"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[quatona]

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Great post.

Prepare for lots of evasion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If god is infinite, then its like "The greatest conceivable number"...? When your mind stops, there's always one more, and another etc. Thus God, like infinity, might be know via negativa. We may discuss it (as Canor showed in mathematics) i.e. comprehend it (or Him) but to apprehend - take hold of fully - is impossible.

 

[quatona]

If god is infinite, then its like "The greatest conceivable number"...?

"Greatest"? Really? What makes a number great?

When your mind stops, there's always one more, and another etc.

Which would actually prove that there is no such thing as "The Highest Conceivable Number".

Thus God, like infinity, might be know via negativa.

By following the premise that there can´t be such thing as the "Greatest Conceivable Being" you want to show that there is a "Greatest Conceivable Being"?

We may discuss it (as Canor showed in mathematics) i.e. comprehend it (or Him) but to apprehend - take hold of fully - is impossible.

That may or may not be the case. It´s not the topic of this thread, though. The topic of this thread is:
Does a definition that consists of a mere value judgement lend itself to investigating the question whether the claim that such a thing exists is accurate?
IOW: Would not a person who demands us to attempt a refutation of said claim have to do a bit more of their homework first?

 

[timewerx]

Yep, how could you say something is great you barely understand?

Thousands of years ago, a rock or dirt carries absolutely no value.

Today, we can turn them into microchips that run your computers because now we have a better understanding of what rocks are.

And we might say that rocks really rocks!

 

[variant]

Refute the idea when it becomes supported by something.

Conceivable beings and existent beings are two different sets of things.

If existence is imposed as a criterion for greatness then mice are greater than dragons.

Given that imagination easily outstrips reality, the more fantastical a being the LESS likely it is to exist (say a life form larger than a galaxy), then God if greatness is defined by the absolute extreme conception of greatness, is very unlikely to exist following that trend the probability of God should drop to near or equal to zero given greater and greater attributes via the conception of an imagination.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The things that the Church knows about God are not what has been imagined by mortal men but are instead what God has chosen to reveal to us, first through the Old Testament prophets and then later when God the Son came down from Heaven at the Incarnation and then preached the gospel to His chosen ones directly. So if by "conceivable" one means that God is capable of being imagined then it is incorrect to call God "The Greatest Conceivable Being" since God's fullness of being is unimaginable.

 

[Received]

When I was in college and got high, I thought the greatest conceivable being was a draw between a pizza and the pizza delivery man.

Deities never tasted so good nor had prettier feed in delivering good news.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Summum bonum, that's what the scholastics may have called it. The highest good. But of course.... that would be subjective. There are plenty of maltheists out there.

 

[quatona]

Summum bonum, that's what the scholastics may have called it. The highest good. But of course.... that would be subjective. There are plenty of maltheists out there.

How could I possibly be a maltheist when its up to me to define "bonum"? Everything I consider negative would not be this "summum bonum", ergo not God.
(Btw., I don´t think that "summum bonum" was ever used a synonym for "God".)

Interestingly, in a discussion with a girlfriend (who is a Christian) I recently mentioned the widely accepted premise "God is good", and much to my surprise she responded: "Where did you get that from? That´s illogical nonsense, and theologically an untenable premise."

 

[lesliedellow]

Anybody who wants to know the Christian conception of God only has to read the Bible.

Even if a formal definition was possible, which I don't think it is, why would you need it?

 

[Wgw]

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.

Note that the Orthodox regard God as incomprehensible in His divine essence; only the uncreated energies of God can be comprehended. The human nature of our Lord is quite literally conceivable, but not the divine nature.

 

[quatona]

Anybody who wants to know the Christian conception of God only has to read the Bible.

That´s why all Christians hold the same god concept. Oh, wait...

Even if a formal definition was possible, which I don't think it is, why would you need it?

Because we were asked to refute the idea that "God (i.e The Greatest Conceivable Being)" exists - not to refute the idea that the Christian god concept is inaccurate.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Summum bonum has been used of God.

 

[quatona]

Note that the Orthodox regard God as incomprehensible in His divine essence; only the uncreated energies of God can be comprehended.
The human nature of our Lord is quite literally conceivable, but not the divine nature.

So how would I go about refuting the idea that this God exists? (Ignoring the fact for a moment that this is not the idea the poster in question asked us to refute).

 

[quatona]

Summum bonum has been used of God.

Yes, that´s how the scholastics and philosophers used the term. Which obviously means that its not the definition of God.
I´m not sure what your point is.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Btw., I don´t think that "summum bonum" was ever used a synonym for "God"

Quatona ^^You wrote...

 

[Wgw]

So how would I go about refuting the idea that this God exists? (Ignoring the fact for a moment that this is not the idea the poster in question asked us to refute).

The idea that God exists is not falsifiable. It is rather a matter of subjective personal faith.

 

[Wgw]

Yes, that´s how the scholastics and philosophers used the term. Which obviously means that its not the definition of God.
I´m not sure what your point is.

Summum bonum could potentially be greatly misleading if used to refer to God Himself as opposed to that which comes from God. God is "the fullness of all perfections in their highest and ultimate form," a "limitless sea of being," to quote the Cappadocians; it is dangerous however to regard these divine natures as somehow being discrete from each other as they are not posessed by God but are rather integral to the divine nature.

 

[quatona]

The idea that God exists is not falsifiable.

Exactly. Would you mind explaining this to the person who created that thread?