physical, such could be represented through physical symbols and sounds, imagery and figures, etc...

You may argue that you KNOW that thoughts exist, or that numbers (abstracts) are representations of the physical, but this ignores that fact that abstracts exist. They do not exist in the same way that physical entities exist, yet they may be said to exist. Who would doubt the existence of thoughts? I doubt anyone would, because any conscious being is aware of them, and experiences them.

You may also argue that thoughts can be explained in physical ways by explaining brain functions, which are physical occurances. Such an explanation would be something to the effect of "thoughts are simply electrical impulses." Yet, there are those who would claim that angels and demons are forms of energy. In fact, the very origin of "soul" or "spirit" (which is what demons and angels are said to be) is derived from breath, and was used to describe something that was living. As you know, anything living is alive because it there is energy in it that animates its growth. Hence, again, angels and demons may simply be forms of energy. If this is the case, of course you can't measure them in terms of the physical, since the physical is simply referential to that which is material, and the material is simply a distinction of fast versus slow energy movement (according to Einstein, Energy = Mass * Constant^2 (2xThe speed of Light). Hence, the distinction between the physical and the spiritual is a matter of term definition, and the two may be described as matter and energy, and just as there are different constructs of matter, so too may there be different forms of energy.

Then we are drawn back to the hypothesis of Aristotle, concerning Matter and Form. Form is said to be perfect, and Matter imperfect. This takes on whole new meaning when Matter and Form are distinguished as Matter and Energy. Matter is ever-changing, while Energy is constant. Intriguing, since Matter is said to be ever-changing, while Form is said to be constant.

Arguments for the existence of God = 1 = believers
Arguments for the inexistence of God = 1 = nonbelievers

in philosophy i say what i say and you read it
no long arguments no long sweet talks
just plain crazy posts


philosopher philocrazy

Raithere,

If there is a scale of perfection its apex must be unchanging.
Nothing that exists is unchanging.
Ergo: Nothing perfect exists.


The dictionary definition of 'perfect' is, being entirely without fault or defect and satisfying all requirements.

Jan Ardena.

Raithere,

The dictionary definition of 'perfect' is, being entirely without fault or defect and satisfying all requirements.

Jan Ardena.I'm not quite sure what your point is.

The definition of apex is, "the highest or uppermost point". There cannot be more than one uppermost point. Therefore a most perfect thing must be static and unchanging for it changes it can no longer be most perfect in an absolute sense. If we instead go with relative perfection rather than absolute perfection God could change and still be the most perfect. But if perfection is only relative Anslem's argument falls apart.

~Raithere

Let's clear this up once and for all regarding the Christian Trinity

Taken from http://www.bebaptized.org/Word.htm

John 10:29-31
" My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. " I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

John 14:8-10
Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

John 17:10-12
and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

What is the name the Father gave to the Son? Is it not JESUS? The name given to the Son, Jesus says, is also the name of the Father.

John 17:20-21
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Word is the Son—Jesus Christ:

Revelation 19:12-14
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written that no man knew, but He Himself.
And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His name is called, The Word of God. And the armies which were in Heaven, clothed in fine linen white and clean, followed Him upon white horses.

In Scripture, Jesus has many names. Here are just a few of them:

Word Son of David Most high Beloved Son Word of God King of kings Lord The Root And Offspring Of David

Christ Lord of lords Immanuel Abraham's Seed

Messiah Redeemer Faithful Witness Son Of Joseph

Prophet Bright morning star Rock Son of God

Holy One High Priest Chief Cornerstone Firstborn

Righteous One Good Shepard Savior Resurrection

Son of Man The gate Ruler the last Adam

The Way Prince of Peace Wonderful king of Israel

The Truth Counselor Mighty God I AM

The Life Alpha and Omega Son Of Abraham Lamb

Light of the world Beginning and end Only Begotten Son Lion of Judah

Bread of life True vine Bridegroom Mystery of God



God is ONE. Using any of His names still is a reference to Him.

Perhaps the most famous and well know verse that teaches Jesus is the Father is in the Old Testament and is one we sing about every Christmas but then quickly forget about:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

So whether we are baptized into “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” or into “Jesus Christ” it makes no difference--they are both the same thing.


“Ok, but what about the Holy Spirit?”

Many are surprised to learn the Spirit is not an “it”, “it” is a “who”:



Acts 11:15

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as He had come on us at the beginning.



So who is this “He”?



Acts 16:6-8 ASV
And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.



2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.



Yes indeed, the Holy Spirit too, is Jesus. Confused yet? You are not alone. But it is what the Bible says…

(Hang on now, it is going to get worse…) So the Bible says Jesus is the Father, and the Father is Jesus. It also says the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Jesus is the Son. He was begotten of the Father. But the Holy Spirit also was involved:



Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.



But wasn’t it the Father who begat the Son? Yes! So how could Jesus be of the Holy Spirit too? Is the Holy Spirit the Father as well? Remember 1John 5:7 above? It says the Father, the Word (which is the Son), and the Holy Ghost are ONE. This is where faith comes in. Our small, puny minds cannot grasp the true immensity of this notion. This is a very deep concept, one perhaps we will never fully understand until we are in heaven. Perhaps the phrase the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is a more complete, all inclusive, all encompassing name that best describes aspects of God that a singular name cannot. This gives insight into the mystery of God’s very personality, which appears to be of a compound nature. After all, God has shown us this is so from the very beginning:



Genesis 1:26,3:22

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…



And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:



So, because the three are one, baptism in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” is just as valid as baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Likewise, baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is just as valid as baptism in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In Mathew 28:19 Jesus told

The Apostles (Peter being present) to baptize in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. In Acts 2:38 we see Peter telling the crowd to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ.” It’s a big circle. Peter did not disobey, nor did he improve upon Christ’s commands. This should tell us both wordings are acceptable to God.



Furthermore, the power in baptism does not consist of which exact words or “formula” is uttered at time of immersion. What happens in baptism is done by God.



“Thus, if a person is baptized with an understanding and recognition of the Scriptural purpose of baptism, if a person desires for his/her sins to be washed away by the blood of Jesus, if a person realizes that they are dependent on that precious gift of God through Christ, then surely that person has been baptized "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" and also "in the name of Jesus," regardless of the words spoken at the time.” –Bob Williams



There are many people who acknowledge Jesus Christ as a human being who lived about 2000 years ago. They do not however, acknowledge Him as the Son (of God). If anyone wants to be contentious about this, using their own line of “reasoning” it can be argued (erroneously) that using the name Jesus only does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God—and anyone who denies the Son also denies the Father as well:



1 John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.



Notice this verse uses “the Son” not “Jesus”. But no one with any understanding will say that if someone confesses “Jesus” they will be denying the Father. This would be a misuse of Scripture.



If someone does something in the name of the President of the United States, it is just the same as saying someone does something in the name of George Bush. One phrasing acknowledges the power and authority of the office while the other phrasing is more personable. But both phrases mean the same thing. It is six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.



Furthermore, much of this dispute seems to arise from a divisive and legalistic mindset among those that should otherwise be unified brothers in the body of Christ. Paul warns against factions and divisions of this nature. We should be careful we do not fall into this category:



1Timothy 6:4-5

…he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw thyself.



If it is to be disputed that baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is invalid because it doesn’t say that in Acts, then the same exact argument can be made that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is invalid because that is not what Jesus Christ Himself said to do. Do you see how ridiculously silly this gets? It is quibbling over semantics. It is a classic case of what Paul warned Timothy about. Notice Paul also mentions that these people like to argue over words and are after financial gain. Currently, there is another site on the Internet that the author has bet anyone $10,000 to find anywhere in the New Testament where it shows baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (other than Matthew 28:19, of course). This is an unhealthy interest in controversy over words for financial gain as quoted by Paul above.





Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures

or the power of God? –Mark 12:24



Click here for another site that explores this question.





Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there are “baptisms” that are not into Christ at all. They are not into either “Jesus Christ”, NOR “the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” In other words, it is not a “Christian” baptism whatsoever. It is a “baptism” where Christ is actually rejected or denied. Even today, Jewish people still practice “tevillah” which is what Christians would call baptism. This is the same type of full water immersion in a “baptistry”—which Jewish people call a “mikvah”. The ancient application of Mikvah is still practiced for several different reasons, one of which is for conversion to Judaism. Click here and here to see an external, Jewish site for more information on Mikvah.



So in view of Mikvah, and Tevillah, it seems pretty silly to argue about the phrasing “Jesus Christ” or “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” --which both mean the same thing!

Raithere,

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

If we instead go with relative perfection rather than absolute perfection God could change and still be the most perfect. But if perfection is only relative Anslem's argument falls apart.

~Raithere

My point is that perfection is a state of being, a condition, not an object. It can always be argued that something is not perfect instead of being perfect, therefore it has to be relative, even in the case of describing God.

Anslem's argument decribes God as "a being than which no greater can be concieived".

Jan Ardena.

Let's clear this up once and for all regarding the Christian Trinity

Taken from http://www.bebaptized.org/Word.htm

John 10:29-31
" My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. " I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

John 14:8-10
Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

John 17:10-12
and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

What is the name the Father gave to the Son? Is it not JESUS? The name given to the Son, Jesus says, is also the name of the Father.

John 17:20-21
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Word is the Son—Jesus Christ:

Revelation 19:12-14
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written that no man knew, but He Himself.
And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His name is called, The Word of God. And the armies which were in Heaven, clothed in fine linen white and clean, followed Him upon white horses.

In Scripture, Jesus has many names. Here are just a few of them:

Word Son of David Most high Beloved Son Word of God King of kings Lord The Root And Offspring Of David

Christ Lord of lords Immanuel Abraham's Seed

Messiah Redeemer Faithful Witness Son Of Joseph

Prophet Bright morning star Rock Son of God

Holy One High Priest Chief Cornerstone Firstborn

Righteous One Good Shepard Savior Resurrection

Son of Man The gate Ruler the last Adam

The Way Prince of Peace Wonderful king of Israel

The Truth Counselor Mighty God I AM

The Life Alpha and Omega Son Of Abraham Lamb

Light of the world Beginning and end Only Begotten Son Lion of Judah

Bread of life True vine Bridegroom Mystery of God



God is ONE. Using any of His names still is a reference to Him.

Perhaps the most famous and well know verse that teaches Jesus is the Father is in the Old Testament and is one we sing about every Christmas but then quickly forget about:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

So whether we are baptized into “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” or into “Jesus Christ” it makes no difference--they are both the same thing.


“Ok, but what about the Holy Spirit?”

Many are surprised to learn the Spirit is not an “it”, “it” is a “who”:



Acts 11:15

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as He had come on us at the beginning.



So who is this “He”?



Acts 16:6-8 ASV
And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.



2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.



Yes indeed, the Holy Spirit too, is Jesus. Confused yet? You are not alone. But it is what the Bible says…

(Hang on now, it is going to get worse…) So the Bible says Jesus is the Father, and the Father is Jesus. It also says the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Jesus is the Son. He was begotten of the Father. But the Holy Spirit also was involved:



Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.



But wasn’t it the Father who begat the Son? Yes! So how could Jesus be of the Holy Spirit too? Is the Holy Spirit the Father as well? Remember 1John 5:7 above? It says the Father, the Word (which is the Son), and the Holy Ghost are ONE. This is where faith comes in. Our small, puny minds cannot grasp the true immensity of this notion. This is a very deep concept, one perhaps we will never fully understand until we are in heaven. Perhaps the phrase the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is a more complete, all inclusive, all encompassing name that best describes aspects of God that a singular name cannot. This gives insight into the mystery of God’s very personality, which appears to be of a compound nature. After all, God has shown us this is so from the very beginning:



Genesis 1:26,3:22

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…



And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:



So, because the three are one, baptism in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” is just as valid as baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Likewise, baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is just as valid as baptism in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In Mathew 28:19 Jesus told

The Apostles (Peter being present) to baptize in “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. In Acts 2:38 we see Peter telling the crowd to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ.” It’s a big circle. Peter did not disobey, nor did he improve upon Christ’s commands. This should tell us both wordings are acceptable to God.



Furthermore, the power in baptism does not consist of which exact words or “formula” is uttered at time of immersion. What happens in baptism is done by God.



“Thus, if a person is baptized with an understanding and recognition of the Scriptural purpose of baptism, if a person desires for his/her sins to be washed away by the blood of Jesus, if a person realizes that they are dependent on that precious gift of God through Christ, then surely that person has been baptized "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" and also "in the name of Jesus," regardless of the words spoken at the time.” –Bob Williams



There are many people who acknowledge Jesus Christ as a human being who lived about 2000 years ago. They do not however, acknowledge Him as the Son (of God). If anyone wants to be contentious about this, using their own line of “reasoning” it can be argued (erroneously) that using the name Jesus only does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God—and anyone who denies the Son also denies the Father as well:



1 John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.



Notice this verse uses “the Son” not “Jesus”. But no one with any understanding will say that if someone confesses “Jesus” they will be denying the Father. This would be a misuse of Scripture.



If someone does something in the name of the President of the United States, it is just the same as saying someone does something in the name of George Bush. One phrasing acknowledges the power and authority of the office while the other phrasing is more personable. But both phrases mean the same thing. It is six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.



Furthermore, much of this dispute seems to arise from a divisive and legalistic mindset among those that should otherwise be unified brothers in the body of Christ. Paul warns against factions and divisions of this nature. We should be careful we do not fall into this category:



1Timothy 6:4-5

…he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw thyself.



If it is to be disputed that baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is invalid because it doesn’t say that in Acts, then the same exact argument can be made that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is invalid because that is not what Jesus Christ Himself said to do. Do you see how ridiculously silly this gets? It is quibbling over semantics. It is a classic case of what Paul warned Timothy about. Notice Paul also mentions that these people like to argue over words and are after financial gain. Currently, there is another site on the Internet that the author has bet anyone $10,000 to find anywhere in the New Testament where it shows baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (other than Matthew 28:19, of course). This is an unhealthy interest in controversy over words for financial gain as quoted by Paul above.





Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures

or the power of God? –Mark 12:24



Click here for another site that explores this question.





Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there are “baptisms” that are not into Christ at all. They are not into either “Jesus Christ”, NOR “the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” In other words, it is not a “Christian” baptism whatsoever. It is a “baptism” where Christ is actually rejected or denied. Even today, Jewish people still practice “tevillah” which is what Christians would call baptism. This is the same type of full water immersion in a “baptistry”—which Jewish people call a “mikvah”. The ancient application of Mikvah is still practiced for several different reasons, one of which is for conversion to Judaism. Click here and here to see an external, Jewish site for more information on Mikvah.



So in view of Mikvah, and Tevillah, it seems pretty silly to argue about the phrasing “Jesus Christ” or “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” --which both mean the same thing!


LOL

Try contributing sometime.

LOL

Try contributing sometime.

I have already done it.

No, you are not contributing, you are preaching. Try to argue with your own words and ideas (if you have any).

Your cat is a physical entity which you can examine. You observe and your observations lend weight to the thought within you that your cat is loving and social. Now, if you had never seen a cat before and yet still tried to say that it was loving and social then you'd have problems. Yes?

But nobody is claiming such things! -- Nobody is making claims about things they don't know. Except for you!


“ NO. What you have sawed off is the possibility of anyone ever showing you an angel.
This is why you can't see any, no matter what other people do or say. ”

I deny this.

"Deny, deny, deny," said Nixon. Even though it was all true what he was accused of.


“ And as for being convinced by solidity: Tell me -- what is real? ”

My leg. To me.
Your cat. To you.
Apparently angels and demons according to Beyondtimeandspace.

UUUUUAAAAAAHHHHHH!

You have just postulated that reality is relative, and truth depends on who is thinking something to be true to him.

I hope you see that such a relativistic position disables you of making *any* claims about anything anyone says.

In short, a relativist cannot have a talk, at least not a meaningful talk!

If someone ever prove god's existance, it will be a short and relatively easy proof to understand.

Just a bet......:D

My point is that perfection is a state of being, a condition, not an object. It can always be argued that something is not perfect instead of being perfect, therefore it has to be relative, even in the case of describing God.

Anslem's argument decribes God as "a being than which no greater can be concieived".And as I said, this causes Anslem's argument to fall apart. If God's perfection is relative it is possible to conceive of a God whose perfection is not relative but absolute. The relatively perfect God is therefore not greater than that which can be imagined and is, by Anslem's definition, not God.

~Raithere

And as I said, this causes Anslem's argument to fall apart. If God's perfection is relative it is possible to conceive of a God whose perfection is not relative but absolute. The relatively perfect God is therefore not greater than that which can be imagined and is, by Anslem's definition, not God.

~Raithere

Then the absolutely perfect God is the Being than which no greater can be concieived. Either way, God is a Being than which no greater can be percieved.

Jan Ardena.

Then the absolutely perfect God is the Being than which no greater can be concieived.Which is where we started. I already addressed the problem here.

Either way, God is a Being than which no greater can be percieved.Do you mean physically? Where?

~Raithere

Which is where we started. I already addressed the problem here.

Do you mean physically? Where?

~Raithere

:confused:

Jan Ardena.

BeyondTimeAndSpace,

If you go back to my first statement concerning Demons and Angels, you will see that I neer once claimed to know anything about them. I simply relayed what has been said about them.

Yes. But you are using these fanciful imaginings of the past in ways that others would speak of solid objects. As if they are real.

Moreover, whether I believe in them or not, to speak about angels and demons is just the same as to speak about thoughts and abstracts.

Quite. If you want to relegate angels and demons to the realm of thoughts then have at it. One can think of unicorns and superintelligent shades of the color blue as well. This doesn't make them real in the sense that they exist in a form that can affect the world in a way other than how one's ideas affects one's actions which affect the world.

One cannot talk about numbers as if they were physically measurable, but we CAN understand their properties, and agree on them.

Yes. We agree on them because they have physical representations which we can observe. We can see 1. We can see 2. We can see 0. We can understand the concept of debt and therefore see -1. We can cut something in half and see 1/2. Numbers are a convention. But the concepts which the symbols cover are real.

However, the numbers also have no consequence in the physical world. 1 doesn't do anything. It can be said that things move and act in a way that can be represented by numbers, but the numbers don't do anything.

So, again, if you want to constrain angels and demons to this realm, then fine. Have at it.

Likewise, if someone were to speak of angels or demons, entities that are said to be abstract, and non-physical, such could be represented through physical symbols and sounds, imagery and figures, etc...

Yes. Art. And this how you came to learn of them. Yes?

You may argue that you KNOW that thoughts exist, or that numbers (abstracts) are representations of the physical, but this ignores that fact that abstracts exist. They do not exist in the same way that physical entities exist, yet they may be said to exist. Who would doubt the existence of thoughts? I doubt anyone would, because any conscious being is aware of them, and experiences them.

Depends on what you mean by exist. But yes. And they are powerless to the affect the world on their own. They only work through us. Without us they do not exist. So, again, if you want to put angels in demons in this realm. All power to you.

In fact, I agree. This where they do exist. In thought. In fancy.

In fact, the very origin of "soul" or "spirit" (which is what demons and angels are said to be) is derived from breath, and was used to describe something that was living.

When you kill a man in the dead of winter, steam rises from the wound. The ancients thought it was the soul leaving the body...

So?

Hence, again, angels and demons may simply be forms of energy.

Yes. They exist in your thoughts. Or in your words. Or in your writing. Or in your art. And by themselves are nothing.

If this is the case, of course you can't measure them in terms of the physical, since the physical is simply referential to that which is material, and the material is simply a distinction of fast versus slow energy movement (according to Einstein, Energy = Mass * Constant^2 (2xThe speed of Light). Hence, the distinction between the physical and the spiritual is a matter of term definition, and the two may be described as matter and energy, and just as there are different constructs of matter, so too may there be different forms of energy.

You can measure energy. But, you're hypothesizing a whole new undetectable form of energy of which they are composed. Dark matter or some such.

You realize that this is just a flight of fancy? That you just evoked an image that is impossible to test? It's not a hypothesis. It's fancy. Hypotheses are testable. What you have evoked is mystical mumbo jumbo that has existed time immemorial. Ugh the caveman theist and you could have an excellent conversation over a spot of tea. I'm sure Rosa would love to join such a charming group as well.

Then we are drawn back to the hypothesis of Aristotle, concerning Matter and Form. Form is said to be perfect, and Matter imperfect. This takes on whole new meaning when Matter and Form are distinguished as Matter and Energy. Matter is ever-changing, while Energy is constant. Intriguing, since Matter is said to be ever-changing, while Form is said to be constant.

Aristotle was wrong. Big surprise.



Rosa,

But nobody is claiming such things! -- Nobody is making claims about things they don't know. Except for you!

Sorry. BeyondTimeAndSpace is denying that he is making such claims, but he is quoting material that does make these claims. And, so he is also claiming them. He can play innocent all he wants and just say that he is quoting Aristotle or whoever, but he is bringing these things into the discussion to back up his argument therefore he is pushing them as truth.

So, you can either address the fact that angels and demons are being attributed properties as if they were observable entities or you can get off my ass.

"Deny, deny, deny," said Nixon. Even though it was all true what he was accused of.

Yes. And so anyone who denies anything is simply a liar. Your logic is impeccable. The Nixon offensive is impossible to refute.

You have just postulated that reality is relative, and truth depends on who is thinking something to be true to him.

I hope you see that such a relativistic position disables you of making *any* claims about anything anyone says.

I'm sorry. But this is getting very tiresome.

Your cat may or may not be real. I don't know. For all I know you have never owned a cat in your entire life.

My legs may or not be real as far as you are concerned. I may have been born legless or had them amputated sometime in the past. I could be lying that I am in possession of them.

That I believe that your cat is real and for you to believe that my legs are real we come to an agreement to believe each other. Now, making agreements on such things as cats and legs is rather simple as I have observed cats in my life and you have observed legs. We know that such things exist and that they have properties which we can ascribe to them. And, with only minor discrepancies, the odds are rather good that we don't have to spend a great deal of time going over the details of your cat and my leg because of our previous experience with such things.

But, to BeyondTimeAndSpace, angels and demons are real. He claims to only be repeating what others have said about them, but apparently he believes these words of others and expects us to discuss these things as if they were also equally believable to us. As your cat is to me and my legs are to you.

Now, maybe you are comfortable with accepting such things into your circle of reality without some type of objective proof or experience, but I am not.

So, you and BeyondTimeAndSpace can pour yourself up a piping hot cup of tea and discuss angels and demons to your heart's content. I will quietly laugh at you from the corner.

In short, a relativist cannot have a talk, at least not a meaningful talk!

And the same can be said for an absolutist. After all, if one does not accept what is absolute to such a person then the conversation become bogged down on such issues as ours has. Whose fault is such an impasse? The relativist's or the absolutist's? I know which you would claim to be behind the difficulty. And that says everything about you.