"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[bhsmte]

And yet I have a strange feeling you will keep engaging me in discussion.

Well, too much low hanging fruit to pass up.

 

[Eudaimonist]

She does not believe God's verdict.

If she hasn't been given good enough reason to believe in the existence of such a verdict, she is justified in not believing in that.

That she is a sinner through and through.

Good for her! Maybe she isn't a sinner through and through. Maybe she realizes something that you don't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So I asked you if you were willing to change your views about the bible being a work of fiction.

Specifically, are you willing to change your views about the reliability of historical documents as bearers of truth?

Or is your mind pretty well made up and nothing I say will change it?

Priceless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are closer to the truth than you may think.

Yea? What part do you agree with?

 

[Hoghead1]

I would encourage you, Quatona, to look at Anselm's ontological argument. He argued God must exist; for God, by definition, is the greatest of all beings, and it is greater to exist than to nonexist. His logic is that given any two contrary polarities, such as being vs. becoming, nonexistence vs. existence, etc., God must always take the greater of the two. A modern-day formulation might go something like this: No atheist can say it is utterly impossible for there to be a God. All atheists are probabilistic atheists. Once you admit God might possibly exist, however small of a possibility that may me, you have to admit that God does exist. Actuality is at least equal to potentiality in perfection. This is a bit different of an argument. Here, the notion of perfections is that in any given any set of seemingly contrary adjectives, such as cause vs. effect, independence vs. dependence, potentiality vs. actuality, etc., each side represents a virtue, and nothing real can be described by reference to only one side .

 

[KCfromNC]

I would encourage you, Quatona, to look at Anselm's ontological argument. He argued God must exist; for God, by definition, is the greatest of all beings, and it is greater to exist than to nonexist. His logic is that given any two contrary polarities, such as being vs. becoming, nonexistence vs. existence, etc., God must always take the greater of the two. A modern-day formulation might go something like this: No atheist can say it is utterly impossible for there to be a God. All atheists are probabilistic atheists. Once you admit God might possibly exist, however small of a possibility that may me, you have to admit that God does exist. Actuality is at least equal to potentiality in perfection. This is a bit different of an argument. Here, the notion of perfections is that in any given any set of seemingly contrary adjectives, such as cause vs. effect, independence vs. dependence, potentiality vs. actuality, etc., each side represents a virtue, and nothing real can be described by reference to only one side .

Have you looked at my ontological argument for an argument against the ontological argument? I argue it must exist; for the argument, by definition, is the greatest of all arguments, and it is greater to exist than to not exist. If you admit that there is a possibility that such an argument may exist, however small of a possibility that may be, you have to admit that argument does exist.

Meanwhile, back in reality, our ability to imagine something doesn't cause it to pop into existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would encourage you, Quatona, to look at Anselm's ontological argument. He argued God must exist; for God, by definition, is the greatest of all beings, and it is greater to exist than to nonexist.

This is possibly the worst apologetic ever created. It simply attempts to define a being into existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Radrook]

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.

Your imaginative inability or perhaps refusal to perceive mind at work in DNA, the nano-cellular machines , or the Fibonacci Sequence doesn't disprove that mind is clearly manifested in nature.

 

[Hoghead1]

Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God. For example, some had tried to attack on the grounds that a flying spaghetti monster must then exist. Sorry, again, won't work. You have to come up with a being who has maximal perfection,' arguments, etc., do not have that, only God does.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, Eudaimonst, it is arguing that God by definition must exist. And that is a particularly strong argument, despite what you have to say. Matter of fact, variations of the ontological argument have been used by major philosophers such as Descartes. Even a major skeptic such as Bertrand Russell did say that it worked. So it is powerful. Also, note that the argument works only with God. It does not allow you to define anything else into existence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Russell accepted it during his early years, but later rejected it:

Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; once exclaiming: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!"[61] However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He drew a distinction between existence and essence, arguing that the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question.[62]

 

[Radrook]

The nature of the being in question isn't arbitrarily being imagined as if there is absolutely nothing to base it on. Christians and other theists observe and study creation and justifiably conclude intellectual ability based on it just as we would conclude mental prowess via observing and examining the inventions of any human or other creature who invented it. We conclude possession of stupendous power because of the mind-boggling power required to create what we observe.

Saying that Christians and other theists are striving to simply force something to pop into existence is like saying that scientists are trying to force dark matter and dark energy to pop into existence because they say it exists based on their observations.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with wishful thinking!

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks, Tinker, for the quote from Russell. Thing is, how accurate is his assessment that the "essence' should be considered distinct from the existence of something. I don't think in terms of "essences" or substance metaphysics, to start with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God. For example, some had tried to attack on the grounds that a flying spaghetti monster must then exist. Sorry, again, won't work. You have to come up with a being who has maximal perfection,' arguments, etc., do not have that, only God does.

Ummm... who says that you can't? No one. If you can define things into being, then so can anyone.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, Eudaimonst, it is arguing that God by definition must exist. And that is a particularly strong argument, despite what you have to say. Matter of fact, variations of the ontological argument have been used by major philosophers such as Descartes. Even a major skeptic such as Bertrand Russell did say that it worked. So it is powerful. Also, note that the argument works only with God. It does not allow you to define anything else into existence.

Particularly strong? See previous references to the Realicorn for tests of its purported strength.

 

[Hoghead1]

It doesn't work that way, Archae. You need to set up a series of contrary adjectives, such as potential vs. real, cause vs. effect, etc., and then note how God, as the greatest of all beings, has to always take the superior pole. Hence, God has to be real. But no other imagined beings have to always take the more superior of the poles. Hence, when it comes to potential vs. actual, or nonexistence vs. existence, they do not have to be said to exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't work that way, Archae. You need to set up a series of contrary adjectives, such as potential vs. real, cause vs. effect, etc., and then note how God, as the greatest of all beings, has to always take the superior pole. Hence, God has to be real. But no other imagined beings have to always take the more superior of the poles. Hence, when it comes to potential vs. actual, or nonexistence vs. existence, they do not have to be said to exist.

The same can be said of a "maximally great" anything...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, Eudaimonst, it is arguing that God by definition must exist. And that is a particularly strong argument, despite what you have to say.

I'll grant that it might be convincing to someone if they have a metaphysics that supports the argument and is rationalistic enough to entertain such an argument without any evidence for support. However, this is a terrible apologetic for any modern who is sensitive to the fallacy of trying to simply define something into existence. It is the very worst of rationalistic philosophy.

Matter of fact, variations of the ontological argument have been used by major philosophers such as Descartes.

Argument from authority? Yes, he is a notable philosopher. No, he doesn't turn mud into pearls.

Also, note that the argument works only with God. It does not allow you to define anything else into existence.

I don't see that limitation at all in the argument. Considering how slippery the idea of something being "maximally great" is, it can be applied to far more than the idea of a "God".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God.

Yes I can, and in fact just did. Do you have anything other than special pleading to back up your claims that it is wrong to do so?

 

[variant]

Your imaginative inability or perhaps refusal to perceive mind at work in DNA, the nano-cellular machines , or the Fibonacci Sequence doesn't disprove that mind is clearly manifested in nature.

The fact that you can imagine what you present as evidence for a mind is not evidence of a mind.

The ability to conceive of something or evaluations of greatness of something don't act as evidence for things.

Beyond that though, given that you aren't even replying to the argument I presented or the nor are you supporting the original argument to which I was replying, I'm going to ignore you.