"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[GrowingSmaller]

The only falsifiable things are contingent, not true by definition, or not.

"I exist" - what can i do with this claim? Is it a priori, and noumenal, yet synthetic?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Also I havent heard mention of Bayes theorem in ages.

 

[variant]

The only falsifiable things are contingent, not true by definition, or not.

"I exist" - what can i do with this claim? Is it a priori, and noumenal, yet synthetic?

I exist is a priori knowledge because the alternative reduces to the absurd.

You can falsify "I exist" as an a priori truth by showing that it's alternative "I do not exist" does not reduce to the absurd.

Falcifiability as a standard works fine for rationalist or empirical claims because the main difference between a falsifiable and unfalcifiable assertion of knowledge is that you can tell when the falsifiable one is incorrect.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about the Heinz Baked Bean?

The issue there would be its contingent, if it were a necesssary bean then everything would be made from beans. It would be impossible for the b not to be, so "if x then b" would apply.

 

[variant]

What about the Heinz Baked Bean?

The issue there would be its contingent, if it were a necesssary bean then everything would be made from beans. It would be impossible for the b not to be, so "if x then b" would apply.

What about it exactly? Nothing was said about beans needing to be necessary.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Where did I ask for a refutation of the claim "God exists?"

 

[quatona]

Where did I ask for a refutation of the claim "God exists?"

You called it "argument against the existence of God". If you feel my wording was a misrepresentation feel free to elaborate on the significant differences.

 

[anonymous person]

You called it "argument against the existence of God". If you feel my wording was a misrepresentation feel free to elaborate on the significant differences.

Yes it is a misrepresentation.

I specifically said:

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.

We are aware of this.

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.

In this thread, we will discuss those (arguments against theism) which atheists here think are most persuasive.

I asked for atheists to tell me about those arguments against theism which they think are most persuasive. That is not analogous to me asking for a refutation of the claim "God exists".

 

[Cearbhall]

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 know I studied this in a university course, but I had to Google to refresh my memory. Anselm's Ontological Argument. I never agreed with it in its entirety. While it's logical in a way, the end result for me is giving the label of God to either the richest or most powerful human, or else a hypothetical alien emperor who exists somewhere in another galaxy. I don't find it to be a very useful point. It doesn't have the ability to prove the existence of any being. It just raises an existing being to god status.

 

[variant]

It doesn't have the ability to prove the existence of any being. It just raises an existing being to god status.

It would define that being as God. Whether or not that definition is a valid description is unknown.

 

[quatona]

Yes it is a misrepresentation.

I specifically said:



I asked for atheists to tell me about those arguments against theism which they think are most persuasive. That is not analogous to me asking for a refutation of the claim "God exists".

I agree, the most persuasive argument against the claim "God exists" needn´t be a refutation.
Is this difference of any relevance or significance for the topic of this thread?

On another note, you addressed the presented arguments (those that you addressed at all, that is) as though you expected refutations - i.e. you pointed out how they were not 100% waterproof arguments against "God exists".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about it exactly? Nothing was said about beans needing to be necessary.

If a bean were necessary, or thought to be necessary, would something which wasnt a bean (eg a table or a chair, made from wood for example) falsify the initial proposal?

In the sense that a necessary being must exist, and something existing but not being a bean would prove its contingency, rather than necessity.

You see, a necessary truth is true in all situations, so a necessary being (by analogy) would exist in all situations...

If so, would "x is not God" falsify the initilal idea "God is necessary"...

Diversity disproves necessity...?

Or, a little less philosophically: there'd be no room left for the cheese on toast!

(I am thinking -in relation to the OP - that if existence is an attribute of something, by definition, that would make that "something" necessary...)

 

[Chesterton]

[QUOTE="variant, post: 69072955, member: 114463]God is defined as the greatest conceivable being.

It simply does not define anything if greatest isn't defined, and is likely to define something other than God if it is.

A purposefully indefinite definition, for the purpose of obfuscation, kind of the opposite of what it is pretending to do.[/QUOTE]

Is it necessary to have an exact definition? Wouldn't it work to say the "greatest being" possesses all the qualities of greatness known or conceived of? That is to say, the greatest being combines (and exceeds) the greatness of mice, dragons, lakes, men and everything else?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is it necessary to have an exact definition? Wouldn't it work to say the "greatest being" possesses all the qualities of greatness known or conceived of? That is to say, the greatest being combines (and exceeds) the greatness of mice, dragons, lakes, men and everything else?

It's not about having an exact definition. It's that there isn't an objective definition at all. You can't come up with a trait that you deem as "great" that another person can't reasonably argue against.

 

[Chesterton]

It's not about having an exact definition. It's that there isn't an objective definition at all. You can't come up with a trait that you deem as "great" that another person can't reasonably argue against.

I'm not sure that really affects the argument. One person might say Chuck Berry is a greater composer than Beethoven, or apples are greater fruit than oranges, but that's just what they conceive, and either way it would still work.

 

[anonymous person]

It's not about having an exact definition. It's that there isn't an objective definition at all. You can't come up with a trait that you deem as "great" that another person can't reasonably argue against.

Sure you can. The greatest conceivable being for example, would be morally perfect.

If you disagree, that's fine. Your inability to recognize truth does nothing to nullify it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm not sure that really affects the argument. One person might say Chuck Berry is a greater composer than Beethoven, or apples are greater fruit than oranges, but that's just what they conceive, and either way it would still work.

But that's precisely why it doesn't work. If person A says that trait X is great and person B says that the opposite of trait x is great, which of those would be attributed to a god? It obviously can't be both, as that leads to a contradiction.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sure you can. The greatest conceivable being for example, would be morally perfect.

If you disagree, that's fine. Your inability to recognize truth does nothing to nullify it.

Lol. Cute. Here, let me try...

The greatest conceivable being for example, would not be morally perfect.

If you disagree, that's fine. Your inability to recognize truth does nothing to nullify it.

Wheeee! Unsubstantiated statements are fun...

 

[anonymous person]

Lol. Cute. Here, let me try...

The greatest conceivable being for example, would not be morally perfect.

If you disagree, that's fine. Your inability to recognize truth does nothing to nullify it.

Wheeee! Unsubstantiated statements are fun...

Then I take it you're not one of those atheists that likes to run around telling people God does not exist because the existence of evil and suffering are logically incompatible with the existence of an all Good God.

What you seem to have forgotten is that atheists themselves make this argument. They are the ones that acknowledge, as Christians do, that God is Omnibenevolent.

Now all of a sudden, atheists seem to be confused as to why God is said to be Omnibenevolent.

 

[Chesterton]

But that's precisely why it doesn't work. If person A says that trait X is great and person B says that the opposite of trait x is great, which of those would be attributed to a god? It obviously can't be both, as that leads to a contradiction.

I don't think it's necessary that people agree on what exactly is great, only that they can conceive of one thing being greater than another. Only if someone denies anything is greater than anything else, if "great" is a meaningless word for them, then there'd be a problem.