above logic???

[heymikey80]

Your god is defined such that it infallibly knows it will do X and this is an incredibly strong statement. It is impossible that your god knows it will do X and has the potential to do Y for if it did have such potential then it didn't know it would do X in the first place. It was instead 'very sure'.

Actually, you're redefining God's omnipotence to be an knowability.

Omnipotence is not defined that way. You're defining omnipotence as incredible, the word isn't defined that way. It simply says that if there is a power, this power is available to God should God wish to exercise it.

It doesn't refer to God equally, alternately pursuing such an action. In point of fact this is quite obvious, in that an entire class of actions God does not perform because of His will to do good -- that is, actions purely evil.

God's omnipotent -- there's nothing beyond His power to perform an action. Only His will precludes the performance of any action. But He's not omni-actualizing -- God's will purposely limits the actions God will actually perform.

 

[Grega]

Grega, you know I like you, you know I wasn’t attacking ad hom.



It’s up to you, but if you were to want me to disbelieve it, you in fact do need to debunk it more thoroughly. I’ve seen the errors in the great debunkers that I’m aware of; maybe you know of something I haven’t encountered, or do you have something original to offer? Go ahead and try if it’s important.

[/color]

No, according to the argument, I don’t.



You need only reject my claim? In that case, then I need only reject your claim. I thought we were proceeding based on logic.



By definition, “The” God is greater than any other two-bit pretender god.



You’re calling me a liar, and pointing out my ad homs? How do you know I can’t conceive of the greatest possible being?

[/color]

Nope, just ask a memorabilia or antiques collector.



Okay, care to help me out then?

Grega, you know I like you, you know I wasn’t attacking ad hom.
You're ok too...lets leave it that eh?

It’s up to you, but if you were to want me to disbelieve it, you in fact do need to debunk it more thoroughly. I’ve seen the errors in the great debunkers that I’m aware of; maybe you know of something I haven’t encountered, or do you have something original to offer? Go ahead and try if it’s important.
Please point out the errors in those great debunkers

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived. is it ??? How do you know what I can and can't conceive??? Did you just pull that out of a hat? What if try as I might, I fail to concieve of something that I cannot later improve upon??? Demonstrate this assertion is credible please. It just looks like you're defining nonsense and naming it "God"
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than
God that can be imagined. I don't agree that God is such a thing so moot point
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. reconcile 1 and 2 first please
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore: Having not established 1,2, and 3 valid you have not demonstrated a contradiction
(5) God exists. You have not established 1,2,3 and 4...this conclusion which asserts (1) is not valid

No, according to the argument, I don’t.
If you don't demonstrate that something "which no greater can be conceived" can exist then I have no reason to accept your premise. Similarly If I give you the premise "All blue things are awesome". Then you will presumably not agree that my blue toilet roll is awesome until I have convinced you my premise is sound.

You need only reject my claim? In that case, then I need only reject your claim. I thought we were proceeding based on logic.
You are claiming such a thing can exist. I'm claiming I have yet to be convinced, and will not accept accept the claim till you show it is reasonable...Ball in your court

By definition, “The” God is greater than any other two-bit pretender god.
So show this entity for which nothing greater can be conceived can actually exist...so far I think magic pots are greater than your God, and they don't even think! You have work ahead of you

You’re calling me a liar, and pointing out my ad homs? How do you know I can’t conceive of the greatest possible being?
I said I don't believe you...means I think you're mistaken.

Nope, just ask a memorabilia or antiques collector.
but ask a tramp if 2 great wads of cash are better than 1...also are either of these examples "greater than can be otherwise conceived"? If not, then moot point

Okay, care to help me out then?
Given that I thoroughly reject the ontological argument I was satirically demonstrating that your postition God is above logic is absurd independently of anselms argument.
Secondly If god is not bound by logic then he is certainly not bound by my logic so although my logic binds me to say "god is above logic" this is logical, and your god is above logic so it is actually not invalid to state something about your god which is illogical...because he doesn't obey logic!!!.

Also look over that link I gave you. I can prove lots of things if you accept this principle of a logic defying god.

 

[Grega]

Actually, you're redefining God's omnipotence to be an knowability.

Omnipotence is not defined that way. You're defining omnipotence as incredible, the word isn't defined that way. It simply says that if there is a power, this power is available to God should God wish to exercise it.

It doesn't refer to God equally, alternately pursuing such an action. In point of fact this is quite obvious, in that an entire class of actions God does not perform because of His will to do good -- that is, actions purely evil.

God's omnipotent -- there's nothing beyond His power to perform an action. Only His will precludes the performance of any action. But He's not omni-actualizing -- God's will purposely limits the actions God will actually perform.

Actually, you're redefining God's omnipotence to be an knowability.

Omnipotence is not defined that way. You're defining omnipotence as incredible, the word isn't defined that way. It simply says that if there is a power, this power is available to God should God wish to exercise it.

It doesn't refer to God equally, alternately pursuing such an action. In point of fact this is quite obvious, in that an entire class of actions God does not perform because of His will to do good -- that is, actions purely evil.

God's omnipotent -- there's nothing beyond His power to perform an action. Only His will precludes the performance of any action. But He's not omni-actualizing -- God's will purposely limits the actions God will actually perform.
Nope!...I was talking about omniscience ...omnipotence as you describe, is the ying to omniscience's yang
I can extract little of use from this response given it doesn't correctly address mine. Please try again

 

[heymikey80]

Nope!...I was talking about omniscience ...omnipotence as you describe, is the ying to omniscience's yang
I can extract little of use from this response given it doesn't correctly address mine. Please try again

OK, I'll grant that I confused which you were talking about, but the position holds.

It's downright obvious that I didn't describe omnipotence as a yin to omniscience's yang.

I pointed out that by definition omnipotence is about potency, not actuality. I also pointed out that by definition omniscience is about knowledge, not potency. They're consistent with one another. Over the course of many postings asking you to explain the nature of your complaint, it's always been, "they're contradictory".

Explain what subset of knowledge and potency is contradictory. But keep in mind, knowledge beforehand that you will to do something, does not constitute exclusion of your ability to do otherwise. It simply says you know which way your will is headed. A judo expert who knows he will not kill his opposition is not thereby unable to kill.

And as I've pointed out, the exception does address your responses so far. Omnipotence is not a yin to omniscience's yang. They're about two different considerations. They're not fit-together, either. Omnipotence would declare God is completely powerful to do evil. But His omniscience about Himself would declare God never does evil.

At this point the problem seems confusion over the apparent similarity of the words. Similar words do not indicate similarity in meaning.

 

[Chesterton]

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived. is it ???

Yes.

How do you know what I can and can't conceive??? Did you just pull that out of a hat? What if try as I might, I fail to concieve of something that I cannot later improve upon??? Demonstrate this assertion is credible please. It just looks like you're defining nonsense and naming it "God"

I know what I and the rest of humanity can conceive. If you later improve upon humanity’s conception, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Otherwise, for the sake of arguments, how about we deal with reality? If you have an improvement, spell it out.

(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than
God that can be imagined. I don't agree that God is such a thing so moot point

Okay, I see the problem - tell me then what is the greatest thing that can be conceived? There’s no point proceeding beyond this.

 

[Grega]

It's downright obvious that I didn't describe omnipotence as a yin to omniscience's yang.

I pointed out that by definition omnipotence is about potency, not actuality. I also pointed out that by definition omniscience is about knowledge, not potency. They're consistent with one another. Over the course of many postings asking you to explain the nature of your complaint, it's always been, "they're contradictory".

Explain what subset of knowledge and potency is contradictory. But keep in mind, knowledge beforehand that you will to do something, does not constitute exclusion of your ability to do otherwise. It simply says you know which way your will is headed. A judo expert who knows he will not kill his opposition is not thereby unable to kill.

And as I've pointed out, the exception does address your responses so far. Omnipotence is not a yin to omniscience's yang. They're about two different considerations. They're not fit-together, either. Omnipotence would declare God is completely powerful to do evil. But His omniscience about Himself would declare God never does evil.

At this point the problem seems confusion over the apparent similarity of the words. Similar words do not indicate similarity in meaning.

It's downright obvious that I didn't describe omnipotence as a yin to omniscience's yang.
Sorry...you were mean't to stop parsing "omnipotence as you describe" at the comma directly after it and then interpret the next bit as my own. My mistake

This problem is very simple:
God knows he will do X. If he knows he does X then he goes about and does X when it is time to do it.
If on the otherhand he has the potential to do Y then this is to say he doesn't actually have to do X at all...he can see himself do X and change his mind at the last minute.
But then if this is true he didn't know he'd do X in the first place!!!

You're confusing the notion of being very sure and infallibly knowing. You can't infallibly know you will do X if you have the potential to do Y

 

[Grega]

Yes.



I know what I and the rest of humanity can conceive. If you later improve upon humanity’s conception, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Otherwise, for the sake of arguments, how about we deal with reality? If you have an improvement, spell it out.



Okay, I see the problem - tell me then what is the greatest thing that can be conceived? There’s no point proceeding beyond this.

Yes.
how?

I know what I and the rest of humanity can conceive. If you later improve upon humanity’s conception, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Otherwise, for the sake of arguments, how about we deal with reality? If you have an improvement, spell it out.
Hmm, what can can humanity conceive that is greater than all which shall be conceived later? How do you justify an assertion that nothing greater will be conceived (notice I am careful not to use the word prove btw, merely justify)...should I assume what you talk of reality is in fact my non-reality? (God) or am I mistaken?

Okay, I see the problem - tell me then what is the greatest thing that can be conceived? There’s no point proceeding beyond this.
I don't, and have no reason to posit a "greatest thing that can be conceived" I don't know what are the limits to what things future creatures or myself may conceptualise and conceive.

edit
One more for you Chesterton, forget what I said about magic pots earlier...

(1) The 'magic pot' is that than which no lesser can be conceived.
(2) If the magic pot is that than which no lesser can be conceived then there is nothing lesser than
the magic pot that can be imagined. Therefore:
(3) There is nothing lesser than the magic pot that can be imagined.
(4) If the magic pot does not exist then there is something lesser than the magic pot that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) the magic pot exists.

 

[heymikey80]

This problem is very simple:
God knows he will do X. If he knows he does X then he goes about and does X when it is time to do it.
If on the otherhand he has the potential to do Y then this is to say he doesn't actually have to do X at all...he can see himself do X and change his mind at the last minute.

Try it from a different angle -- the point of actually knowing. History.

When Caesar judged Seneca, was Caesar able to put Seneca to death?

We know what he did -- was he potent to do differently?

We know exactly what he did.

What was Caesar's potency?

 

[Grega]

Try it from a different angle -- the point of actually knowing. History.

When Caesar judged Seneca, was Caesar able to put Seneca to death?

We know what he did -- was he potent to do differently?

Caesar, if he was pretty damned sure he would put Seneca to death was potent to do differently.
If on the otherhand he infallibly knew he would put Seneca to death, then for all wants/wills etc...he puts Seneca to death. Nothing he can do to stop it.
If he can stop it then he was instead 'pretty damned sure'....different from knowing

 

[Chesterton]

how?

How what?

Hmm, what can can humanity conceive that is greater than all which shall be conceived later?

God.

How do you justify an assertion that nothing greater will be conceived

When something greater is conceived, the argument will then apply to that.

...should I assume what you talk of reality is in fact my non-reality? (God)

Yes.

I don't, and have no reason to posit a "greatest thing that can be conceived" I don't know what are the limits to what things future creatures or myself may conceptualise and conceive.

Well the rest of us can, so the argument succeeds.

One more for you Chesterton, forget what I said about magic pots earlier...

(1) The 'magic pot' is that than which no lesser can be conceived.

No. 1 fails because a pot is not the greatest thing which can be conceived.

 

[Grega]

How what?



God.



When something greater is conceived, the argument will then apply to that.



Yes.



Well the rest of us can, so the argument succeeds.




No. 1 fails because a pot is not the greatest thing which can be conceived.

How what?
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived. is it ???
yes
how

God.
Please show this is greater than all other things that can be "conceived"

When something greater is conceived, the argument will then apply to that.
but if that something greater is conceived, the original assertion is false. Also by induction we can continue this argument for as long as we're breathing to make it.
You have not vindicated your case.

Well the rest of us can, so the argument succeeds
Please demonstrate that all the people who are not biased towards asserting they can conceive such would say they can.
Otherwise this point fails.
Remember you are trying to reason with an atheist. That I don't believe you and your peers claims should be apparant. You must compel me to believe...with sound reasoning.
No. 1 fails because a pot is not the greatest thing which can be conceived.
Read again, the proof specifically relies upon it not being greater (least is less than greatest!)

 

[Chesterton]

how

Because nothing can be conceived which is greater

Please show this is greater than all other things that can be "

conceived"

That’s His definition.

but if that something greater is conceived, the original assertion is false.

As I said, we can deal with that at that time.

Also by induction we can continue this argument for as long as we're breathing to make it.

With you, yes we can.

Please demonstrate that all the people who are not biased towards asserting they can conceive such would say they can.

Please demonstrate that all the people who are not biased against asserting they can conceive such would say they can’t.

R

ead again, the proof specifically relies upon it not being greater (least is less than greatest!)

If it’s lesser than the greatest thing, it’s not the greatest thing, so it doesn't belong inserted into Anselm's argument.

 

[Grega]

Because nothing can be conceived which is greater



That’s His definition.



As I said, we can deal with that at that time.



With you, yes we can.



Please demonstrate that all the people who are not biased against asserting they can conceive such would say they can’t.



If it’s lesser than the greatest thing, it’s not the greatest thing, so it doesn't belong inserted into Anselm's argument.

Because nothing can be conceived which is greater
why/how?...be more verbose please

That’s His definition.
His definition is nonsense. Just because you can define something doesn't mean that which is defined can be conceived or exist.
I define a square circle to be a migjodangwub...migjodangwubs can be conceived

As I said, we can deal with that at that time.
Please provide in exhaustive detail (in terms I would agree with) a base case then.

With you, yes we can.
You seem to be backing yourself towards argument via decree and numbers, along with other fallacies...I do not see my postion shaken, and believe me if I did back off it would be with the statement "you were right, I was wrong"

Please demonstrate that all the people who are not biased against asserting they can conceive such would say they can’t.
I never made that positive claim...you on the other hand made the positive claim: "Well the rest of us can, so the argument succeeds"
Ball in your court

If it’s lesser than the greatest thing, it’s not the greatest thing, so it doesn't belong inserted into Anselm's argument
It is the Grega adaptation of the Anselm argument to show the magic pot exists...Whats good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[Chesterton]

why/how?...be more verbose please

More words won't help this discussion. I could describe the Almighty with the entire Old Testament; you'd still pretend not to understand English.

His definition is nonsense. Just because you can define something doesn't mean that which is defined can be conceived or exist.

Use your definition then. You had a pretty strong one.

Please provide in exhaustive detail (in terms I would agree with) a base case then.

You already know the argument, and you refute it by claiming not to understand conceiving a greatest being. I mean if you say you can't, I'll take your word for it. If you can't grasp a part of the premise, there's not much use going beyond that.

 

[Grega]

More words won't help this discussion. I could describe the Almighty with the entire Old Testament; you'd still pretend not to understand English.



Use your definition then. You had a pretty strong one.



You already know the argument, and you refute it by claiming not to understand conceiving a greatest being. I mean if you say you can't, I'll take your word for it. If you can't grasp a part of the premise, there's not much use going beyond that.

I know the argument and it is ridiculous...my counter argument with the magic pot shows that I can also arrive at a similar conclusion by reversing the magnitude of "greater". Others have debunked this argument too. (you have not pointed out their flaws btw).
I understand perfectly well what it is to "conceive" of something and it means more than simply consigning to memory the designation of this thing you would conceive. Furthermore it is the fool who says "I can conceive of that which no greater shall be conceived" without demonstrating this claim is true.

You appear to have run away from this argument with little more than a pot shot made against my comprehension skills. Most unfortunate

 

[Chesterton]

I know the argument and it is ridiculous...my counter argument with the magic pot shows that I can also arrive at a similar conclusion by reversing the magnitude of "greater". Others have debunked this argument too. (you have not pointed out their flaws btw).
I understand perfectly well what it is to "conceive" of something and it means more than simply consigning to memory the designation of this thing you would conceive. Furthermore it is the fool who says "I can conceive of that which no greater shall be conceived" without demonstrating this claim is true.

You appear to have run away from this argument with little more than a pot shot made against my comprehension skills. Most unfortunate

I'm not running away. I'll get back to you if you want. If you visit the Ethics & Morality forum, you'll see that as we've been arguing I'm also in another argument in the "Dissuading New Christians" thread, and I'm having browser crashes, and I can't supply the verbosity you're asking for right now.

 

[Grega]

Feel free to return.
I'll reiterate my main problem with the ontological argument is that the base premise 'God is something that of which nothing greater can be imagined' is nonsense...You might as well say "bambif is the name given to the greatest number that can be imagined" (infinity is not a number btw)

How can anyone know the extent to which I can conceive of 'your' god let alone determine that what I do conceive about it is the greatest thing that I'll ever conceive??? This is an unjustified premise whose defence lies only with baseless decree.
In fact it seems Anselm's response to Gaunilo's lost Island ran along the lines of "ah well, you see...hmm...ooh I know, this argument only applies to God!"
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gaunilo-of-Marmoutiers
The argument is lame, and by simulating its logic, anything can be shown to exist.

 

[Chesterton]

I'll reiterate my main problem with the ontological argument is that the base premise 'God is something that of which nothing greater can be imagined' is nonsense...You might as well say "bambif is the name given to the greatest number that can be imagined" (infinity is not a number btw)

You declaring a sensible sentence to be nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense. To avoid considering the argument, you want to preempt letting the argument get off the ground.

How can anyone know the extent to which I can conceive of 'your' god let alone determine that what I do conceive about it is the greatest thing that I'll ever conceive??? This is an unjustified premise whose defence lies only with baseless decree.

If you have problems conceptualizing what the rest of humankind can conceptualize, then you are a special case, and so the argument is inappropriate for you.

In fact it seems Anselm's response to Gaunilo's lost Island ran along the lines of "ah well, you see...hmm...ooh I know, this argument only applies to God!"
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gaunilo-of-Marmoutiers
The argument is lame, and by simulating its logic, anything can be shown to exist.

No, anything cannot be shown to exist. You don’t understand the difference between the words “being” and “island”? Anselm’s argument uses “the greatest being”. Gaunilo’s island is the same as your pot in that they are both inanimate objects. So long as we can conceive of God, no inanimate object can be conceived of as being greater than God. Gaunilo’s objection uses a different premise, and so doesn’t really even address Anselm’s argument.

Given your previous silly non-responses such as “how do you know what I can and can’t conceive” or “what if something pops up in the future”, I don’t see much point in discussing this. You’re not looking for honest debate (which isn’t supposed to occur in the forum anyway), you just want to prove yourself right and it’s a waste of both our time.

 

[Grega]

You declaring a sensible sentence to be nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense. To avoid considering the argument, you want to preempt letting the argument get off the ground.



If you have problems conceptualizing what the rest of humankind can conceptualize, then you are a special case, and so the argument is inappropriate for you.



No, anything cannot be shown to exist. You don’t understand the difference between the words “being” and “island”? Anselm’s argument uses “the greatest being”. Gaunilo’s island is the same as your pot in that they are both inanimate objects. So long as we can conceive of God, no inanimate object can be conceived of as being greater than God. Gaunilo’s objection uses a different premise, and so doesn’t really even address Anselm’s argument.

Given your previous silly non-responses such as “how do you know what I can and can’t conceive” or “what if something pops up in the future”, I don’t see much point in discussing this. You’re not looking for honest debate (which isn’t supposed to occur in the forum anyway), you just want to prove yourself right and it’s a waste of both our time.

You declaring a sensible sentence to be nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense. To avoid considering the argument, you want to preempt letting the argument get off the ground.
But the argument is nonsense...you can implant ANY god into that system and conclude it exists...how about Larry the Leprechaun?...yes Larry the Leprechaun would exist in that system so long as you're careful to baselessly define Larry (a being wholly different from your god that likes to torture hobbits) to be greater than that which can be otherwised conceived.

If you have problems conceptualizing what the rest of humankind can conceptualize, then you are a special case, and so the argument is inappropriate for you.
The only people I've seen come forward and say they can conceptualise that which nothing greater can be conceived is, oh what a coincidence!...Christians!!!
Fail.

No, anything cannot be shown to exist. You don’t understand the difference between the words “being” and “island”? Anselm’s argument uses “the greatest being”. Gaunilo’s island is the same as your pot in that they are both inanimate objects. So long as we can conceive of God, no inanimate object can be conceived of as being greater than God. Gaunilo’s objection uses a different premise, and so doesn’t really even address Anselm’s argument.
Well firstly that pot is a *magic* pot so you have no grounds to say inanimate. Secondly in my adaptation of the anselm argument I demonstrated that because a magic pot is the least of all things that can be conceived (I have faith that magic pots fit this description), it must exist by that argument otherwise the entire logical system that gave rise to it is plop. Thirdly it doesn't matter whether we are talking about God, islands, or Whistlers mother. The base premise is flawed, and using the logic contained within that argument we can prove what we like to exist. You are merely special pleading to save it's face, another logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
When will theists realise you can't just make things up and present them to atheists as axiomatic truths???

Given your previous silly non-responses such as “how do you know what I can and can’t conceive” or “what if something pops up in the future”, I don’t see much point in discussing this. You’re not looking for honest debate (which isn’t supposed to occur in the forum anyway), you just want to prove yourself right and it’s a waste of both our time.
I am indeed looking for sensible discussion but I will not sit back speechless with awe at your medieval parlour trick when I and other atheists/agnostics/deists/etc...can see right through it.
What did you expect of me Chesterton when you simply stride into a thread discussing logic and how it applies to God by thinking "ooh...I've seen a proof that God exists, and the greatest God must be above my logic...in your face Grega!!!" Without pausing to check whether this proof is actually admissible in any place other than this never never land of archaic theistic reasoning you espouse.
That I would immediately fall upon my knees and beg forgiveness???

You are annoyed because this is probably your main coup-de-etat in order to bring about the conversion of we silly atheists yet you don't quite realise that your metaphorical swords and muskets are little more than straws and feather dusters


To put it another way Chesterton, you have *faith* that your god is how it is defined by Anselm, you have faith that the conceptualisation of this God that you have today is both maximal, and is the same as it has always been so as not to refute *greater than any other which can be conceived*, you also have *faith* that God exists. This is fair enough but you cannot implant elements justified only by faith into a *proof* if you wish to seriously engage with those who by definition, *lack* this faith!

 

[heymikey80]

Caesar, if he was pretty damned sure he would put Seneca to death was potent to do differently.
If on the otherhand he infallibly knew he would put Seneca to death, then for all wants/wills etc...he puts Seneca to death. Nothing he can do to stop it.
If he can stop it then he was instead 'pretty damned sure'....different from knowing

Missing the definition.

We know Caesar didn't put Seneca to death. Our "science" of this fact is simply assured.

The only question now is whether Caesar were able.

I assert Caesar was completely able, and thus potent to kill Seneca.

So, we are scient of the fact that Caesar did not kill Seneca. And yet we also know Caesar was entirely potent to kill Seneca, and yet he did not.

What's more, we can infer that Caesar was relatively in his right mind, and could afterward reflect on the fact that he spared Seneca's life. Caesar himself was scient of not killing Seneca, but Caesar was potent to kill Seneca, and yet he did not.