"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[variant]

If you believe that God "can be" like any other thing.... then you are NOT discussing God.

To compare God to a "thing" is a category error.

Here is a video which will help you:

This is just your supposition, and the root of the special pleading.

You basically admit to it fully.

To define "God" as a thing that is the exception that the rules about things that I wish to propose is both question begging and special pleading.

 

[variant]

God isn't assumed in theology.

God is CONCLUDED through cumulative case. If you miss this, then you miss how we know there is a Creator.

Um, I'm an atheist, I don't think you know any such thing.

You can't in an argument about the existence of God borrow concepts from a discipline that you think shows God exists.

If "theology" has some other case for the existence of God you should make that argument.

• cumulative case argument for "how we KNOW that there is a Creator." (first 10 steps moving toward the conclusion of the God of Abraham)
  
  1. concluding the difference between non-contingent Self-existence and Aseity verses finite gods, fairies and stupid stuff. Concluding that there is a first a "difference" between logical candidate Creators (Higher Power, deistic type Creator, infinite force, Infinite Creator) and unicorns, invisible dragons, mythological gods and flying spaghetti monsters
• 2. concluding that just because people have different beliefs "about" the Creator and some people have worshiped myths does NOT mean that the Creator has to be a myth. (especially if there is a cumulative case for "a" Creator based on evidence given and reason which separates it from mythology).
  
  3. concluding that "lack of belief in God or gods" is superior to the foolish belief "that there IS no God" Explicit atheism to Implicit atheism. Many here still argue for explicit with no evidence for it... and the lack of understanding that you would have to be omniscient about points one and two in order to make a valid positive claim that there is no Creator.
  
  4. Concluding that you should not start with circular assumptions about the empirical/natural world. Removing circular assumptions and positive claims of materialism and being open minded about the possibility of creation or even a divine sustaining power behind the natural order (which could be concluded through cumulative case).
  
  5. Concluding that you might be able to make a valid conclusion of a Creator. Recognizing that a classical agnostic position of "I don't know yet" is superior to "I can't know" which is a positive claim which is excluding possible evidence.
  
  6. Concluding that you should allow the identification of features in ALL known systems which require known causes which are not present within such system(s). Concluding that you should not have a bias against the best logical explanation for identifying features.
  
  7. Concluding that you should logically remove the bias of methodological naturalism and requiring explanations to fit circular assumptions. Concluding that you could be excluding the best most logical conclusion/explanation by wrongfully requiring natural explanations for features which do not and should not require it.
  
  8. Concluding that there are features in biological systems which clearly come from Intelligence. Concluding that there is indeed EVIDENCE of Intelligent coding, Intelligent engineering and Intelligent designing in biological systems. Evidence:
  
  Exhibit A. Information in biological systems
  Exhibit B. Molecular and protein machines
  Exhibit C. Cellular Metabolism as a whole and protein synthesis
  Exhibit D. IF-THEN algorithmic programming
  
  Concluding that identification of features which come from Intelligence is clearly a different scientific premise from later possible or probably conclusions of theism.
  
  9. Concluding that science should be an observation of the facts and a search for the truth and not exclude implications of a Creator. Concluding that theistic implications should be allowed in science. Concluding that a Creator of the all that is within the universe should be allowed as a logical Candidate for such "Intelligence." (in point 8)
  
  10. Concluding that the universe contains features (including features in biological systems) which are best explained by a Creator. Concluding that there are too many features in the universe to deny the logic of some sort of Infinite force; some sort of Higher Power; some sort of Cosmic Designer; or some sort of possible Infinite Creator that best explains the universes origin and first cause. Concluding that because of earth's special location in the galaxy and because of the all the forces which would need to be fine tuned in order to have conscious observers... that the best and only logical conclusion is that there is indeed some sort of Higher Power and First Cause which is required to explain the origin of the universe. Concluding that you CAN indeed know that there is INDEED a Creator... because it is the only logical conclusion to explain both features in biological systems which come from Intelligence and features in the universe which demonstrate the need for cosmic purpose, order and intentionality.

Thoughts:

1. Rule out all ideas you sincerely don't like through personal incredulity
2. Ignore massive amount of inconsistency among believers ideas and what this says about how believers come to them.
3. Acceptable but not helpful. I am already an agnostic atheist.
4. Removing most religious concepts (circular reasoning) from consideration.
5. Requires that you first be able to define what you mean by God such that you should be able to tell God verses not God via some observation (rational or direct). So you've missed at least one step.
6. I can't really say what you mean by this.
7. Methodological naturalism isn't a necessary bias, but some rule for what counts as evidence for knowledge and a definition of how we tell the difference of when Gods are present and when not is entirely epistemology required. That is the problem I alluded to in step 5.
8. "Concluding that there are features in biological systems which clearly come from Intelligence." No.
9. If I thought intelligence clearly explained the universe and I could make a distinction between when an intelligence was present or absent on things like biology I would already be a theist, but then again that would require some suggestion from #5 where I could clearly make this distinction.
10. More of the same.

This is the cumulative case argument for the first conclusion of "General agnostic undecided theism." This cumulative case argument only applies to logical candidate Creator concepts for explaining the origin of the universe.

That's very sad.

steps 11 - 20 connect agnostic theism to the God of Abraham in conclusions.

Spare me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you are asserting that water has no precursor? To cause hydrogen and
oxygen to form it? Water just caused itself?

I don't know what you mean by precursor in this context.

If you want to know more about the chemical bonds that allow hydrogen and oxygen to form water, I can probably find a good website for you.

If you think that some entity exists that takes oxygen and hydrogen and bonds them together to form water...that's amusing, but silly.

 

[ScottA]

Read the entire paragraph in context. The last two sentences explain the point of the first sentence. I was saying that atheists have no problem contemplating entities "higher" than themselves. You are the one who has a failure of imagination to think otherwise.

And you didn't answer my question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are running in circles, projecting an openness to the idea of a higher being, mincing words, turning the position of lacking imagination back on those who are trying to encourage you, all the while saying there is no God.

To answer your question about what I mean by a "higher" (being)...I mean: beyond all imagination, or any greater possibility...that is the God we have been telling you about. But, understand, there is no room for argument or options here. God is God, and He created the world you are just getting to know.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To answer your question about what I mean by a "higher" (being)...I mean: beyond all imagination, or any greater possibility...

That sounds more like a definition of "highest" being, not "higher" being. You've raised the bar infinitely. Not exactly sporting.

You had written:

The irony of this subject...is that those who do not accept the idea of a higher being (as in God), are prone to evolution...just nothing higher than themselves.

The part in bold is simply false. You can't use the word "higher" and then say that you exclusively mean some sort of infinitely high being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ScottA]

That sounds more like a definition of "highest" being, not "higher" being. You've raised the bar infinitely. Not exactly sporting.

You had written:

The irony of this subject...is that those who do not accept the idea of a higher being (as in God), are prone to evolution...just nothing higher than themselves.

The part in bold is simply false. You can't use the word "higher" and then say that you exclusively mean some sort of infinitely high being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

There is only One "higher" being, and He is the "highest."

But the point, my point (the irony that I spoke of), is that if one can imagine "the greatest conceivable being"...it/he would not only be higher, but would also be the highest.

But if you do not believe in God, nor will allow for that possibility in your own mind...perhaps you should restate your own point - it's not at all clear.

 

[Ken-1122]

To answer your question about what I mean by a "higher" (being)...I mean: beyond all imagination, or any greater possibility..

There is nothing beyond imagination. Perhaps YOUR imagination; but not everybody else's

Ken

 

[ScottA]

There is nothing beyond imagination. Perhaps YOUR imagination; but not everybody else's

Ken

Does that mean you are beginning to grasp the nature and object of the topic?

 

[Ken-1122]

Does that mean you are beginning to grasp the nature and object of the topic?

I've always understood the nature and object of the topic; I just don't agree with it.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is only One "higher" being, and He is the "highest."

In your view, but you were speaking about atheists... about what atheists would be willing to accept. You cannot say that atheists would not accept a higher being, and then join that with your personal view that only God is a higher being. That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

But if you do not believe in God, nor will allow for that possibility in your own mind...perhaps you should restate your own point - it's not at all clear.

That is just your cynicism showing in a mind-reading attempt. I certainly have entertained a hypothetical possibility of a God. I just don't find God-Apologetics even remotely well-argued or convincing to me personally.

Since you think that you can read minds, you cannot imagine that what I am saying is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

There is only One "higher" being, and He is the "highest."

Needs substantiation.

But the point, my point (the irony that I spoke of), is that if one can imagine "the greatest conceivable being"...it/he would not only be higher, but would also be the highest.

But if you do not believe in God, nor will allow for that possibility in your own mind...perhaps you should restate your own point - it's not at all clear.

1. I can easily imagine a "Greatest/Highest Being" (if I apply my own personal standards of greatness/highness, or someone else´s predefined standards). I just don´t see how imagining it brings it into existence.
2. Without any given standards I am indeed unable to imagine it.
3. This being (if applying my own standards) wouldn´t be anything like your bible-God, though.

 

[Breckmin]

I don't know what you mean by precursor in this context.

Which is why this little derail doesn't address the issue of "self-cause" and whether water applies (at all) to
the original subject matter. Thus, another false accusation (not from you) of begging the question because
the interlocutors here do not appear to follow the subject matter...(or understand the material).

 

[ScottA]

In your view, but you were speaking about atheists... about what atheists would be willing to accept. You cannot say that atheists would not accept a higher being, and then join that with your personal view that only God is a higher being. That makes no logical sense whatsoever.



That is just your cynicism showing in a mind-reading attempt. I certainly have entertained a hypothetical possibility of a God. I just don't find God-Apologetics even remotely well-argued or convincing to me personally.

Since you think that you can read minds, you cannot imagine that what I am saying is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

"My view" is the vantage point that you are lacking, and yet for someone who claims to have "entertained" the possibility of God...you apparently have not considered that those who have come under Him are indeed able to take up the vantage point necessary to "know" the truth...and yet you repel the very idea, as if sulking for not getting your way in your approach of what is greater than yourself. Your approach has failed you, and all that remains for you is the hearsay you do not accept - not because it isn't true, but because you remain in the dark.

You only have yourself to blame.

 

[ScottA]

Needs substantiation.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The point being, that you either raise to God's needs, rather than your own. The reward, is eternal life. The consolation, is this simple organic life.

1. I can easily imagine a "Greatest/Highest Being" (if I apply my own personal standards of greatness/highness, or someone else´s predefined standards). I just don´t see how imagining it brings it into existence.
2. Without any given standards I am indeed unable to imagine it.
3. This being (if applying my own standards) wouldn´t be anything like your bible-God, though.

We can all imagine what and how we would do things if we were God...and if you can do that...then you can possibly imagine that He is.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The point being, that you either raise to God's needs, rather than your own. The reward, is eternal life. The consolation, is this simple organic life.

Ok, if you feel you can´t and needn´t substantiate your claims, they remain unsubstantiated.

We can all imagine what and how we would do things if we were God...and if you can do that...then you can possibly imagine that He is.

Sure, I can imagine a lot of things. That´s what I said. It´s just my experience that my imagination doesn´t bring them into existence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"My view" is the vantage point that you are lacking, and yet for someone who claims to have "entertained" the possibility of God...you apparently have not considered that those who have come under Him are indeed able to take up the vantage point necessary to "know" the truth

Perhaps you should consider that the vantage point keeps those people who are at it from understanding the difference between knowing and believing.

Or perhaps self deception is a necessary aspect of this vantage point.

Just some things to consider about that vantage point of yours.

...and yet you repel the very idea, as if sulking for not getting your way in your approach of what is greater than yourself.

What makes you think he hasn't "gotten his way"? Didn't you merely ask him to imagine something greater than himself then push the goalposts when he replied that he could do that without it being a god? What was the effect you were hoping for?

Your approach has failed you, and all that remains for you is the hearsay you do not accept - not because it isn't true, but because you remain in the dark.

You only have yourself to blame.

That's an interesting phrase..."the hearsay you do not accept". We all certainly know of some hearsay that we don't accept...the question is why don't we accept it? Is it because it lacks evidence and defies logic? Or is it because it doesn't jibe with our feelings about what we'd like to be true?

 

[Neochristian]

St. Anselm! "That than which no greater being may be conceived." Classic!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScottA]

Ok, if you feel you can´t and needn´t substantiate your claims, they remain unsubstantiated.


Sure, I can imagine a lot of things. That´s what I said. It´s just my experience that my imagination doesn´t bring them into existence.

Hmmm...you're not getting the message. How can I be more clear? [rhetorical] ... Does a dog have to substantiate anything to a flee? No. Nor does another flee need to substantiate anything. Deal with it.

Again, sorry...but those are the terms.

 

[ScottA]

Perhaps you should consider that the vantage point keeps those people who are at it from understanding the difference between knowing and believing.

Or perhaps self deception is a necessary aspect of this vantage point.

Just some things to consider about that vantage point of yours.

Those may be considered if one does not have the greater vantage point...but not if one does. Self-deception would be another point of disadvantage.

What makes you think he hasn't "gotten his way"? Didn't you merely ask him to imagine something greater than himself then push the goalposts when he replied that he could do that without it being a god? What was the effect you were hoping for?

Because he shows himself to have not attained understanding. Since I have withheld nothing, but availed myself to share my view from the greatest of vantage points...I am quite clear that he has no intention of conceding his disadvantage.

That's an interesting phrase..."the hearsay you do not accept". We all certainly know of some hearsay that we don't accept...the question is why don't we accept it? Is it because it lacks evidence and defies logic? Or is it because it doesn't jibe with our feelings about what we'd like to be true?

Call it hearsay, or call it news...it only means something to those who care.

 

[Neochristian]

In university they teach that Anselm's argument is weak. That doesn't mean the definition is weak tho, and it doesn't mean there is no God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk