"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[quatona]

Well, it seems to me that if you wanted to know about the phrase in question and how I use it

Anything unclear about the OP?

The interesting point here is that you are implicitly admitting that "The Greatest Conceivable Being" isn´t a proper definition that can be argued against.

Calm down and take a deep breath sir.

I am totally calm.

The world is not going to come to an end, just yet.

That´s good to know.

 

[KCfromNC]

So this thread is not about the phrase "greatest conceivable being"?

Such a being would be vastly superior to any god I've ever heard of. As such, the petty details of those gods is really irrelevant to the topic here.

 

[anonymous person]

Anything unclear about the OP?

The interesting point here is that you are implicitly admitting that "The Greatest Conceivable Being" isn´t a proper definition that can be argued against.

I am totally calm.

That´s good to know.

It is a phrase. So I explicitly, not implicitly, affirm it is not a definition.

As far as not being able to argue against it, you are doing just that. In fact, this whole thread is you arguing against the phrase.

 

[anonymous person]

Such a being would be vastly superior to any god I've ever heard of. As such, the petty details of those gods is really irrelevant to the topic here.

Please tell quatona how you come to that conclusion. He seems to be unable to understand how people can come to such conclusions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh no. People in general want to be comfortable and at ease. Hell is no such place. They want to live lives of pleasure and in general have an aversion to suffering, pain, and judgment and punishment.

I know that is how I am anyway, that is, my carnal natural self.

I guess I could just ask you a hypothetical question.

Assuming that you either go to one of two places once this life passes away, where would you want to go?

Heaven or hell?

Well the concept of hell is comprehensible...I'm not sure what's to be expected in heaven though. Care to enlighten me?

 

[anonymous person]

Well the concept of hell is comprehensible...I'm not sure what's to be expected in heaven though. Care to enlighten me?

Care to answer the question you quoted?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Care to answer the question you quoted?

I did...what part don't you understand?

 

[anonymous person]

I did...what part don't you understand?

I understood everything you said.

I just asked if you were going to answer the question.

Now if you don't know what heaven is, I can tell you what it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I understood everything you said.

I just asked if you were going to answer the question.

Now if you don't know what heaven is, I can tell you what it is.

That's what I'll need in order to answer the question...

 

[Davian]

I think this actually serves a point I am making.

For some, they find God to be offensive. He is just really a bad guy. To be compelled to spend eternity with such a bad person would be a very bad thing. God understands how you feel about Him and does not want you to have to spend eternity with Him if you don't want to.

The thing is, if what the new testament authors says is true, we all are appointed to die once, and then we are judged for what we have done with the lives God has given us, whether good or bad. Those who rejected God's offer of salvation through His Son Jesus, will answer for their own doings and will receive what their works merit. Those who have been covered and have had the blood of Jesus applied to their lives and have gone on to show this regeneration by good works, will receive eternal life.

I don't think anyone really has any misgivings about being free. That seems to be the rallying cry by most today. "I want to be free to live, to let live, and to do with my body what I please! Free from religion, free from oppression, etc. etc."

I know of no people who have ever marched the streets by the thousands chanting, "Down with freedom, and up with oppression!"

Nor do I think anyone really has any misgivings about people being justly judged for the evil they commit. I mean, with all of the indignation I see from people here about certain things they judge to be evil, I am pretty sure we can all agree that we should not only judge justly, but should encourage the just judgment of the people who do that which is deserving of judgment.

Nor do we really have any misgivings about love. We recognize that love is a two way street and as such, it can always be received or rejected and we can always love others or make excuses for why we should not love.

I think the real issue, is that Jesus of all people, is most offensive to some because He claimed that people, at the end of the day, are fundamentally, broken. That there is a way that men ought to live, and know it, but fail to and as a result of this failure, they are estranged to their Creator. That there is One greater than man who knows all, sees all, and is above all, Holy and that because of this, will hold us all accountable. Inside of this and actually over it all, stands the cross. The cross is offensive to many because it is a symbol of how nasty we are. The cross is ugly. It is nasty. And deep down inside, the cross is something that testifies against them. What better way for some to deal with this ugly reality, but to shut their eyes and ears and pretend it does not exist, or that if it exists, it is nothing more than the creation of a handful of superstitious Jews.

Islam is feared and hated by many because it poses a threat to their physical well-being. Christianity is feared and hated by many because it poses a threat to that part of them which is not just atoms and matter. Jihadists can be fought and their efforts can be quelled with the appropriate socio-economic and geopolitical responses. But you cannot fight against Christ and win. The long procession of the attempts throughout history to do so reveal that the bible is the anvil that has worn out many a hammer. The Church, that universal body of believers throughout the world and throughout the ages remains. It grows not despite the oppression, censorship, and persecution it faces, but through it. Augustine and Aquinas rightly pointed to this fact as the miracle God has furnished for all to behold and marvel. It was no less than Napoleon himself who spoke of Christ as being the Great Conqueror who cares not for men's lands or territories, money or national resources, but yea, for the very hearts of men themselves.

I think the best thing for all of us here would be to drop the pretense and just state plainly what the real issues are. We can all be politicians, we can all be politically correct. That is easy. Just say nothing. Or if you say something, see to it that whatever you say is sufficiently ambiguous or is qualified by "this is true for me but might not be for you" and you will do well.

At the end of the day it is recorded that Jesus made some claims that are unique to Him and Him alone. Thus, they are worthy of at minimum, our thoughtful consideration.

If I were to attempt to come up with "The Greatest Conceivable Being", I wouldn't start with someone that has been dead for 2000 years.

 

[anonymous person]

That's what I'll need in order to answer the question...

In the hypothetical let heaven stand for that eternal state of affairs wherein the redeemed dwell in intimate and uninterrupted communion and fellowship with God and hell stand for that eternal state of affairs wherein the unredeemed dwell apart from God.

Now, if such places existed, where would you prefer to dwell?

 

[anonymous person]

If I were to attempt to come up with "The Greatest Conceivable Being", I wouldn't start with someone that has been dead for 2000 years.

I agree with you and I reckon we are not the only ones that would start elsewhere.

 

[quatona]

It is a phrase. So I explicitly, not implicitly, affirm it is not a definition.

So you admit it was not a good idea to present it as a definition?

As far as not being able to argue against it, you are doing just that.

I´m sure you can figure the difference between "arguing against the existence of the Greatest Being Conceivable", and arguing against the phrase.

In fact, this whole thread is you arguing against the phrase.

I´m not arguing against the phrase. I am arguing against your idea that this phrase is a definition that allows an argument against the existence of its referent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the hypothetical let heaven stand for that eternal state of affairs wherein the redeemed dwell in intimate and uninterrupted communion and fellowship with God and hell stand for that eternal state of affairs wherein the unredeemed dwell apart from God.

Now, if such places existed, where would you prefer to dwell?

As far as I can tell....communion means something along the lines of...

Sharing your thoughts and feelings.

I don't know why I'd want to do that with a creature as vaguely defined as "god"....let alone be required to do such for an eternity. This genuinely sounds awful.

If my other choice is simply a place where I'm not required to share my thoughts and feelings with a total stranger...I would choose that other place. In fact, in this other place...it sounds like my choices are my own.

So just to be clear...we aren't speaking of a place of "eternal torment" or any such thing? And heaven would be a place where I'm required to share all my thoughts and feelings with this incredibly vague and undefined stranger?

Just want to be sure of what we're talking about before I give my answer...

 

[quatona]

Please tell quatona how you come to that conclusion. He seems to be unable to understand how people can come to such conclusions.

I do understand it quite fine.

 

[Davian]

I agree with you and I reckon we are not the only ones that would start elsewhere.

Is that not what you have done?

 

[The Cadet]

A being is greater than an island.

But it makes no difference to the structure of the argument. Because we can categorize. After all, the greatest conceivable island must necessarily be greater than an island that is equivalent in all properties other than existence, must it not? As existing is greater than not existing? It doesn't matter that there's a greater conceivable something, we're talking about islands. And by the argument of the ontological argument, this works.

Heck, we can really shred the argument by asking the question: what is the greatest conceivable being other than the greatest conceivable being? We're excluding the greatest conceivable being from the set, then basically asking, "Okay, what's the greatest thing now". But we run into the same issue: the greatest conceivable being other than the greatest conceivable being wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being other than the greatest conceivable being unless it existed. You can continue this infinitely, to the point that everything conceivable must exist.

 

[anonymous person]

Is that not what you have done?

No.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please tell quatona how you come to that conclusion. He seems to be unable to understand how people can come to such conclusions.

Since he's here in this very thread, I don't need you to tell me what he may or may not think about something I've written. You have enough to worry about with the problems with your own posts, no need to start making mistakes attempting to ghost-write for other people in thread.

 

[anonymous person]

Since he's here in this very thread, I don't need you to tell me what he may or may not think about something I've written. You have enough to worry about with the problems with your own posts, no need to start making mistakes attempting to ghost-write for other people in thread.

Lol, I asked you to tell him how you determine a being to be superior to another.

If you don't want to tell him, tell me, and I will tell him what you said. I want him to have some answers to his questions from someone other than myself.