"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[Breckmin]

This is begging the question

So you are asserting that "nothing" caused a particular things "nature" to have such ability/ies?
Can you give a specific example of something to demonstrate that it is begging the question?

 

[KCfromNC]

This whole "things have a nature" language seems strange to be. Can you explain in detail how, say, a car's car-like nature is caused by whatever it is that causes it? That might help us understand what you're looking for when you ask the same question about biological machines.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you are asserting that "nothing" caused a particular things "nature" to have such ability/ies?
Can you give a specific example of something to demonstrate that it is begging the question?

Water.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

ETA: The author of said thread emphasizes that he didn´t ask for a refutation of "God exists" but merely the "most persuasive argument" against it. Even though I do not see how this is of any relevance for the topic of this thread, I agree with him: There´s a difference between "refutation" and "most persuasive argument against". I apologize for my paraphrasing and hope that no major damage has been done.

The greatest conceivable being to exist is only a concept; it cannot exist in reality any more than the greatest conceivable number could exist in reality. With numbers you can always add 1. With beings there is always room for subjective improvement.

Ken

 

[ScottA]

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.

ETA: The author of said thread emphasizes that he didn´t ask for a refutation of "God exists" but merely the "most persuasive argument" against it. Even though I do not see how this is of any relevance for the topic of this thread, I agree with him: There´s a difference between "refutation" and "most persuasive argument against". I apologize for my paraphrasing and hope that no major damage has been done.

The irony of this subject...is that those who do not accept the idea of a higher being (as in God), are prone to evolution...just nothing higher than themselves.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The irony of this subject...is that those who do not accept the idea of a higher being (as in God), are prone to evolution...just nothing higher than themselves.

I can't imagine what you are talking about. "Higher" in what sense? I would love for SETI to discover evidence of an intelligent race more advanced than we are.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

The irony of this subject...is that those who do not accept the idea of a higher being (as in God), are prone to evolution...just nothing higher than themselves.

I'm an atheist who watches basketball, so I'm aware of beings higher than myself. Although in English we typically call them taller.

 

[quatona]

The irony of this subject...is that those who do not accept the idea of a higher being (as in God), are prone to evolution...just nothing higher than themselves.

Do you have anything to contribute in regards to the topic?

 

[ScottA]

I can't imagine what you are talking about. "Higher" in what sense? I would love for SETI to discover evidence of an intelligent race more advanced than we are.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not being able to imagine it is the irony.

 

[ScottA]

Do you have anything to contribute in regards to the topic?

I took the poster you quoted in your OP as suggesting that it is reasonable to consider a higher life being, that is if one has the imagination ("conceivably") for it. So...is the door open to the possibility, or not? So far, I count two, possibly three, closed doors.

 

[variant]

Clearly if you have something temporal or finite then you can't have an infinite regress.... such is a logical absurdity
You would have to have something infinite to begin the first movement or change in the universe. My take on the
Kalam is different from Craig's because I believe that the universe is infinite (and becomes effectual with such
finite existence, movement or change). I don't believe that 3 dimensional existence needed to be created exactly.
I don't argue that the universe "began" to exist the way in which Craig does.

Well I'm not arguing against ideas that you haven't shared but rather the cosmological argument in general.

Perhaps this is the error, then. The argument is not simply an argument made in concision... the justification is the logic that you can't have infinite regress... and if you understand supratemporal and omnitemporal assertions in theology...then you don't 'have' infinite regress with the Infinite Creator either. There is no eternity past...because duration becoming effectual... (actually logically) has a beginning.

If we leave out all of the parentheticals... then perhaps you could isolate and not see the difference between
the Infinite Creator (God) and the temporal...

I understand that they are theological assertions, which means they are basically just definitions of God from theology (which basically assumes God exists).

If we are talking about an argument that wishes to establish that God must exist we can not use simple assertions about God's nature (and assertions about the nature of all other things) that assumes it exists.

In this case the definition of category summarized as: "God is not like other things" is unsupported. We don't know that ALL other things that can be said to exist like God can be said to exist in this argument, require a cause.

We can accept the definition of God only as far as we can support it, or, we can accept it conditionally as long as the argument doesn't depend on it as it's own support.

However, we can not say that God belongs in a special catagory in order to establish that it breaks a rule we wish to establish for everything else, that is what we call special pleading.

I do take issue with your use of terms such as "rule" and particularly the word "special" as though we are
involved in similar categories. The logic that you can't have an infinite regress of causes is a conclusion...
especially in how it applies to the temporal. Not having an infinite regress with the Creator because you
have a different schema before time/space become effectual doesn't violate any "rule." I believe it is
over-simplistic to claim that God is somehow an "exception" to the rule when in fact there is NO
exception to the rule other than "requiring a cause."

The rule exists because of how the argument is structured.

From Craig the category "things" (broadly that which exists) can be broken down into those things that begin to exist and those that do not.

So, if this is false the argument is simply false and it is not a good description of the categories involved in causation. If it is true, to justify God we have to justify why God fits into the catagory where it doesn't begin to exist and ALL other things do not.

Craig is saying that the universe (all things) began to exist and therefore require an external cause, he carves out one exception.

This is the crux of the argument, and simply saying God is in this catagory assumes that it exists yet doesn't begin to exist, the argument becomes circular. Defining God as the exception of a rule that applies to all other "things" makes it a special pleading argument, as God is the only "thing" that can be said to exist and yet fall into the catagory of "does not begin to exist" that the argument allows.

Infinite regress is one subject... "requiring a cause" is a different distinction.

I find it to be a distinction without much of a difference other than a semantic one.

God is not an effect
but is rather an uncaused Being Who is infinite/eternal and begins all causes/movement/change.
Such is logical to remove infinite regress... just as it is logical to HAVE "being" itself...for something
to begin all other "being." Something must possess the power of being...or there would be nothing.

That's not a special pleading fallacy... that's basic logic.

Question everything.

When you can come up with some good justifications for why God and only God doesn't require infinite regress to exist then you'll have a good argument, otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion which takes the form of special pleading.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't at all accurate, ScottA. I and many others believe that evolution would be impossible without God. There is considerable literature on this point. I encourage you to read it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not being able to imagine it is the irony.

Read the entire paragraph in context. The last two sentences explain the point of the first sentence. I was saying that atheists have no problem contemplating entities "higher" than themselves. You are the one who has a failure of imagination to think otherwise.

And you didn't answer my question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Breckmin]

Water.

So you are asserting that water has no precursor? To cause hydrogen and
oxygen to form it? Water just caused itself?

 

[Breckmin]

The greatest conceivable being to exist is only a concept; it cannot exist in reality any more than the greatest conceivable number could exist in reality. With numbers you can always add 1. With beings there is always room for subjective improvement.

Ken

Specific numbers are finite.

God is infinite.

 

[Breckmin]

If God doesn't participate in the universe then it can't begin one.... The entire argument presupposes that God participates in the universe so you can't really get around that.

Here you have equivocated to God acting in the universe...or God creating the universe FROM the concept of
God just being a fellow participant "in" the universe...or within the universe like some finite being.

God participating by acting in His universe is NOT the same thing as God being a fellow participant in the universe.

 

[Breckmin]

I understand that they are theological assertions, which means they are basically just definitions of God from theology (which basically assumes God exists).

God isn't assumed in theology.

God is CONCLUDED through cumulative case. If you miss this, then you miss how we know there is a Creator.

• cumulative case argument for "how we KNOW that there is a Creator." (first 10 steps moving toward the conclusion of the God of Abraham)
  
  1. concluding the difference between non-contingent Self-existence and Aseity verses finite gods, fairies and stupid stuff. Concluding that there is a first a "difference" between logical candidate Creators (Higher Power, deistic type Creator, infinite force, Infinite Creator) and unicorns, invisible dragons, mythological gods and flying spaghetti monsters.
  
  2. concluding that just because people have different beliefs "about" the Creator and some people have worshiped myths does NOT mean that the Creator has to be a myth. (especially if there is a cumulative case for "a" Creator based on evidence given and reason which separates it from mythology).
  
  3. concluding that "lack of belief in God or gods" is superior to the foolish belief "that there IS no God" Explicit atheism to Implicit atheism. Many here still argue for explicit with no evidence for it... and the lack of understanding that you would have to be omniscient about points one and two in order to make a valid positive claim that there is no Creator.
  
  4. Concluding that you should not start with circular assumptions about the empirical/natural world. Removing circular assumptions and positive claims of materialism and being open minded about the possibility of creation or even a divine sustaining power behind the natural order (which could be concluded through cumulative case).
  
  5. Concluding that you might be able to make a valid conclusion of a Creator. Recognizing that a classical agnostic position of "I don't know yet" is superior to "I can't know" which is a positive claim which is excluding possible evidence.
  
  6. Concluding that you should allow the identification of features in ALL known systems which require known causes which are not present within such system(s). Concluding that you should not have a bias against the best logical explanation for identifying features.
  
  7. Concluding that you should logically remove the bias of methodological naturalism and requiring explanations to fit circular assumptions. Concluding that you could be excluding the best most logical conclusion/explanation by wrongfully requiring natural explanations for features which do not and should not require it.
  
  8. Concluding that there are features in biological systems which clearly come from Intelligence. Concluding that there is indeed EVIDENCE of Intelligent coding, Intelligent engineering and Intelligent designing in biological systems. Evidence:
  
  Exhibit A. Information in biological systems
  Exhibit B. Molecular and protein machines
  Exhibit C. Cellular Metabolism as a whole and protein synthesis
  Exhibit D. IF-THEN algorithmic programming
  
  Concluding that identification of features which come from Intelligence is clearly a different scientific premise from later possible or probably conclusions of theism.
  
  9. Concluding that science should be an observation of the facts and a search for the truth and not exclude implications of a Creator. Concluding that theistic implications should be allowed in science. Concluding that a Creator of the all that is within the universe should be allowed as a logical Candidate for such "Intelligence." (in point 8)
  
  10. Concluding that the universe contains features (including features in biological systems) which are best explained by a Creator. Concluding that there are too many features in the universe to deny the logic of some sort of Infinite force; some sort of Higher Power; some sort of Cosmic Designer; or some sort of possible Infinite Creator that best explains the universes origin and first cause. Concluding that because of earth's special location in the galaxy and because of the all the forces which would need to be fine tuned in order to have conscious observers... that the best and only logical conclusion is that there is indeed some sort of Higher Power and First Cause which is required to explain the origin of the universe. Concluding that you CAN indeed know that there is INDEED a Creator... because it is the only logical conclusion to explain both features in biological systems which come from Intelligence and features in the universe which demonstrate the need for cosmic purpose, order and intentionality.
  
  This is the cumulative case argument for the first conclusion of "General agnostic undecided theism." This cumulative case argument only applies to logical candidate Creator concepts for explaining the origin of the universe.
  
  It does NOT provide a cumulative case argument for fairies, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters.... It only provides a cumulative case argument for logical candidate creators of general theism.

steps 11 - 20 connect agnostic theism to the God of Abraham in conclusions.

 

[Breckmin]

In this case the definition of category summarized as: "God is not like other things" is unsupported.

If you believe that God "can be" like any other thing.... then you are NOT discussing God.

To compare God to a "thing" is a category error.

Here is a video which will help you:

 

[Ken-1122]

Specific numbers are finite.

God is infinite.

Everything is finite; infinite is only a concept; it doesn't exist.

Ken

 

[variant]

Here you have equivocated to God acting in the universe...or God creating the universe FROM the concept of
God just being a fellow participant "in" the universe...or within the universe like some finite being.

God participating by acting in His universe is NOT the same thing as God being a fellow participant in the universe.

A God must participate in the universe it creates. Aside from that fact the criticism of me by you on this issue is irrelevant.

If the we use the definition of the "universe" as all things that exist then God (if it exists) is a part of the set.