Was st anselm the ultimate retard? I mean thats nigger tier logic

More like
>God is the ultimate whole of everything that can not be sensed but only in fractions

>it's a 'random shitposters on a Bhutanese embroidery powwow think they've solved one of most intractable problems of philosophy' episode

You literally can't prove him wrong

I can silf the god msitery:no ue aint real
Someone send me a ppulizter im a genius

The ontological argument is fucking based

I sniffed your mum ass lastnight you literally cant prove ne wrong
>inbx I'll ask my mum
Well let me just ask god if he exist

Its an old fag desperate to keep the faith money land and loyalty of the nations they leech from comes up with a retarded argument to shut all free thinkers down and is made a saint by the same mafia organization but it doesn't matter because everyone was a retard back then and speaking against god would get you burnt, couple hundred years later a random faggot still believe his bullshit, kys

Searching through the archive for a post I made long ago on this very subject made me realize Yea Forums has had way too many threads on the ontological argument.

This thread will most likely be a washed-down repeat of some obscure 2015 thread, you're warned.

>I personally define Spider-Man as that for which there no greater.
>Spider-Man is perfection according to me.
>Spider-Man exists.

Do you not see a problem with this argument?

I think the crazier part of him getting made a saint by the Catholic Church for this argument is that, even if it wasn’t a dog shit argument, there is no point in the literature that even hints at this greatest thing is the Christian god. They basically gave him sainthood to stake claim that the god he is talking about is their god. That which there is no greater copyright of the pope.

>This statement is meaningless before you actually define perfection.

Good thing Anselm wrote a whole book about this. Why do people snidely offer their half-baked refutations of an impression of an argument they got from a five minute Wikipedia speedread? Nobody is impressed by your attempt to look intellectual to the vulgar masses of Yea Forums.

I've read plenty of apologias to know that they're all retarded and sad. Fuck monks and fuck theology.

How come this guy was sainted but Spinoza got in trouble for coming up with a more realistic God.

Spinoza was a Jew turned atheist who denounced the Catholic Church, why would he be declared a saint?

The only thing worse than Catholic Theology is Catholic Philosophy.

No, law of Identity, a = a, you just proved God and called it "spider man" but that's just the name, so it's irrelevant.

I would say the flaw is this: most Metaphysics instills a sense of self-actualization as once reality is combined with mental, or spiritual, states of mind. Hence the idea of perfection would actually be the manifestation of it at the same time

:3

Attached: 100500E2-303D-419D-BF03-48C47F0436AF.jpg (601x601, 60K)

/thread. Kant's argument against the ontological proof of God is probably the best but even then there are ways around it.

People are obviously answering to OP's pic, that was the conceit from the start.

The implication that perfection must exist because perfection is greater is where the whole thing goes to shit.

Perfection could literally mean anything without parameters
I can look at a rock and say thats my idea of perfection and therefore god is a rock.
Then another fag would come along with a different idea of perfection and say no god is a sneed
And since you can disprove neither then you must all agree god is everything and since god is everything and i am part of everything therefore i am god
The final answer is we're all gods everything is god kant was a pleb im smarter than that autistic incel

It only works with God, and God is what we're talking about, so...

>spider man is god
based

>Spinoza was a Jew
Jesus too

>Perfection could literally mean anything without parameters

But reality is parameters. For instance, consider beauty. Beauty is objectively defined. There are many things you think that are subjective which just aren’t. And the reason is simply because reason exists.

Pure reason is the source of how perfection is defined. It is derived from the first principles of the universe

I am :3 if you care

Jesus is not a saint either.

Not sure if you intended to but you kind of just restated Spinoza's position, although he would deny that each of us is individually God

>Beauty is objectively defined.
prove it faggot

I don't agree with 3, perfection can't exist by definition
Even fucking plato figured that out

Okay sure, I think it’s defined fairly well in book two of Alhacen’s Optics

>God is perfection
Prove it.

I'd define "nigger-tier" more as a deficit of morals than of intellect

Not the same user but objectively beauty can be simplified as symmetry, everything tends to be symmetrical in this asymmetric universe

>i can't prove it
cool
>objectively beauty can be simplified as symmetry
prove it

>beauty can be simplified as symmetry,
Fuck no
Imagine a van gogh (or anyone's) painting. It's not symmetrical
Imagine a symmetrical poop emogy in whatsapp. It's symmetrical
Imagine a black circle. It's symmetric in infinite ways, ontologically perfect and all the shit you want, but it's not beautiful

>imagine things that aren’t symmetrical
I’ve never thought Van Gogh’s paintings were particularly beautiful, a lot of art these days strives not to be beautiful, but to send a message anyway. I don’t think Pollock or Warhol strive for beauty.

Anyway, Symmetry is about how the scientist Alhazen defined beauty :3

>circles aren't symmetrical
the absolute state

A circle is beautiful though. The Neo-Platonists used circles to represent the infinite. The uncontained side of reality, the divine.-

There are so many logical fallacies in this argument that my brain opened my head, walked to the store, bought some Mad Dog 20/20, drank it, pissed in the alley, fucked a hooker, got AIDS, cured itself, then came back to my skull to sleep it all off.

Would you rather stare at a black circle or at a van gogh painting? Or a non symmetric waterfall? or non symmetric landscape with the sunset which makes the sky deeply non symmetrical? C'mon