"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[quatona]

Sorry quatona...

What were you hoping for though? A brilliant explanation of the "greatest conceivable being"? You knew you weren't going to even see a bare bones explanation of the concept...

I guess I´m a believer in honest discussion - where people who (without being aware) came up with a request to argue against the ill-defined will admit "Yes, this was a stupid idea" once shown that the requirements for this task have been met by the claimers.
Or where people who claim that there can be arguments against God´s existence without there being preceeding arguments for it to which they refer will retract such statements once shown to be wrong.
I´m somewhat naive like that.

 

[anonymous person]

I guess I´m a believer in honest discussion - where people who (without being aware) came up with a request to argue against the ill-defined

I assume you are referencing my thread entitled Philosophical arguments against the existence of God.

Am I right?

If so, it is not people, but a person, namely anonymous person.

If so, this would also mean that you affirm that the phrase existence of God is ill-defined.

Please tell me what the phrase ill-defined signifies and why you affirm that the phrase existence of God is such.

I also want you to ask the atheists who responded to my thread by actually presenting arguments against the existence of God instead of claiming the phrase was ill-defined, why/how they don't think the phrase is ill-defined. It is my hope that they may be able to shed some light on this and that you might actually accept it, and have some answers to your questions.

will admit "Yes, this was a stupid idea" once shown that the requirements for this task have been met by the claimers.

This statement is nonsensical to me. I think you might need to rephrase it.

Or where people who claim that there can be arguments against God´s existence without there being preceeding arguments for it to which they refer will retract such statements once shown to be wrong.
I´m somewhat naive like that.

This statement to is nonsensical. I cannot make heads or tails of it. Maybe you could rephrase it.

 

[quatona]

I assume you are referencing my thread entitled Philosophical arguments against the existence of God.

Am I right?

If so, it is not people, but a person, namely anonymous person.

If so, this would also mean that you affirm that the phrase existence of God is ill-defined.

Please tell me what the phrase ill-defined signifies and why you affirm that the phrase existence of God is such.

I also want you to ask the atheists who responded to my thread by actually presenting arguments against the existence of God instead of claiming the phrase was ill-defined, why/how they don't think the phrase is ill-defined. It is my hope that they may be able to shed some light on this and that you might actually accept it, and have some answers to your questions.



This statement is nonsensical to me. I think you might need to rephrase it.




This statement to is nonsensical. I cannot make heads or tails of it. Maybe you could rephrase it.

I wasn´t talking to you.
I was answering Ana´s personal question what I had hoped for when creating this thread.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I still find "greatest" to be well unrealistic. Like saying the highest number.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess I´m a believer in honest discussion - where people who (without being aware) came up with a request to argue against the ill-defined will admit "Yes, this was a stupid idea" once shown that the requirements for this task have been met by the claimers.
Or where people who claim that there can be arguments against God´s existence without there being preceeding arguments for it to which they refer will retract such statements once shown to be wrong.
I´m somewhat naive like that.

I thought about making a thread where I just ask all the theists to stop using one particularly horrible argument...then after thinking about it I realized there would eventually just be a new stream of dum-dums repeating the same nonsense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I assume you are referencing my thread entitled Philosophical arguments against the existence of God.

Am I right?

If so, it is not people, but a person, namely anonymous person.

If so, this would also mean that you affirm that the phrase existence of God is ill-defined.

Please tell me what the phrase ill-defined signifies and why you affirm that the phrase existence of God is such.

I also want you to ask the atheists who responded to my thread by actually presenting arguments against the existence of God instead of claiming the phrase was ill-defined, why/how they don't think the phrase is ill-defined. It is my hope that they may be able to shed some light on this and that you might actually accept it, and have some answers to your questions.

You know....ill-defined...like that description of heaven and hell that you gave me and ignored my response to.

 

[anonymous person]

You know....ill-defined...like that description of heaven and hell that you gave me and ignored my response to.

Words can't do either concept justice. Jesus Himself often times used symbols and vivid imagery to convey into understandable terms, spiritual realities.

Frankly, I'm not in the least bit compelled to attempt to define heaven or hell for you anymore than I have already.

Whole books and volumes of literature have been written on the subject.

If you want to know how I define them, just read the New Testament.

 

[quatona]

Words can't do either concept justice. Jesus Himself often times used symbols and vivid imagery to convey into understandable terms, spiritual realities.

I don´t know that Jesus asked anyone to present arguments against God´s existence, in the first place.

 

[anonymous person]

I still find "greatest" to be well unrealistic. Like saying the highest number.

And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.

Whatever that would mean.

Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.

Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.

Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.

 

[quatona]

And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.

Whatever that would mean.

Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.

Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.

Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.

Well, if someone came to me asking me to present an argument against the existence of the "greatest conceivable piece of music" I would see the very same problems.

 

[anonymous person]

I don´t know that Jesus asked anyone to present arguments against God´s existence, in the first place.

I don't know that He did either. Considering His audience, we should not have expected Him to ask for such arguments. He did however question those who had arguments against Him being the Messiah.

"Which of you convicts me of sin?" is one such question that immediately comes to mind.

 

[quatona]

I don't know that He did either.

So apples and oranges.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Words can't do either concept justice. Jesus Himself often times used symbols and vivid imagery to convey into understandable terms, spiritual realities.

Frankly, I'm not in the least bit compelled to attempt to define heaven or hell for you anymore than I have already.

Whole books and volumes of literature have been written on the subject.

If you want to know how I define them, just read the New Testament.

I've read it...it's a bit lacking on the matter.

"Words can't do either concept justice."...if that's how you feel I'll just consider your question meaningless then. It's a bit pointless to ask someone to choose between two concepts that you yourself cannot explain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.

Whatever that would mean.

Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.

Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.

Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.

That's because they would seem to refer to opinions.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.

Whatever that would mean.

Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.

Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.

Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.

Incorrect. We see that those words are unfit to use in any situation where objectivity is required.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, if someone came to me asking me to present an argument against the existence of the "greatest conceivable piece of music" I would see the very same problems.

4'33" by John Cage, obviously...

 

[anonymous person]

I've read it...it's a bit lacking on the matter.

"Words can't do either concept justice."...if that's how you feel I'll just consider your question meaningless then. It's a bit pointless to ask someone to choose between two concepts that you yourself cannot explain.

We don't fully understand quantum mechanics either. Words do not quite do justice to the realities on which they speak.

I don't thereby conclude that the whole enterprise is meaningless or inexplicable.

But then again, you and I differ on how we view these things.

 

[anonymous person]

Incorrect. We see that those words are unfit to use in any situation where objectivity is required.

So we would be incorrect to say that the population of China is greater than that of Mexico?

Or that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

Why do you think that those aforementioned propositions are not statements of objective facts?

I can think of many propositions that contain comparisons of two or more states of affairs or entities that purport to report objective facts about reality.

It seems strange for you to say that the terms are unfit to use in any situation requiring objectivity.

Why do you think that by the way?

 

[anonymous person]

That's because they would seem to refer to opinions.

The words can refer to opinions. They can be used to convey facts too.

 

[Chesterton]

4'33" by John Cage, obviously...

Ooh, nice. A piece of non-existent music as the greatest conceivable. You've certainly thrown a loop into the thread.

But to no avail, because I've made the greatest conceivable even greater by laying the killerest conceivable guitar solo over it. Of course I usually play the solo while eating Cheetos and looking at my guitar from across the room.