"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[anonymous person]

I've learned something from all of this. It is best not to use the phrase "greatest conceivable being" when talking with certain people. It may very well lead to confusion so in this I have benefited.

As for my part, I want to share with you all something Amy Carmichael once wrote. She was a Christian missionary in India, who opened an orphanage and founded a mission in Dohnavur. She served in India for 55 years without furlough and wrote many books about the missionary work there.


Calvary Love by Amy Carmichael

IF I HAVE NOT compassion on my fellowservant, even as my Lord had pity on me, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I can easily discuss the shortcomings and the sins of any; if I can speak in a casual way even of a child's misdoings, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

If I can enjoy a joke at the expense of another; if I can in any way slight another in conversation, or even in thought, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I can write an unkind letter, speak an unkind word, think an unkind thought without grief and shame, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I am afraid to speak the truth, lest I lose affection, or lest the one concerned should say, "You do not understand," or because I fear to lose my reputation for kindness; if I put my own good name before the other's highest good, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If souls can suffer alongside, and I hardly know it, because the spirit of discernment is not in me, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

If I myself dominate myself, if my thoughts revolve around myself, if I am so occupied with myself I rarely have "a heart at leisure from itself," then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I cannot in honest happiness take the second place (or twentieth); if I cannot take the first without making a fuss about my unworthiness, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I do not give a friend "the benefit of the doubt," but put the worst construction instead of the best on what is said or done, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

If I take offense easily; if I am content to continue in a cool unfriendliness, though friendship be possible, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If a sudden jar can cause me to speak an impatient, unloving word, then I know nothing of Calvary love. For a cup brimful of sweet water cannot spill even one drop of bitter water, however suddenly jolted. If I say, "Yes, I forgive, but I cannot forget," as though the God, who twice a day washes all the sands on all the shores of all the world, could not wash such memories from my mind, then I know nothing of Calvary love.



For me, it is greater to have this Calvary Love and be so moved and inspired by it that it changes every aspect of my life, personal and private.

I am one who can make a comparison between a life lived void of this Calvary Love and a life lived inspired by it. I affirm that it is greater, this life of love.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I've learned something from all of this. It is best not to use the phrase "greatest conceivable being" when talking with certain people. It may very well lead to confusion so in this I have benefited.

Juuuuuuust can't admit it, can you...

 

[GrimKingGrim]

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

That was cute.

Whatever that would mean.

Whoosh.

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.

Now you should look up what the word "context" means.

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

And what in fact can be considered the "greatest" when no ceiling is ever defined? That's why I used the "highest number" analogy because there's no end.

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

I believe I just said "highest number" which is where those words would also be unfit for use. Because no ceiling/cap has ever been defined

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

There's a rather large difference between a field of study that requires scholarship to understand...and a vague explanation of an imaginary place.

I may not understand everything I've read about quantum mechanics...but that isn't because of a fault in language. Can you explain the concepts of heaven and hell or not? If not...then you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

Also your reply here is a giant straw man. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with heaven and hell. Try to avoid that in the future.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Maybe...but in the case of god we're definitely talking about opinions, since we both know you'll never be able to provide any facts about him.

 

[The Cadet]

For example, it is intuitively true that it is greater to exist than not, to exist necessarily as opposed to contingently, to be everywhere present as opposed to not being everywhere present, to be morally perfect as opposed to not.

A morally perfect god would forbid slavery and not advocate genocide. But I suppose that's a topic for another thread. However, can you demonstrate these claims? It seems intuitive to you, but it is by no means intuitive to me. After all, it seems intuitively obvious that it is greater to create something without existing than to create something while existing. And of course, "greater" still is not defined to any meaningful degree. The word seems almost intentionally fuzzy - it could mean any number of different things.

It is greater to harbor a desire to love one's neighbor instead of harboring a desire to hate them. It is greater to give than to receive.

And now I'm truly lost as to what "greater" is supposed to mean.

All of these propositions seem intuitively true. IOW, I don't need arguments or evidence to recognize they are true.

That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works. Something being "intuitively true" does not make it actually true. You're running afoul of the "Kalam Cosmological Fallacy" - "this is intuitively true, therefore it is actually true". The fact is that our intuitions have a downright abysmal track record on many topics, including things that are well within our understanding, including things like simple mathematical proofs (how many people do you know who intuitively "know" that 0.99... and 1 are not the same number?). And yet, I'm supposed to accept your intuition as true with no arguments or evidence, when it comes to something you cannot define and which you plainly state are beyond our understanding? I'm sorry, but the statement "I don't need arguments or evidence" typically means "I don't have arguments or evidence" - after all, if you had them, wouldn't you lead in with them instead of "I know this to be true because I believe it to be true"?

Saying "this is intuitively true" is not a reason to accept your argument. It is a reason to reject it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A morally perfect god would forbid slavery and not advocate genocide. But I suppose that's a topic for another thread. However, can you demonstrate these claims? It seems intuitive to you, but it is by no means intuitive to me. After all, it seems intuitively obvious that it is greater to create something without existing than to create something while existing. And of course, "greater" still is not defined to any meaningful degree. The word seems almost intentionally fuzzy - it could mean any number of different things.



And now I'm truly lost as to what "greater" is supposed to mean.



That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works. Something being "intuitively true" does not make it actually true. You're running afoul of the "Kalam Cosmological Fallacy" - "this is intuitively true, therefore it is actually true". The fact is that our intuitions have a downright abysmal track record on many topics, including things that are well within our understanding, including things like simple mathematical proofs (how many people do you know who intuitively "know" that 0.99... and 1 are not the same number?). And yet, I'm supposed to accept your intuition as true with no arguments or evidence, when it comes to something you cannot define and which you plainly state are beyond our understanding? I'm sorry, but the statement "I don't need arguments or evidence" typically means "I don't have arguments or evidence" - after all, if you had them, wouldn't you lead in with them instead of "I know this to be true because I believe it to be true"?

Saying "this is intuitively true" is not a reason to accept your argument. It is a reason to reject it.

Wouldn't it be "greater" if apologists had a better response than "it's intuitive"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wouldn't it be "greater" if Yahweh didn't have to rely on apologists to make his case for him with such poor arguments?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wouldn't it be "greater" if Yahweh didn't have to rely on apologists to make his case for him with such poor arguments?

Wouldn't it be greater if he made us all perfect and never needed to judge anyone?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wouldn't it be greater if he made us all perfect and never needed to judge anyone?

Wouldn't he be greater if he made us all gods like himself?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wouldn't he be greater if he made us all gods like himself?

Wouldn't it be "greater" if he gave us all the same intuitions about "greatness," so that we'd all agree that he is "greatest"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wouldn't it be "greater" if he gave us all the same intuitions about "greatness," so that we'd all agree that he is "greatest"?

I think intuitively this is true...so it's true!

 

[quatona]

I've learned something from all of this. It is best not to use the phrase "greatest conceivable being" when talking with certain people.

Certain people = people who have a firm grasp on logic?

It may very well lead to confusion so in this I have benefited.

Cool. So are you now going to provide a workable definition for the task of arguing against the existence of "God"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Given the context of the sentence, the word "greater" means "more numerous". This is an objective meaning for the word "greater", although "more numerous" is more descriptive.

The interesting thing is that if we apply this definition of greater, it is obvious that there are many conceivable god concepts greater than Christian god, considering that it is only 1 (or 3, depending on who you ask and what time of day it is).

 

[KCfromNC]

For example, it is intuitively true that it is greater to exist than not

I disagree. It would be way more interesting if a being managed to create the universe without actually existing. That's be really impressive. We have all sorts of mundane example of beings both existing and creating things, but one which was able to create stuff without existing would be really great to see. Or I guess technically, not see, but you know what I mean.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree. It would be way more interesting if a being managed to create the universe without actually existing. That's be really impressive. We have all sorts of mundane example of beings both existing a creating things, but one which was able to create stuff without existing would be really great to see. Or I guess technically, not see, but you know what I mean.

A god which can defy logic is greater than one who cannot.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've learned something from all of this. It is best not to use the phrase "greatest conceivable being" when talking with certain people. It may very well lead to confusion so in this I have benefited.

As for my part, I want to share with you all something Amy Carmichael once wrote. She was a Christian missionary in India, who opened an orphanage and founded a mission in Dohnavur. She served in India for 55 years without furlough and wrote many books about the missionary work there.


Calvary Love by Amy Carmichael

IF I HAVE NOT compassion on my fellowservant, even as my Lord had pity on me, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I can easily discuss the shortcomings and the sins of any; if I can speak in a casual way even of a child's misdoings, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

If I can enjoy a joke at the expense of another; if I can in any way slight another in conversation, or even in thought, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I can write an unkind letter, speak an unkind word, think an unkind thought without grief and shame, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I am afraid to speak the truth, lest I lose affection, or lest the one concerned should say, "You do not understand," or because I fear to lose my reputation for kindness; if I put my own good name before the other's highest good, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If souls can suffer alongside, and I hardly know it, because the spirit of discernment is not in me, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

If I myself dominate myself, if my thoughts revolve around myself, if I am so occupied with myself I rarely have "a heart at leisure from itself," then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I cannot in honest happiness take the second place (or twentieth); if I cannot take the first without making a fuss about my unworthiness, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If I do not give a friend "the benefit of the doubt," but put the worst construction instead of the best on what is said or done, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

If I take offense easily; if I am content to continue in a cool unfriendliness, though friendship be possible, then I know nothing of Calvary love. If a sudden jar can cause me to speak an impatient, unloving word, then I know nothing of Calvary love. For a cup brimful of sweet water cannot spill even one drop of bitter water, however suddenly jolted. If I say, "Yes, I forgive, but I cannot forget," as though the God, who twice a day washes all the sands on all the shores of all the world, could not wash such memories from my mind, then I know nothing of Calvary love.



For me, it is greater to have this Calvary Love and be so moved and inspired by it that it changes every aspect of my life, personal and private.

I am one who can make a comparison between a life lived void of this Calvary Love and a life lived inspired by it. I affirm that it is greater, this life of love.

Wasn't there some guy who died from vigorous "calvary love" in Washington somewhere?

 

[KCfromNC]

A god which can defy logic is greater than one who cannot.

And one that can and does create a universe which defies logic is greater than one who doesn't. Since we live in a universe where logic works, obviously the greatest conceivable being didn't create it - or us. So any god which is claimed to have created our universe isn't in fact the greatest conceivable being.

This concept is a lot of fun, but ultimately it is just imaging things and asserting that they are true.

 

[anonymous person]

A morally perfect god would forbid slavery and not advocate genocide. But I suppose that's a topic for another thread. However, can you demonstrate these claims? It seems intuitive to you, but it is by no means intuitive to me. After all, it seems intuitively obvious that it is greater to create something without existing than to create something while existing. And of course, "greater" still is not defined to any meaningful degree. The word seems almost intentionally fuzzy - it could mean any number of different things.



And now I'm truly lost as to what "greater" is supposed to mean.



That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works. Something being "intuitively true" does not make it actually true. You're running afoul of the "Kalam Cosmological Fallacy" - "this is intuitively true, therefore it is actually true". The fact is that our intuitions have a downright abysmal track record on many topics, including things that are well within our understanding, including things like simple mathematical proofs (how many people do you know who intuitively "know" that 0.99... and 1 are not the same number?). And yet, I'm supposed to accept your intuition as true with no arguments or evidence, when it comes to something you cannot define and which you plainly state are beyond our understanding? I'm sorry, but the statement "I don't need arguments or evidence" typically means "I don't have arguments or evidence" - after all, if you had them, wouldn't you lead in with them instead of "I know this to be true because I believe it to be true"?

Saying "this is intuitively true" is not a reason to accept your argument. It is a reason to reject it.

Then reject it. It has never been my view that these arguments are indubitable.

 

[anonymous person]

A god which can defy logic is greater than one who cannot.

If that is the case, then the logical problem of evil evaporates.