99% of our daily decisions aren't based on the scientific method.
No we don't, and I've shown you why not. We can reach a theoretical concept of a god, but certainly not the Christian god. You're in denial.
Really? With your unstable being bound by nothing? Wth?
In accordance with St. Anselm's axiom, I thought of a god that is bound by nothing.
Of course you can but it does not mean that this being bound by nothing is greater than one bound by his nature.
My logic is impeccable. Yours is a red herring.
You can't even be consistent with basic definitions. This alone is not impeccable logic.
Second, it's YOUR conclusion that a god bound by nothing must necessarily be unstable. It's a non-sequitur. Why would such god be "unstable"?
I'm following necessary truths that are necessary in all possible worlds, even imaginary ones.
Because " bound by nothing" implies instability in all possible worlds.
I can think of a god that has some criteria, even a predictable criteria, on how he choses to act within a spectrum of extremely good to extremely evil.
A being that has some criteria it's not a being bound by nothing.
It follows, then that I don't agree that such god would be unstable.
So you're denying a necessary truth. This is pure non sense.
Let's say such good would choose to consistently be evil. That wouldn't be "unstable", would it?
You can't have consistency from "bound by nothing".
The god that I'm thinking of can chose to be consistently good, or consistently bad.
Bound by nothing prevents the existence of any consistency in all possible worlds.
He can also choose when, and how and where to be such.
Yes, random whim. Total instability.
That makes him a greater god than one that is bound by whatever you can think of.
I'm not saying such god exists;
We're only exploring the premise of definition of God.
I don't know. I see no evidence of it.
The conclusion of the St. Anselm's ontological argument is the existence of the God defined by the first premise.
The very St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical evidence.
There are three premises in St. Anselm's ontological argument. It's logical conclusion (by contradiction) is the existence of the Being defined by the first premise.
But I'm merely pointing out that such god is much more consistent with the observable reality of this world, where good and evil co-exist, that the purported god of Christianity.
You're pointing to nothing (literally). Just absurdly flawed beings.
What I do know, is that mere logic can defeat the claim that St. Anselm's axioms of any help to prove the existence of the christian god.
Are you saying that St. Anselm itself, the genius who crafted this very argument, was not able to use his own argument, but you are? With a "bound by nothing" being?
JM, I'm not here to persuade you to abandon your faith in the god you have crafted for yourself (or that someone else crafted and you accepted it so);
I'm just following logic wherever it leads me because I accept logic is true.
if it gives meaning and purpose to your life, that's absolutely fine, just as long as you don't impose your worldview on others.
Do not put words in my mouth. Since the beginning I said I'm just exposing a logical argument (two arguments actually, Pascal's wager too) that inevitably leads to the conclusion of the existence of God and the necessity of believing in God (Pascal's wager).
Logical argument are self imposing for those who accept logic is true.
I'm just pointing out that the logic behind it is flawed and detached from the reality that can be observed universally.
The universally observed reality is the metaphysical realm.
Sorry but your logic is very flawed. Any observer can see this.
And thus ends my participation on this three.
Thank you for your participation.
Thank you for helping me to practice my dialectic in my broken English (my German is worse).
And good luck for you.