if Christianity didn't exist?

Catholicism

I'd probably be a Baptist.

Calvinist.

But then again did I actually choose it?

I struggled trying to fit in a box. Decided whatever I believe at the time I believe it is worth the same as anyone else's belief.

Nothing would exist without Christ.

reincarnation seems like it could be fun

jrico2727 said:

---

Nothing would exist without Christ.

---

Exactly. Paul's speech at the Areopagus was based.

"So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything."

This question makes my head hurt.

If I can imagine a reality where God doesn't exist, then God is less than He could be. So the maximally great God must exist in all possible realities, whether real, imaginary, speculative or theoretical. If my God does not exist in the scenario you created, then He is not a truly maximal God in our current reality. So merely by accepting the premise of your question, I have disrespected God and called Him inferior to some other idea of God that does exist in all possible realities. Stupid Anselm, stupid ontological argument

Unless I'm reading your question wrong. Maybe instead you mean that the Christian God exists and the religion of Christianity does not. In that case, I would probably be just like anyone else born before 30 AD or anyone who lived their lives before Christianity spread to them. So either Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, Zoroastrian or pagan depending on my culture

If it makes you feel better the ontological argument isn't sound

It's certainly a bit circular, as it presupposes the existence of a maximally great being. Once you start with that, you pretty much end up with God. No surprise there.

In this scenario, I already believe in Anselm's God for reasons other than the ontological argument. However, since I do believe in God, the ontological argument applies to this scenario. So I cannot logically imagine a reality where He does not exist.

This has nothing to do with anslem. You are basically saying I can not imagine god not existing because I cannot imagine god not existing.

It's not different than substituting Kalam or any other arguments for god

Belief in a "maximally great" being is a trivial exercise to imagine a counterfactual for.

It seems peculiar to say my imagination cannot suffer the possibility that I'm wrong.

some of you are talking a hypothetical way too serious. God isn't going to sit you down on judgement day and remind you that once on texags you made a joke.

isn't marcionism the one that you have to eat all the cantaloupe but you can't procreate?

Your reply is light on philosophy or logic, and it makes me think you don't understand my point. One of God's defining features is His Omnipresence. In fact, He names Himself "I am". His existence is a fundamental fact. Asking me to imagine a world where God doesn't exist therefore doesn't make any sense. A god that can exist in our world but not some imaginary one isn't really God as a matter of definition.

It's like asking me to imagine water, except the water smells astringent, dissolves styrofoam, and powers internal combustion engines. However you start the statement, that's not water. Same with the idea of a universe without God. If you can imagine Him not existing, then you're not imagining God

I thinks it's you who are missing the logic. Even if you view god as fundamental, it's in a creative role.

There is not one physical aspect of our universe that needs to change. So no, it's nothing like imagining water as not water.

To say you are incapable of imagining god not existing is a peculiar and ridiculous claim.

I'm not asking you to imagine some other god. I'm asking you to imagine your premise is wrong.

The existing of god is only fundamental to your theology, not to anything we actually know about our universe

You keep missing my point entirely. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I already believe in Anselm's God. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. Just showing my logical train of thought starting from a premise of already believing in Anselm's God.

Once you accept the concept of an omnipresent God, by that very definition there is nowhere (not even an imagination) where He does not exist. It's like telling me to imagine a universe that doesn't exist even in my imagination. It's not possible.

Clearly you don't believe in Anselm's omnipresent God, so this is not an issue for you. You aren't starting from the same premise

I comprehend you argument, I just thinks it's ridiculous on multiple levels.

You Are basically trying to argue that because of your presuppositions about god you intellectually crippled your ability to examine perceived counterfactuals.

I simply don't believe you. It's such a bad argument I genuinely think it was made in haste but has no bearing on reality.

If your god exists everywhere even in imaginations you've provided a trivial disproof of his existence (I know you aren't trying to make a proof) since there are many people capable of managing the feat.

I understand your beliefs. I probably have a firmer grasp of anslems apologetic. From none of that does it somehow incapacitate your ability to intellectually examine the premise you believe being false.

You are not intellectually crippled in this one area simply by virtue of believing certain things about god.

Let me try this one more time

Me: it is axiomatic to my beliefs that God is omnipresent and exists in all places real and imaginary. It is fundamental to His existence that this is so. So much that if it were not, He is not God. Based on my beliefs it is therefore impossible to imagine a universe without God. Because if it exists at all He is there, and if He is not then He is not God

You: but just imagine a universe without God. I can do it. Anyone can

Me: stares and blinks slowly

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Let me try this one more time

Me: it is axiomatic to my beliefs that God is nonpresent and exists in no places real and imaginary. It is fundamental to His non existence that this is so. So much that if it were not, He is God. Based on my beliefs it is therefore impossible to imagine a universe with God. Because if it exists at all He is not there, and if He is then He is God

You: but just imagine a universe with God. I can do it. Anyone can

Me: stares and blinks slowly

---

Flipped it for you to help you see how silly it is

Your flip is logically consistent and not ridiculous at all. The only difference is your starting axiom is the opposite of mine so you logically came to the opposite conclusion. You can call my starting axiom ridiculous all you want. Axioms are supposed to be unprovable. However, everything after that necessarily follows.

The flip is genuinely stupid. Just stupid. The issue is that axiomatic stances we adopt do not have any mechanism by which they hinder our capacity for complex thought. Your stance that the logic holds up only works if you imagine a person like a programmable machine. Where an outside actor assigns an axiom.

We can say we believe x. But belief in x doesn't have any mechanism by which it precludes our capacity to think about Y. The only thing you could argue is an unwillingness to admit being able to examine a counterfactual for fear of reducing a axiom to a falsehood. All this does is further make a mockery of that axiom.

Minds don't suffer axioms. It simply doesn't work that way

Take it up with Aristotle. I didn't invent logic, and I can't help the way our brains work. I can't imagine something that is fundamentally contradictory whether it's a square sphere, a dark light, or a world without an omnipresent God.

Since you don't believe in that omnipresent God, you and I see things differently. "Worldview" isn't a euphemism. We view the world differently. You seem to think that I'm exactly the same as you except for a singular set of irrational religious beliefs that are really just extraneous. I'm telling you that we live in 2 completely different versions of reality that happen to intersect in a common material world. You keep refusing to believe me when I tell you this for some reason, no matter how clearly I try to describe this.

You aren't applying logic here you are miss applying logic.

Counterfactuals are inherently contradictory but they aren't definitionally incoherent.

A square circle is definitionally incoherent. You are right your brain can't do it no ones can. Not all contradictions are incoherent, Aristotle would beat you over the head for this mistake.

Let's take two scenarios: there is beer in my fridge or there isn't. They cannot both be true in a given moment, they are contradictory claims. But no matter how firmly you believe there is no beer in my fridge being able to muster up the idea of my fridge having beer in it is trivial. Because the idea itself is in no way incoherent. Even if you believe it as an axiom of your faith. Being able to imagine it is simple.

A wold with or without god is not logically incoherent so imagining either counterfactual is trivial weather or not it contradicts an axiomatic belief.

Bokononism.

Quote:

---

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.

---

Quote:

---

A world with or without god is not logically incoherent so imagining either counterfactual is trivial weather or not it contradicts an axiomatic belief.

---

And now I feel like you haven't read a single thing I've said since I just spent the last several posts explaining why that very thing is logically incoherent.

Me: God is everywhere
You: But imagine God isn't over there
Me: But that doesn't make sense. God is everywhere
You: try harder
Me: *visible confusion*
You: *upset about this for some reason*

That's not even getting into the deep philosophical/theological waters of why our world exists and why logic works, and the fact that both of those things argue strongly for the existence of God. Would logic even work in a world without God? From where does a Godless world derive order and consistency so that logic and universal laws function? What is existence without God? What is logic without God? Your flippant statement in my quote seems to betray a lack of familiarity with these very difficult questions and also seems to trivialize my fundamental beliefs.

Everywhere may be axiomatic to god, but it's not axiomatic to the room you are in. Neither is it incoherent to the room you are in. Everything about the room you in could be (and has been) described in a world without god.

Let's put it another way. I and most everyone else here Christian or not cannot describe a square circle but can describe a world without god.

Logical incoherence isn't limited to a person, these are ideas. Either an idea is incoherent or cannot be described or it can. It has nothing to do with a person save intelligence.

And ironically you are saying you aren't trying to prove god. To actually take this argument to its conclusion you would need to.

And your last statement is just nonsense. God isn't required to explain anything of those things, especially something specific like the god of Christianity. At best you can argue they support you belief in a teleological sense. But they are laughable as proofs. And at this point proofs are what you need. Because for logical incoherence you not only need yourself unable to describe or imagine it-but everyone else also

All I see are when I read your posts are a lot of declarative statements that you assume are self evident when they are not. You have made no attempt to declare these statements as axiomatic, and you have made no attempt to prove them with any logic whatsoever. You are really just stating your own worldview over and over again and expecting me to agree with it without using any tools of reason or persuasion.

I've laid out my axioms and the logical conclusions that necessary follow several times and several different ways. Not much else to add to this conversation as long as circumstances persist

Stop running away. I've dealt with ever my claim you made. Your axioms aren't the issue. I've explained this more than once, minds don't suffer axioms.

Don't run away now when we are so close to getting you to actually understand incoherence.

You don't get to claim incoherence for yourself.

This is fundamental to your argument-you think you can do this. But incoherence is logical-it's demonstrable for everyone-like a square circle.

And to say you are using logic is a stretch as I explain earlier. I'm about 4 steps ahead on this one trying to bring you along.

You not only need to demonstrate that you can't describe it, but that I can't.

"You are really just stating your own worldview over and over again and expecting me to agree with it without using any tools of reason or persuasion."

Go back and re read and see who's just repeating themselves and who's actually trying to convince and explain

Yeah, this is not me running away. This is the point where I obey my wise and wonderful mother by following her advice, "If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all". You while you continue to be demeaning, aggressive, and insulting, I'll just be hanging over here

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

reincarnation seems like it could be fun

---

Definitely Hinduism. I wouldn't have to care about the poor AND my religion would say I'm helping them by neglecting them as they pay for their prior lives with suffering in this one.

There was a guy I knew who got into Buddhism and was pretty anti-Christian.

I told him that while I didn't love Buddhism I did respect their view that children living in filth, hunger and poverty deserved it based on bad karma from prior lives.

Somehow that part got scrubbed when Buddhism was popularized in America in the mid-20th century.

You are the one who tried an ad hominem and complaining the second your argument hit a wall. But by all means appeal to moral superiority.

if Christianity didn't exist?

Christianity is the religion of worshipping Christ as God that people practice. If there were no Christians to practice Christianity has no bearing on if the Christian God exists or not.

If I believed that God does not exist (as described in the Bible) then I would be my own God and create my own standard of morality. Whatever feels good, do it as there would be no reward system or judgement. Nothing would be wrong with cheating on my wife, or swindling people for my immediate pleasure or gain. He who has the most toys and most pleasure wins.

The thought of this should make one's conscious cringe and this should not be the case if there is not God.

I believe He is the one true God and does exist