September 8th, 2021
This is an actual argument which was quoted in the comments section of Why Evolution is True a while ago, but I can’t give credit because I can’t find it. If you know where it is, please post the link.
UPDATE: Thank you to Coel in the comments for providing this link – and for remembering the argument in the first place!
The WEIT comment is probably the one a few down on this post: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/08/25/jesus-n-mo-n-confirmation-bias/
(But I don’t claim any credit for it, I was just dimly recalling it from elsewhere, though presumably it originated in an internet discussion with a believer.)
There’s a sect that believes in the Father, Son & Holy Ghost, right? I’m not sure what branch of xtianity.
Are you sure “credit” is the correct term Author?
It reminds me of the proposition seriously put forth by one of the real Christian apologists. God is by definition perfect One aspect of perfection is existence. Therefore God exists. WTF I imagine they are not in the pub because it is being renovated to include lunch. They are adding an outlet called Allahu Snackbar. They make a toasted sandwich with exclusively Cheeses of Nazareth.
As a holder of a Master’s Degree in mathematics I find the circularity of the JC’s logic.
Regards to Joe and Mary Christ.
Hello Jesus F Iscariot. The proposition you’re referring to is Anselm’s Ontological Argument (from around the year 1100) – God is that than which a greater cannot be conceived. Therefore, God must exist, otherwise it would be possible to conceive of something greater than God. A circular argument (which doesn’t prove God exists).
Anselms Ontological argument sounds like it was takem from a Terry Pratchett novel…Still laughing at “Bloody Stupid Johnson”….
As I heard somewhere on YouTube, wouldn’t a being that could create the universe without existing be greater?
To me, Anselm makes some sense, but 1) it’s a limited definition, and 2) he makes it depend on existence. So whatever we believe to be the greatest existing something, we should according to Anselm consider that God. I’m not saying he’d be thrilled with that summary, but that’s how it adds up to me as a sensible proposition.
Stuff like this is why I don’t go to existence of God as the defining fact of religion. What does it mean? Practically anything. Existence of a soul that survives past our mortal span, now that’s a clear universality of religion.
and what empirical evidence do we have to even suggest that our consciousness still exists when the brain is dead? Er….zilch…
M27Holts: “… evidence … consciousness still exists …”
Lots of evidence from (fraudulent) “mediums” passing on messages from the dead to the living; people who “died” on the operating table and “came back” relating their fantasies of Heaven, Valhalla, or whatever, depending on their religious upbringing; and similar first hand accounts.
For what it’s worth, in my “near death experience” (being crushed against a building by a reversing lorry) I saw no visions, heard no angelic music, just felt excruciating pain and an awareness that I might be about to die. Fortunately for me, my ribcage took the strain, but must have been near breaking point, which would probably have meant “curtains”!
Whether my subsequent sixty years of life have been a good thing or a bad thing for the wider world is a strongly contested matter of opinion!
Thats why I stipulated empirical evidence. Hitting the nail on the head is the fact that far too many people think that evidence via revelation or testimony is good enough. I rest my case…
And the sunami of woke ideology is probably about to take us back into the fucking dark ages….
Donn, you wrote: “Existence of a soul that survives past our mortal span, now that’s a clear universality of religion.”
I agree, because it is the primary motivation for making up those stories in the first place, the fear of death. Fear of death is an evolved trait, because animals that fear death tend to live past reproductive age a bit more frequently than those that don’t.
So apparently an immortal soul is a counter-evolutionary adaptation. In principle anyway, if I were convinced that I’m headed for some heavenly reward, I guess I’d be looking forward to my demise with some anticipation. Not that it often seems to work that way, but one can imagine the scenario – must have been quite a revolutionary break through in early tribal conflicts, when the first fighting force hit the field with an erroneous belief in immortality. And thousands of years later it still brings in the collections.
But there’s an argument that we’re just naturally predisposed. https://news.uark.edu/articles/11040/reading-the-minds-of-the-dead-afterlife-beliefs-may-have-social-biological-basis
I’d say that both present day Wokeism and its parent Communism should be counted as religions, despite the fact that neither includes the concept of an afterlife. While the specifics of the doctrines may differ, what is going on in the heads of a pious SJW and a crusading Social Gospel Presbyterian is very much the same.
A lot of atheist lecturers and professers are being ousted from universities by the insidious method of trumped up accusations without being allowed to know who/when/what the accusations are about…the woke are fighting very dirty. And they will stifle free-speech far better than the nazi party managed…oh well…c’est la vie…
Apparently, a young catholic bishop in spain has resigned because he has fallen in love with a woman who is an author who specialises in satanic erotica…I had to laugh, when many of his colleagues say that this is a case of satanic possession rather than the less suprising sexual attraction for a woman who is probably more adventurous in bed than most…
Reply to M27Holts : the wokies are trying to remove atheists, christians, jews and a long list of people with firm convictions. I think that the only thing that gets you on their hitlist is expressing a belief or conviction. The really funny cases are when different wokie sects attack each, the howls of competing “outrage” can be heard in orbit. The best seen recently is the TERF vs transgender battle, a real battle royale.
Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist vs Trans Inclusive Radical Feminists
If we could only contact the super-intelligent matrix designer to change our avatars if we use a specific set of control characters in a specific sequence…I could try the body of Susanna Reid…I wouldn’t get out of the bed for hours…
Any chance you could set up a patreon level for 2 chosen signed cartoons for those of us that can’t choose between “shut2” and “sssh2”?
Apologies for asking here but the “contact” link doesn’t work for me 🙁
Keep up the good work!
I’m looking at this on an Android phone, and I get the following error message at the top of the page. Author, I thought you’d want to know:
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/public/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284
Object name typo surely referencing an object that implements the incorrect interface?
Author. I get the same message as Laripu on my iPhone. Started when the Taliban took power maybe.
Suppose we could speculate what methods you would have to implement with the Taliban interface?
Thanks Laripu and Judas. Fixed now, I think.
Yes, fixed, thanks Author.
‘infinitely kind’ is not a characteristic of the ‘god’ of the Abrahamic religions (or any other ‘deity’ for that)
for belief in an ‘afterlife’ to begin in a society, all that is sufficient and necessary is that the living have dreams and memories of the deceased
ps while TERFS might be a ‘wokie sect’ (sic) I really don’t think you can describe the medical condition of transgender as one