Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>To show this is relevant to christianity you would >>still have to show that the christian god is the >>greatest possible being and that the greatest possible >>being is really not just possible, and is certain. > >Not necessarily. There are other paths one could >follow (Biblical prophecies, eyewitness testimony >etc.). Whether or not such paths lead to a dead end >is not the point. I was talking about theism, and not >Christianity in particular. That (if it is true) >Christianity is not sufficiently supported is of no >consequence to the matter at hand. I was not >attempting to argue on behalf of Christianity. >Nevertheless, the proven fact (if it is a proven fact) >that God exists is in itself of some evidential value >to Christianity, even though it is not a rigorous >proof. (How much evidential value it lends can be >open to debate.) If Christianity is a rational belief >system, it is likely that no one piece of evidence or >evidential argument uniquely confirms Christianity. >It would sum of the evidences, not the individual, >that would constitute the rational support for this >theistic religion if it were rational. Because of the >inherent value of theism (if it is sound) it’s still >relevant apologetics even if it doesn’t precisely >point to a particular religion. > > >>Otherwise the 'greatest possible dragon' exists. It's >>the greatest possible so it must exist in all >>universes therefore it is certain. The greatest >>possible alien exists and the greatest possible person >>named George exists. > >That does not logically follow, but an interesting >point nonetheless. A fellow by the name of Gaunilo >(who, strangely enough, was a deeply religious theist >even to the extent of becoming a monk) criticized the >ontological argument with a similar line of thought. >I advise you to check out <a rel=nofollow >target=_blank >href="http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgn&phi >l/ontological.html">this web page</a> to learn more >about this criticism and the ontological argument in >general.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.