Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
No, but it would be necessary to have a workable definition. A mere value statement is not a workable definition for the given purpose.[QUOTE="variant, post: 69072955, member: 114463]
Is it necessary to have an exact definition?
No. It´s still circled around a mere value judgement without any objective description.Wouldn't it work to say the "greatest being" possesses all the qualities of greatness known or conceived of?
Still the same problem of a lacking workable definition or description.That is to say, the greatest being combines (and exceeds) the greatness of mice, dragons, lakes, men and everything else?
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".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.
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...)
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?
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 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".
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.
Yes, as my conception. Your point being? Are you a polytheist, by any chance?If you can conceive of a greater being than the God of the bible existing, then your conception must exist, no?
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.
Yes, as my conception. Your point being? Are you a polytheist, by any chance?
The word "great" is meaningless to me.
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.
Would your conception be greater or lesser if it actually existed?
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!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.
We have already agreed that my conception actually exists. You must be asking about something else than my conception...like...an externally existing being?Would your conception be greater or lesser if it actually existed?
Maths and logic are indespensable to science (as in the indespensibility thesis), and a priori conceptions of god are indespensible to theology.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?