User talk:Matthew83

Umm... you cant add stuff like seriously bad acting to articles, it breaches our WP:NPOV policy Glen 09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Lulu2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lulu2006.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during November 16 2006 to Jericho (TV series)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Glen 10:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Dude, first of all you keep adding that back without a cite. Did you read it somewhere or make it up yourself? The cite you provided didn't talk about it at all.

Secondly, the arguments are not of the same form. The OA is that the greatest thing you can THINK of must be something that exists outside of your mind, and then that God is the greatest thing you can think of and therefore God exists outside of your mind. For your UAA to be of the same form as the OA, it would have to assert the same first postulate, that the greatest thing you can think of exists outside your mind, and that the UAA is the greatest thing you can think of, and so therefore it exists outside of your mind. Your argument was that since the UAA and OA are of the same logical form and reach opposite conclusions the form must not be valid. But as you can see, for them to be the same form the UAA must assert that there exists an idea outside of a mind, which is not true by definition of the term idea. In fact, since an idea can not be outside of a mind, if you accept postulate 1 at all then the greatest thing you can think of can't be simply an idea, and so no argument you come up with can be the greatest thing you can think of, since arguments are always only ideas inside a mind. 24.8.102.238 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the order of Anselm's argument is not x but God is the greatest thing you can imagine and that the greatest thing you can imagine must exist outside of your mind as well as inside it, which is in the opposite order of what I said but that's still the exact same argument. You're right it doesn't have to be in a particular place but he clearly says it will exist outside of your mind as well as in it. And please see Verifiability. It says unverified info will be deleted. And I don't remember giving any "religious" objection to you posting unverified material. Even if I had, please see Appeal to motive. 24.8.102.238 (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll take this step by step. Did or did not Anselm say that which exists outside of your mind as well as inside it is greater than that which exists only in your mind. Here's his quote:

"And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."

So he's saying the greatest thing you can imagine must exist in "reality" as well as in the "understanding", not just exist like you said. Do you disagree? 24.8.102.238 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  24.8.102.238 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]