God is the greatest thing we can think of

>God is inherently great
P R O V E

Why do I need to prove anything?

if you came here to prove an argument for God that tends to be how these things work

>Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist in our imaginations

Why should I accept this as true?
For instance, is imaginary torture worse than real, existing torture?

His argument for a god being the greatest thing possible probably boils down to
>a collection of jewish folk stories and couple old pedophiles told me so

YOU ARE STILL CONFLATING ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION WITH INTRINSIC QUALITY; CONDITION IS NOT INDICATIVE OF QUALITY.

IMAGINE SOMETHING OVERLY "EVIL", BUT STILL PURELY IMAGINARY; IF IT WERE TO BE ACTUALIZED —MADE REAL—, IT WOULD BE WORSE, NOT BETTER; YES, IT IS ONTOLOGICALLY MORE DEVELOPED THAN IT WAS BEFORE, BUT DEVELOPMENT BY ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING "GOOD"/BETTER, NOR "BAD"/WORSE —THOSE ARE INTRINSIC QUALIFIERS BEYOND THE THING'S ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION.

YOU ARE MISUSING THE TERM "BETTER"; "BETTER" IS A COMPARATIVE OF QUALITY, NOT OF CONDITION.

I didn't come here to do that.

Why don't you read my original post.
t. redditor that doesn't know anything about the bible

The OT is generally irrelevant to modern Christian theology.

you asserted an argument (God is inherently good) against an another argument (the best unicorn exists or whatever). An argument without proof is just air, so unless you were trying to just breathe on that other user I expect you to defend your conclusion with proof. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I can think of a being greater than an a god. Would that mean super god is real?

You want to say God is necessary, whearas a unicorn isn't. This defeats Gaunilo's paradise argument (same as unicorn one)

Anyway, "existence isn't a predicate" shuts your argument down.

>I can think of a being greater than an a god
Wrong. God is by definition the greatest being you can think of

You can't think of anything greater than God, the thing that is greater is now God. The whole concept of God is that he is the greatest.

>The OT is generally irrelevant to modern Christian theology.
nice laughs. the entire doctrine of original sin depends on an actual Adam and Eve and garden of eden, and the notion of Jesus as the Messiah comes from the OT and relies on whether the prophecies claimed to be fulfilled actually were. if the OT was completely irrelevant it wouldn't be constantly quoted throughout the NT

Depends, is this supergod another filthy demiurge like the regular one?

OP's argument (which is totally fucking garbage) is predicated on God being defined as the best possible being. In this argument, your personal opinion on the goodness of a God is irrelevant if the argument defines him to be the best. The only thing you can do is dispute his definition, which means you too get to scrap over what the good is.

Pass the popcorn.

alright, then we agree that YHWH is not the greatest conceivable being, i.e. God

I'm not arguing that, why can't you fucking read?
>God is experienced, not argued for.
>God is experienced, not argued for.
>God is experienced, not argued for.
I'm convinced that this board is infested with ass-picking preteens.
I didn't say completely irrelevant you fucking illiterate, I said generally irrelevant.
YHWH isn't God.

Are you saying there's a god because it exists in imaginationland?

What the fuck do you mean "modern theology"?
Theology is theology is theology until whatever authority you prefer to suck off declares it heterodox

Lets be honest here, this creation would get at most 2/5 on any world review site.

Theology develops, you know. Holy shit.

>Yahweh isn't God
100% pure uncut black tar heresy
The Godhead is one of the three hypostases of the one God
the other two being, of course, the Son and the Holy Spirit

Humans were the ones who shitted the world up, not God

>I didn't say completely irrelevant you fucking illiterate, I said generally irrelevant.
I know, language tends to generalize things. now refute my reasons why the OT is not "generally" irrelevant

Yeah, I know it develops
But Jerome and Augustine and Aquinas are still accepted authorities
and just because the OT isn't used much now doesn't mean the authorities that used it aren't accepted anymore

>Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist in our imaginations
He had lack of fantasy.

and the one who made humans so shitty is God

Not true. I can imagine the greatest being I can think of and then imagine something higher than that being, although I wouldn't be able to define or comprehend it, I still would understand it to be greater than the greatest being I can think of.
But then that creates a paradox of putting greater on top of a greater.

It's how it's supposed to be, a giant torture maze for spirits that don't deserve anything better with enough mercy to have oasis areas with pellet dispensers.

No it's not, YHWH is the God of the Jews. Go suck off another 3rd-12th century theologian.
>refute
Accepted by? They're hacks.

Any god that would create things like gypsies, kikes, or french is not a god worth of being worshiped.

>Not true. I can imagine the greatest being I can think of and then imagine something higher than that being
Which then becomes the definition of God. Then if you think of something greater than that, then that becomes God. You can't weasel your way out of it, the definition of God is the 'greatest thing you can think of'. That means at any point the greatest being you're thinking of is God, if you think of something greater than that becomes the definition of God

>God is the greatest thing we can think of
Says who
>Things can exist in our imaginations or they can also exist in reality
Not an argument
>If God existed in our imaginations he wouldn't be the the greatest thing we could think of because God in reality would be better
IF
>Therefore God exists
wat

>the definition of God is the 'greatest thing you can think of'.

And whose definition that would be? Yours? What if his definition of god does not require for it to be the greatest thing ever?

>wrong.

You are right here.

>Also this entire argument is basically "I can think of a thing that has a certain quality, and therefore that thing exists". Reality just doesn't work like that, thinking of things doesn't make them real.

You're wrong here. The argument is more complicated than that. Nobody has ever suggested that thought become reality. The argument is meant to prove the existence of a thing based on reasons similar to any other deductive argument - not to bring a thing into existence through thought magic.

>refute
If you reject any form of argumentation over anything why are you even posting here? I don't care what your personal, unsupported opinion is

This is why philosophy is a joke career.

It's the definition used for the argument

Why? muh greek me-me?

Can't refute it?

argumentation is good why arent you being le objective? your wrong ebcause you dont argue, U need to reed teh greeks omg

So it is a definition that does not have any proofs to support it then.

If there isn't a particular reason or argument for your point of view there's no way for you to convince me or anyone else. this is simply just the nature of human interaction. why are you even posting your ideas if you don't intend to convince anyone? if you know the truth intrinsically and there is no way to prove it to me or anyone else you might as well keep it to yourself and gtfo

Its literally like listening to children talk about superheroes and powerlevels, you cannot prove anything by making up imaginary shit on the spot.
Someone should get Trump to defund all community college philosophy courses.

Are you retarded? Or are you just baiting? It seems like most likely the latter because I don't think anybody could be this stupid.

>human nature
Fuck off

>Convincing is good because muh memes
Proof doesn't exist.

YOU AREN'T DOING WHAT I LIKE? YOU MUST BE RETARDED!!!!!

You won't get another (You) out of me!

A favorite argument among theists.

>Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist in our imaginations
Hypothetical vs actual cancer.

wow reddit you sure BEAT me

you dunce I said nothing about human nature or arguing being inherently good. maybe you can't handle long sentences: why do you even post here if you don't intend to convince other people? all you are doing is shouting your ideas at us with the smug understanding that we'll never be able to come to the same conclusion as you

>this is simply just the nature of human interaction
Yeah bro this totally isn't a claim to human nature,

Why do you make a thread asking people to refute something and get mad when they use refutations to refute it?

why caps?

Heathens refuse to convert.

let's look at the quote:
>If there isn't a particular reason or argument for your point of view there's no way for you to convince me or anyone else. this is simply just the nature of human interaction.
would you disagree that shouting ideas at people in a condescending manner is generally an ineffective way of convincing people of your point of view? this is the purpose of arguments. if you don't intend to argue and therefore try to convince me, why are you even posting? I think it's just because you're a smug asshole who needs the self-confirmation of thinking he's better than anons who don't reach the same conclusion as him

Why would I care about convincing you?

posting your ideas to show other people would imply that you care about what they think of your idea

Why would I care?

Stop replying to him just let this thread die

because you aren't keeping your ideas in your head

So?

>God is the greatest thing we can think of

See there's the flaw right in the beginning.

"God" is an empty linguistic token. What most people think of God is a harem mammal (kind of a redundancy considering only a few species of mammals have different arrangements than a harem) who protects his kids and gets jealous when another ape male/god tries to covet his shit.

What if the greatest thing I can think of is the idea that all has arisen from a unitary chaos, rather than due to a uniting deity? Truthfully, I find the magnanimity of such a universe to be overwhelming compared to the existence of a mere being or force. Your argument is rather maddening, by the way. Imagination is inherently subjective.

>Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist in our imaginations
Literally the opposite, reality is disappointing

>secular indoctrination
literal contradiction