"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

This has nothing to do with Anselm's argument or my previous post. We were talking about the use of the word "greatest".

But since you're changing the subject, I've always said that if there's a god that can be described as "good" or "loving", it's by using definitions of those words that do not correspond to the definitions I use.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

The word "great" is meaningless to me.

 

[Chesterton]

The word "great" is meaningless to me.

I have doubts about that but I'll take your word for it. Fair enough.

 

[quatona]

[QUOTE="variant, post: 69072955, member: 114463]

Is it necessary to have an exact definition?

No, but it would be necessary to have a workable definition. A mere value statement is not a workable definition for the given purpose.

Wouldn't it work to say the "greatest being" possesses all the qualities of greatness known or conceived of?

No. It´s still circled around a mere value judgement without any objective description.

That is to say, the greatest being combines (and exceeds) the greatness of mice, dragons, lakes, men and everything else?

Still the same problem of a lacking workable definition or description.

 

[quatona]

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.

I can conceive of a greater being than the god as described in the bible. According to your line of reasoning, we consequently have to look elsewhere for this "Greater Conceivable Being".

 

[variant]

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...)

I agree, that definition of necessity would mean if God were necessary all things would be God, which isn't the definition of necessary even for modal arguments.

For something to be necessary in the modal sense it generally means that it must exist in all possible worlds.

 

[variant]

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?

Exact definitions are probably impossible. You would have to be more specific as possessing all conceptions of greatness is not possible for contradictory definitions of greatness. Since one can conceive of contradictory ideals of greatness, such a definition would break down.

A workable definition would be what is required for a discussion, meaning, a definition that would allow you to evaluate if something you were observing or reasoning about were or were not God.

Definitions first and foremost need to draw clear distinctions between what they are referring to and something else.

 

[Davian]

 

[Chesterton]

No, but it would be necessary to have a workable definition. A mere value statement is not a workable definition for the given purpose.

No. It´s still circled around a mere value judgement without any objective description.

Still the same problem of a lacking workable definition or description.

I disagree that a specific definition is necessary to consider the ontological argument.

I can conceive of a greater being than the god as described in the bible. According to your line of reasoning, we consequently have to look elsewhere for this "Greater Conceivable Being".

If you can conceive of a greater being than the God of the bible existing, then your conception must exist, no?

 

[Chesterton]

Exact definitions are probably impossible. You would have to be more specific as possessing all conceptions of greatness is not possible for contradictory definitions of greatness. Since one can conceive of contradictory ideals of greatness, such a definition would break down.

A workable definition would be what is required for a discussion, meaning, a definition that would allow you to evaluate if something you were observing or reasoning about were or were not God.

Definitions first and foremost need to draw clear distinctions between what they are referring to and something else.

I honestly don't see that a definition is necessary to consider the argument. If it were, the argument would have never gained any traction at all because neither Anselm or that Arab guy could define God.

 

[quatona]

If you can conceive of a greater being than the God of the bible existing, then your conception must exist, no?

Yes, as my conception. Your point being? Are you a polytheist, by any chance?

 

[variant]

I honestly don't see that a definition is necessary to consider the argument. If it were, the argument would have never gained any traction at all because neither Anselm or that Arab guy could define God.

You can talk about things you can't really grasp or define all day, it just means you are spouting nonsense.

People have a vague impression of what they are talking about when they speak about God, but that simply isn't good enough if you want to actually discuss the idea on a rational level.

Anselm doesn't do a particularly good job at defining God coherently (he does make an attempt), but 1000 years ago critiquing positions like his with skepticism would get you killed.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, as my conception. Your point being? Are you a polytheist, by any chance?

Would your conception be greater or lesser if it actually existed?

 

[anonymous person]

The word "great" is meaningless to me.

ROFL!

You've effectively removed yourself from this conversation.

 

[Chesterton]

You can talk about things you can't really grasp or define all day, it just means you are spouting nonsense.

People have a vague impression of what they are talking about when they speak about God, but that simply isn't good enough if you want to actually discuss the idea on a rational level.

Anselm doesn't do a particularly good job at defining God coherently (he does make an attempt), but 1000 years ago critiquing positions like his with skepticism would get you killed.

No, that alone certainly would not get you killed. The argument is a logic proposition, saying that it's terms are nonsense is just a quick way of dismissing it out of hand.

 

[variant]

Would your conception be greater or lesser if it actually existed?

It would be a better conception if it actually existed but we have no reason to think that Quatona is a particularly great at describing real Gods.

There is in fact nothing to tell us which is the greatest conception that fundamentally correctly describes the being it describes.

You would have to evaluate what is the greatest descriptive conception of a real being by having evidence of that real being to compare it to, not just trying to poof God into existence with logical tricks.

 

[variant]

No, that alone certainly would not get you killed. The argument is a logic proposition, saying that it's terms are nonsense is just a quick way of dismissing it out of hand.

And yet people did not, you asked why.

The literacy was generally low then too and most people who could read were not just believers, but ardent ones.

I am simply saying that the argument gets far because believers give it more credence than it deserves.

We're still actually talking about it because there are believers that don't seem to understand the fundamental flaws in it.

 

[anonymous person]

No, that alone certainly would not get you killed. The argument is a logic proposition, saying that it's terms are nonsense is just a quick way of dismissing it out of hand.

This dismissing out of hand of material is a common course of action among some. Ironically, some of the very people that do this, don't hesitate to get onto people who they think dismiss material out of hand!

 

[quatona]

Would your conception be greater or lesser if it actually existed?

We have already agreed that my conception actually exists. You must be asking about something else than my conception...like...an externally existing being?

 

[The Cadet]

Maths and logic are indespensable to science (as in the indespensibility thesis), and a priori conceptions of god are indespensible to theology.

Okay. Now here's why we credit Maths and logic, but don't credit a priori conceptions of god: science works (it produces verifiable positive results). Does theology "work"? Do we have any way of telling?

You could perhaps define the Judeo-Christian God as being that omnipotent and omniscient being who created the universe, but that wouldn't tell you over much about God.

Exactly. And that's the problem. These logical arguments are built around a specific god. They only work to establish certain characteristics. The first causes argument, if it worked, would only establish that a something existed that was uncaused. The ontologic argument, if it worked, would only establish that a something existed that was the "greatest conceivable", whatever that's supposed to mean. And so on and so forth. But these beings are fundamentally ill-defined, and there is no logical pathway from "a greatest conceivable being" or "a prime mover" to "the god of the bible".

This is a fairly consistent problem. The more well-defined a god is, the more impossible it becomes to support those attributes through logical arguments. The less well-defined a god is, the easier it is to support through logic, but the less meaning it has.