Page 8 of 8

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:21 am
VVilliam wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:54 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:28 pm
That leads to pantheism.
So?
Pantheism is incoherent since there are parts that are not part of the whole/God.
?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:40 am
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:21 am
VVilliam wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:54 pm

So?
Pantheism is incoherent since there are parts that are not part of the whole/God.
?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
God as an entity cannot have parts.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:55 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:40 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:21 am
Pantheism is incoherent since there are parts that are not part of the whole/God.
?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
God as an entity cannot have parts.
So what's the answer to the pantheist who would think "There are parts that are not 'part of the whole/God'"? It sounds like you'd say that no pantheist would say that.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:14 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:55 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:40 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:48 pm

?? What pantheist would think that there are parts that are not "part of the whole/God"?
God as an entity cannot have parts.
So what's the answer to the pantheist who would think "There are parts that are not 'part of the whole/God'"? It sounds like you'd say that no pantheist would say that.
Pantheists believe that God is the universe. God however has no part. The universe is made of parts. Therefore, pantheism is incoherent. I don't know what is the answer of pantheists to this objection. I don't think that there is any answer.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:19 pm
by Skepdick
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:14 pm The universe is made of parts.
What parts is the universe made of?

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:14 pm Pantheists believe that God is the universe. God however has no part. The universe is made of parts.
If a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.

Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
(2) God has no parts
and
(3) The universe has parts.

I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:19 am
by bahman
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:19 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:14 pm The universe is made of parts.
What parts is the universe made of?
Electron, poroton, me, you, etc.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:24 am
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:14 pm Pantheists believe that God is the universe. God however has no part. The universe is made of parts.
If a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.

Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm (2) God has no parts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm and
(3) The universe has parts.

I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.
Electrons, protons, etc. are part of the universe.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:44 am
by Skepdick
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:19 am Electron, poroton, me, you, etc.
The "bounds" which separate something as being a "part" from the whole system are completely arbitrary. What makes a "unit" a unit is but a matter of abstraction.

There's no "me" and "you" except colloquially. There's us as a whole.
There's no "proton" and "electron". There's an atom as a whole.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:12 am
by Terrapin Station
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:24 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:14 pm Pantheists believe that God is the universe. God however has no part. The universe is made of parts.
If a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.

Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm (2) God has no parts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm and
(3) The universe has parts.

I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.
Electrons, protons, etc. are part of the universe.
So do you want to make a wager whether you can find a pantheist who claims all three things?

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:22 pm
by bahman
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:44 am
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:19 am Electron, poroton, me, you, etc.
The "bounds" which separate something as being a "part" from the whole system are completely arbitrary. What makes a "unit" a unit is but a matter of abstraction.

There's no "me" and "you" except colloquially. There's us as a whole.
There's no "proton" and "electron". There's an atom as a whole.
Things exist as different entities. They have properties which through these properties things interact so their properties are related.

Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:25 pm
by bahman
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:12 am
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:24 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm
If a pantheist believes that God is the universe and God has no parts, they're not going to believe that the universe is made of parts.
Or if they believe that God is the universe and the universe is made of parts, they're not going to believe that God has no parts.

Otherwise show me an actual example of a pantheist who believes all three of those things:
(1) God is the universe (or the universe is God, however they'd phrase it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm (2) God has no parts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:39 pm and
(3) The universe has parts.

I'll bet you anything that you can find no such pantheist.
Electrons, protons, etc. are part of the universe.
So do you want to make a wager whether you can find a pantheist who claims all three things?
No, pantheists only claim 1. I claim 3. There are arguments in favor of the simplicity of God that are not mine namely 2.