"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[quatona]

Spelling it out has not worked, telling it, nor even creating a complete universe. If that all doesn't tell you that you don't get a vote or get to have an opinion even, and that we only have a part in what has been created if God wills it...then nothing will. At the very least it should be considered foolish to look a gift-horse in the mouth (if that is not too confusing). A change of attitude is in order.

I understand you don´t want to contribute anything useful to the topic and discussion. That´s fine with me.

 

[bhsmte]

There's a third. That was flat-out slander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will give you points for brevity. Content, not so much.

 

[ScottA]

I understand you don´t want to contribute anything useful to the topic and discussion. That´s fine with me.

For the record: I have offered to contribute, and have contributed, but the truth is apparently not welcome.

 

[bhsmte]

For the record: I have offered to contribute, and have contributed, but the truth is apparently not welcome.

What truth?

 

[Davian]

For the record: I have offered to contribute, and have contributed, but the truth is apparently not welcome.

I do not accept your opinion as truth.

 

[ScottA]

What truth?

That there is indeed a "greatest conceivable being" whom can be known, if one is so inclined.

 

[bhsmte]

That there is indeed a "greatest conceivable being" whom can be known, if one is so inclined.

Sure, if one is so inclined (psychologically) they will believe just about anything.

 

[ScottA]

Sure, if one is so inclined (psychologically) they will believe just about anything.

That does not fit the definition of "known."

 

[Neochristian]

That there is indeed a "greatest conceivable being" whom can be known, if one is so inclined.

Tell me about Him.

 

[ScottA]

Tell me about Him.

Unlike the would be notions of an old man in the sky, God (that greatest conceivable being) is more like Disney: a creator of fantasies, whose characters are last to know that they were not created alive, but as if dead, only to actually live, if chosen, or if so inclined to seek Him, to know Him. He is the great "I am", the only reality, who has created this world from nothing, as nothing, but with opportunity. He has intended to expand His tent (so to speak), and tells His story in the pages of history. History is His story, wherein He describes a lonely being, taking from Himself the makings of a bride, a mate. Their story becomes our story, wherein we receive Him and become One, or return to the nothingness that we came from. Within His creation He has shown Himself in the character of all that is good, and shown also, what is not good. He has placed before us life (that which is unseen, as He is unseen) and death (that which is seen, and passes away), and said, "Choose life."

 

[Neochristian]

Unlike the would be notions of an old man in the sky, God (that greatest conceivable being) is more like Disney: a creator of fantasies, whose characters are last to know that they were not created alive, but as if dead, only to actually live, if chosen, or if so inclined to seek Him, to know Him. He is the great "I am", the only reality, who has created this world from nothing, as nothing, but with opportunity. He has intended to expand His tent (so to speak), and tells His story in the pages of history. History is His story, wherein He describes a lonely being, taking from Himself the makings of a bride, a mate. Their story becomes our story, wherein we receive Him and become One, or return to the nothingness that we came from. Within His creation He has shown Himself in the character of all that is good, and shown also, what is not good. He has placed before us life (that which is unseen, as He is unseen) and death (that which is seen, and passes away), and said, "Choose life."

You might like Plato.

 

[ScottA]

You might like Plato.

I'm sure I would. I'm really not much on philosophy...but I do have plans to write a book with Jesus answering the questions raised by Socrates.

 

[Neochristian]

I'm sure I would. I'm really not much on philosophy...but I do have plans to write a book with Jesus answering the questions raised by Socrates.

He talks about the seen and the unseen, or rather the visible and the intelligible. That's why I bring him up. Also because it is clear he influenced both Paul and the gospels.

 

[tatteredsoul]

In another thread a poster asked for a refutation of the claim that God exists, and for purposes of this task he defined "God" as "The Greatest Conceivable Being".

I am wondering if we can expect persons who ask for putting their claim to scrutinity that they define their keyterm in a way that allows for it.
I don´t think that "The Greatest Conceivable Being exists" allows for serious investigation, mainly for two reasons:
1. It isn´t descriptive. It merely provides an unspecific value judgement, and on top of that it doesn´t provide any standards or criteria for determining "greatness".
2. "Conceivable" - by whom?

It´s like asking to disprove that "The Greatest Conceivable Lake" exists.

I wouldn´t even know how I could possibly go about investigating the accuracy of such vague, unspecific value judgements (of something that otherwise isn´t defined).

Unfortunately, said poster isn´t very cooperative, but refuses any help with making the claim in question sufficiently workable for the task he asks for.
Since the poster obviously leaves it to me to apply my subjective criteria of "Greatness" to given description of a certain being, the best I could come up with would be comparing existing god concepts to what I can conceive of as "greatest being" e.g. "I can conceive of a greater being than bible god, thus bible god isn´t "The Greatest Conceivable Being". Which, of course, is far from being able to demonstrate that the greatest being I can conceive of doesn´t exist.

So I thought I´d create this thread for constructive ideas regarding this issue.

ETA: The author of said thread emphasizes that he didn´t ask for a refutation of "God exists" but merely the "most persuasive argument" against it. Even though I do not see how this is of any relevance for the topic of this thread, I agree with him: There´s a difference between "refutation" and "most persuasive argument against". I apologize for my paraphrasing and hope that no major damage has been done.

I don't think finite entities can describe an infinite entity - they can only project it into the space of their own existence. It is like drawing three dimensions on a piece of paper. The God of gods (most often referred to as God) is a generator of everything. So, for example, even the most imaginative mind may assert the greatest conceivable entity, or a god-entity is a creature that exists on all dimension simultaneously, has incredible unexplainable powers, can manipulate time and space, has telepathy and empathic mimicry, is invulnerable and indestructible, is just, good, powerful, etc. Well, that isn't the full domain of [the] God [of gods.] However, it does explain some angels, principality entities, and Powers entities. Still, they were created by the God of gods. And, they still worship Him as God almighty.

I think many who don't believe in a god believe that there is a "source," prime or something that at least started this entire thing, and even maintains it.

 

[Neochristian]

I don't think finite entities can describe an infinite entity - they can only project it into the space of their own existence. It is like drawing three dimensions on a piece of paper. The God of gods (most often referred to as God) is a generator of everything. So, for example, even the most imaginative mind may assert the greatest conceivable entity, or a god-entity is a creature that exists on all dimension simultaneously, has incredible unexplainable powers, can manipulate time and space, has telepathy and empathic mimicry, is invulnerable and indestructible, is just, good, powerful, etc. Well, that isn't the full domain of [the] God [of gods.] However, it does explain some angels, principality entities, and Powers entities. Still, they were created by the God of gods. And, they still worship Him as God almighty.

I think many who don't believe in a god believe that there is a "source," prime or something that at least started this entire thing, and even maintains it.

2. Anyone.

 

[KCfromNC]

That there is indeed a "greatest conceivable being" whom can be known, if one is so inclined.

You rang?

 

[tatteredsoul]

2. Anyone.

Conceivable by anyone? Sure anyone can conceive of the greatest entity - but as finite creatures we have a BOUNDED range of conception. For example, humans cannot know what infinity is because we are finite. Infinity is undefined, but we "know" it exists as a generator of all space. But, not all infinite are equal, nor do they reach the same values because infinity is unbounded. Translating this to a previous metaphor, we may conceive of entities that can rival Infinity or Eternity from x-men, but there is still a "prime," something greater - and greatest alone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will give you points for brevity. Content, not so much.

I noticed he decided that he couldn't find anything posted that he found disrespectful.

 

[bhsmte]

I noticed he decided that he couldn't find anything posted that he found disrespectful.

What a shock.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm not a fan of greatest concievable being, it relies too much on things wich wouldn't make something great, or are value judgements.

Plus you can't argue something into existance, either it exists or it doesn't.

for me issues with things are greatest good, good is a value judgement, it's something is good or bad, but not inheriently good or bad, also it's a value judgement that good is better then evil, I agree, but if were saying something is the greatest good because it's the greatest concievable being then you have to explain why these things would be inherient, and it fails to me.

also it relies on existance being a property, but it doesn't make sense to me.