In article <44b2d09f$0$18498$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,
gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com says...

Among other things, as you say. It's a garbage argument that shouldn't
convince anyone with a mental capability somewhere above a Brussel
sprout.

Which would be why so many theists seem to like it. I'm pretty sure
Barwell isn't a theist, so I doubt that he's arguing that it's valid
in that sense.

That's really the big problem with Anselm's argument. There's no
decent
way of saying which is greater and which is not. For example, an
imaginary circle could be said to be "greater" than an actual circle,
since all actual circles are drawn on atoms and therefore contain
flaws.
OTOH, an imaginary circle is ideal and "perfect" in some sense.

Anselm and the medieval crowd were constantly stabbing themselves in the
back

I would have said stabbing themselves in the *******. After all,
Jebus says it's holy to become a eunuch for god.

For example, there is a poster on the newsgroups, Martin McPhillips,

I think I've seen that dude. There are better arguments. Since
ownership requires a possessor, it presumes that the possessor has a
certain amount of autonomy and control over himself as well. And
after all, if there's anything which we might say that we have
exclusive priority to and interest in, it's our body. But that's a
separate story.

Whether one wholly accepts the Wittgenstein school of linguistic
philosophy
or not, it's evident that the conclusions we reach about things are often
due to becoming bewitched by language, not because we are being rational
or
logical.

Which is why it's often advisable to restate things from at least a
couple different views.

It was a view advanced by people no less eminent than Descartes. I
agree
that it is a mistaken notion, but he was neither the first, nor the
last
to advance it.

There are a lot of people who advance a lot of notions. If that's all
Barwell has to say, his argument is hardly novel. The fact remains that
dogmatic christianity ASSERTS that god must conform to logical truths.

Actually, you'd find a lot of dogmatic believers who would say that
that god didn't have to conform to logic. It's just that
theologians know that thinking people won't let them get away with
claiming otherwise. Not that some theologians won't try to invoke
it as some kind of holy mystery every so often.

Saved from the hell that he created apparently. That is mighty white
of
him, now isn't it ;)

As Bauer said, to a fundamentalist it's not nearly as important that
they're
going to Heaven as it is that you're not going.

That is their hope anyway. But of course, if we lead moral lives,
any just god would have to judge us upon that, and not which
particular being we blindly asserted to exist without evidence.

But what if, by "require" it means that god programmed this into us.
Would it really be our will, or his will that was being expressed?

Then we can go to many other verses where god does indeed appear to give
man
a choice. Again, the bible, continuously contradicts itself when it
comes
to free will.

Additionally, free will is a problem regardless of god/no god. Barwell
ignores the fact that killing god does not kill determinism.

Yes, although, killing god would kill of the main potential source
of "magic" which might motivate free will. Now, by "magic" what I
mean is just things are beyond the natural (i.e. supernatural). If
free will is a natural property, then at least there is some hope
for understanding it.

--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche