No idea which category this should be under but.

Descartes and st. aquinius postulated that since I can convieve of an infinite being, one must exist.
But I had some trouble with that, mostly that the phrase "infinite being" is a contradiction in terms. In order to "be" you must be limited to "being", I.e. you could not "not be". So for something to be infinite it must at the same time be and not be.... maybe the secret of the crucifiction nu?

Ah, but can we really conceive of an infinite being at all?

you can concieve ANYTHING, but it still only exists in your head.

no, you cannot concieve of anything unless you have some experience with it. And in cases like the boogy man or unicorn or other fantastic creatures they are only extrapolations and idunno the word morphings of different sources.
But every religion seems to have a concept of a perfect, infinite being/creator, and since in everyday experience we never ever have anything related to this it must somehow be innate.
Descartes did this: he broke down all the toughts we have into three catergories. First is the Innate, that which we are born with (eat sleep sex food etc.) then there are the imaginative, things we concieve of that come from experience (unicorns age of empires 2 etc.) and finally scientific a priori knowledge (a triangle has three sides, there are 360 degrees in a circle).
Since we cannot imagine something without experience, and since there is really no scientific justification for a god (in fact there seems to be an opposite most of the times) then we are left with an innate idea. And why would we have this innate idea unless there is a creator who wishes us to be aware of it's presence.... hmmm...

I think we only use the term being because it helps us find a way to better relate to some sort of supernatural, assuming we believe in that at all. What says god is in actuality a being in any sense that we can understand? For those who believe that god predates existence, doesn't this mean that his own existence is not in itself "being?" And besides, if god created logic, doesn't that mean that he himself is not bound by those laws? He is not his creation.

I can concieve of there being no infinite "being". Does that mean he does not exist?

look, aquinas would postulate anything if it served to somehow meet the appearance of evidence for the faith in which he presided. this is the same guy who thought that masturbation was the cause of numerous handicaps, like atrophied limbs and the such.

and descartes: "i think therefore i am". is it not equally valid, if not moreso, to say "i am, therefore i think." intelligent design supposes that existance is a result of consciousness, but what if consciousness is a result of existance? to me, these philosophies illustrate how arrogant man can be in regard to his place in nature.

much love

Ah yes the ontological argument.

I don't buy it eithier. For something supposedly based on logic it is very illogical. Try and present any [lack of] evidence and the response is 'but it's God. God's diiffrent.' which is a lame cop out to me.

It does raise interesting questions about whether something exists or not. After all most people have an idea what a unicorn is (from Disney and all that) but you never see them roaming around. So do they exist or not?

TTFN

Sage

I highly recommend He is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer for further exploration of this subject. Here's a small sampling of excerpts:

http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/silent.html

well, i think therefore i am is a valid arguement, for by trying to prove you do not think you think. And if something thinks, then there must be a something to do the thinking.
As for god being a "being" it isn't a semantic arguement or anything like that, it is just that if something exists it is limited in the fact that it exists and does not not exist. an a unicorn is just a horse with a horn, a morphing of two different ideas while a perfect infinite being is not a morphing of anything.

As for the bible, it has some good teachings and some good stories and all, but it is pretty much bullshit.

I honestly can't see why 'infinite' would mean both being and not being.

Rather the opposite, actually.