[ Closed ] Do you find this theological argument to be compelling?

Thats probably the only time ive actually stopped and thought b4 typing on this message board or on faldon. 
Oh and this post should of been on general dicussion, it makes you think too much to be on trash heap  :x

Cat basically all you stated was a bunch of complex words to make you sound like your points were right. If i were to say the "GCB" as you put it doesnt exist in my beliefs then that does not mean my version of the "GCB" isnt actually the "GCB" meaning its a contradiction. All that was just word magic on your part. If I say the "GCB" does not exist then that measn to me there is no GCB...that doesnt mean that there is one. Basically catbert this entire god, religion mumbo-jumbo is basically a bunch of beliefs. If somebody doesnt believe in something it simply does not exist to them.

Many cultures since ancient times attributed female gender to thier creator.  ie.  Great Earth Mother and such...

I kinda miss the rants and ideological debates brought forth by the 'boit.

I'm sure I found this subject enthralling in my teens too...now I just don't care.

I don't think you fully understand what the argument is saying, Roach/Matt. 

If you say the GCB doesn't exist in the real world, the argument says you aren't thinking of the GCB.  The GCB, it says, must exist because it is greater to exist than to not exist.  Furthermore, if you are saying GCB/God defined that way doesn't exist, you are comitting a contradiction.  That is saying that God isn't really God or that the greatest conceivable being is not really the greatest conceivable being.  Therefore, God must necessarily exist.

What you need to think of is whether or not the GCB can exist, is it possible? 

Furthermore, is the argument circular in that it assumes God can possibly exist (to be defined) to prove his existence, or that it uses a concept to prove a concept or being can exist.  Acquinas' main objection seemed to be this.  Also, he argued that God wouldn't really have to exist in the understanding since we cannot fully understand God and to Atheists (the people of whom this argument is directed at) do not conceive of God and therefore deny him.  He applied the logic of the argument to itself, a sort of anti-ontological argument.  If something cannot be conceived of, it cannot be said to be self-evident.  He said God existed, but for different reasons (empirical ones).

Can God conceive of a greater of himself, even if he doesn't exist?  If not it would appear he isn't really God and that a GCB by definition cannot exist.

Is it a contradiction to say that God doesn't exist if you prove he cannot exist?

Why couldn't Satan be the greatest conceivable being?

Is the GCB even really God.. that is is the conclusion a moot point?

Can the definition of something be used to prove its existence or does definition presuppose existence in order to define(see: circular objection)?

Is existence a trait?  Does having existence make one superior to that which does not exist.  Does it add to the concept of the being?  If not it would appear one cannot contend that to be in existence is really greater than not existing.

Can you make the conclusion and absurdity clause themselves absurd by applying the logic of the argument to it?  That is can you say that God wouldn't really have to exist in the mind just because we hear the word God.  Or: Does denying God even mean conceiving of God?  Does conceiving of something mean it exists in the understanding?

The argument has some problems and it ultimately boils down to a word game of definitions.  The argument in every sense of the word tries to define God into existence by his definition. 

I am an atheist and it took me awhile to come up with a way to completely destroy these arguments, and I had to read the works of Thomas Acquinas to do that.

in my opinion humans can (and will) someday surpass any god we may believe in, and besides even if he did exist  it took him 7 daysnights to make the earth alone and according to scientists the earth was just a large sea for hundreds or thousands of years before their was any above sea level ground, which puts the story of creation into the realm of fantasybs :twisted: interestingly enough we all evolved from small single celled organisms called amoebas and developed into fishlizardsratsprimatesHumans.
therefore if there is a god(which i am unsure of) he seems rather pathetic :evil: 
p.s i am in no way anti religious and apologise if anything i said causes offense...but oh well...GET OVER IT!

think of it fire, think of your television! invisible rays coming from outer space through your little aerial on your roof and creating images on a television screen in the form of millions of coloured lines...if you ask me that sounds like nonsense, however we know it to be true, we could be science ourselves like a medical experiment by aliens to see if they could make a lifeform like themselves but different in small ways. :twisted:
it is possible that we are just mistakes of 'nature' but i myself do not believe so. a supreme being though...could be possible, and if i was a supreme being i myself would not interfere with the goings on of the creatures i had created, i would let them evolve in there own way. But i would be belowing hellfire upon the earth if i came and found what humans have done to it! :evil: