@3017amen
It's not really my thread type. I'm asking because I couldn't quite understand what you said in that last paragraph.

I'm more a psychology thread type of guy!

TMF!

Thanks for your reply I want to give your thoughtful post the same thoughtful consideration so let me monder it and get back to you!

Okay I'll explain in a bit...btw, I love psychology.... Probably why I'm more of a continental philosopher!!!

@3017amen
Excellent! You should post your views to my thread or start some psychology and continental philosophy threads to get some decent discussions going!

Okay any idea of what I should call the new thread/OP? I'm open to any ideas....

@3017amen
1)The existential psychology/philosophy of religion.
(Like William James varieties of religious experience)

2)Religion and continental philosophy.
(Their connections)

3)Platonism and religion.

Hey TMF!

With the holiday weekend upon us I'm going to try my best to get to your supposition (s), but have to ask quickly for a couple qualifiers if you will:

1. By infinity would you accept the term or concept of eternity as one in the same?
2. The concept of infinities and finites, can they be analogous to (or treated like) temporal time/space time and eternal time as a unity of opposite concept?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

@tim wood
I'm afraid your facts are fictions. Generated by wish fulfillment.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

@tim wood
I don't need your selective quotes. I have followed and read the whole debate.

I also have read numerous posts from all three of you.

Wishful thinking Tim.
You and 180 are habitually debating emotionally and selectively. You can't wish religious feelings and truths away Tim. Nor can you logic them away. Your and 180s failure illustrates this clearly. Instead of just being a critic give us YOUR worldview.

It's easy to pick holes in words Tim,why don't you be constructive instead?

Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths? — Protagoras

What I meant by the following:
"To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)"

...is, that that was referring to similar abstract structures that comprises our intellect. For example, we have this logical side and we have this feeling side (the will) that is a dumb and blind 'feeling' or impulse or energy that needs logic to make cognition work the way we understand it to work (and cognize). Refer to my profile I did an OP/thread years ago on Voluntarism.

And within that description of cognition, we are able to perceive abstract entities. Abstract structures or entities include but are not limited to the following: mathematics, music/music theory, aesthetics (the feelings one feels when they perceive colors, objects, etc.-see Kant), the Will itself-Schop., the feeling of Time/time itself, and even Love and other metaphysical concepts and phenomena that are innate to conscious existence and the world of perception and sense experience.

There's much more to parce but does that help any...

@3017amen
It does help...But continue. This is very interesting!

Look dude if you want to debate me one on one, then propose something. Otherwise I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.

Now continue with your angry tirades if you must :razz:

Thanks!

I got to take care of some personal things at the moment P. Let me get back to you later K?

@3017amen
Of course. No rush. In your own time.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Attempt at a coherent question here. Maybe best to leave it simple. What is an infinite ordinal? — tim wood

Such a great question. Thank you for the inspiration. I didn't want to hijack this thread with my lengthy exposition, so I posted it in the Math section over here ....

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived. — 3017amen

Greater in what way? Since you (and Anselm) don't say in what way, should we assume in every way possible? If so, that would include greater in height, greater in ability to eat pies in a pie-eating contest, greater in armpit smelliness, and a whole lot of other greaters.

Since anyone can conceive or comprehend, a priori, that particular definition standard, one can conceive of a God.

Well, yes. My concept of God now is of a very tall dude who can eat more pies than anyone else and has smellier armpits than anyone else. I often wondered what God was like. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

@tim wood
Problem is what standard of evidence do you uphold?

All I see from you is impatience,defensiveness,pedantry and finally ad homineum.

Your analogies and badgering are terrible.

Fact is you can't refute 3017 and thus you resort to emotionality and nonsense.

Apropos of nothing in particular, of course.

How to Deal with a Passive Aggressive Person

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

@tim wood
There is nothing to get.
You are a narrow minded bigot and pretentious.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

For what it's worth, I think the flaw in Anselm's argument is simply this: it relies on the fact that if we say that God is only imaginary and not real, this leads to a contradiction; but what is not often noticed is that imaginary objects can embody contradictions (e.g. the square that is also not a square is an imaginary object), and so there is nothing to prevent God being both imaginary and self-contradictory.

Please don't. 3017 needs better meds not another chance to humiliate himself even more than s/he usually does posting to public threads. Self-fellating little D-K trolls like 3017amen & Protagoras are only here for onanistic comic-relief at best. We rodeo clowns just corral the bulls*** when we're bored enough and then leave them to others (or the Mods) moving on / returning to new informed, interesting, adult discussions. As far as that pitiful non-debate goes, the most telling thing even after Hanover closed the thread is that 3017 could have answered my last question (which was repeated three times) on any other thread but still has not to this moment. Why? S/he doesn't, I confidently suspect, because s/he can't. Of course, my friend, it's your time to waste if you're bored enough, but I recommend no longer bothering to take the likes of 3017 seriously. Advice from one so-called "angry atheist" to another. :smirk:

It would be so nice if people here would talk about philosophy. Fights between teenage girls I can find down the pub.