"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[anonymous person]

This thread is not about the ontological argument.




Except that "something that doesn´t exist" isn´t something, to begin with.




That´s me. I can conceive of greater beings than the ones described in the monotheists´ Holy Books.
According to the ontological argument, these beings a. exist, and b. aren´t the ones described in those books.

Non-sequitur.

 

[zippy2006]

This thread is not about the ontological argument.

The "greatest conceivable being" argument inevitably derives from Anselm's.

Except that "something that doesn´t exist" isn´t something, to begin with.

Sure it does, it exists as a concept in the mind, and is being compared to something which exists objectively outside of the mind.

That´s me. I can conceive of greater beings than the ones described in the monotheists´ Holy Books.

And what does this thread have to do with Holy Books?

According to the ontological argument, these beings a. exist, and b. aren´t the ones described in those books.

And you base this assertion on your own version of "greatness," which you have already claimed is entirely subjective?

 

[quatona]

Non-sequitur.

Feel free to point out the missing link in the argument.

 

[anonymous person]

Feel free to point out the missing link in the argument.

What argument? LOL

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I am imagining a being for whom 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are unnecessary.

There. I just conceived of a being greater than Yahweh.

 

[quatona]

The "greatest conceivable being" argument inevitably derives from Anselm's.

Sure, but this thread is not about this argument.

Sure it does, it exists as a concept in the mind, and is being compared to something which exists objectively outside of the mind.

So e.g. murder existing objectively outside the mind is greater than murder as a concept in the mind?

And what does this thread have to do with Holy Books?

Your God concept is independent of the God as depicted in the bible? Ok. My mistake.

And you base this assertion on your own version of "greatness," which you have already claimed is entirely subjective?

Sure - when you pointed me to "humans" as the determining entities for "greatness" you left me no other option.

 

[anonymous person]

I am imagining a being for whom 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are unnecessary.

There. I just conceived of a being greater than Yahweh.

Where did you get the idea that 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are necessary for Yahweh?

Necessary for?

 

[quatona]

What argument? LOL

When there´s no argument, there can´t be a non-sequitur. So when you called me upon a non-sequitur, you were implying there was an argument.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, but this thread is not about this argument.




So e.g. murder existing objectively outside the mind is greater than murder as a concept in the mind?




Your God concept is independent of the God as depicted in the bible? Ok. My mistake.




Sure - when you pointed me to "humans" as the determining entities for "greatness" you left me no other option.

Murder is not a being. It is an act.

Stop with the nonsense already.

 

[anonymous person]

When there´s no argument, there can´t be a non-sequitur. So when you called me upon a non-sequitur, you were implying there was an argument.

Not at all. I was implying that you have no argument because of the logical fallacy in your reasoning. Get it now?

 

[quatona]

Where did you get the idea that 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are necessary for Yahweh?

Nothing. The point, however: I can conceive of a greater being than Yahweh, so Yahweh - according to your definition - can´t be God.[/QUOTE]

 

[quatona]

Murder is not a being. It is an act.

Then replace "murder" by "murderer".

Stop with the nonsense already.

It´s just the nonsense of the ontological argument kicking you in the back.

 

[quatona]

Not at all. I was implying that you have no argument because of the logical fallacy in your reasoning. Get it now?

Feel free to point out the non-sequitur (missing logical link) in my reasoning.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, but this thread is not about this argument.

Then what argument is it about? You did not provide any argument in the OP.

So e.g. murder existing objectively outside the mind is greater than murder as a concept in the mind?

Yes, insofar as it has existence. But murder is an act, not a substance. "Greatest" is not a moral category.

Your God concept is independent of the God as depicted in the bible? Ok. My mistake.

I didn't say that at all. I never noticed how childishly you behave. Has something changed?

Sure - when you pointed me to "humans" as the determining entities for "greatness" you left me no other option.

So "greatness" is a sound concept when you require it and nonsensical when you don't? How do you feel about the term, "consistency"?

Feel free to point out the missing link in the argument.

"Non sequitur" does not mean that there is a missing link in an argument, it means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises and syllogisms.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Where did you get the idea that 'greatest conceivable being'-apologetics are necessary for Yahweh?

The fact that they exist.

My being is so blatantly, unequivocally, axiomatically 'great', all apologetics are a meaningless non-concept. No argument regarding his existence or nature has ever even been imagined, because there was never a need.

Clearly though, there is a need for Yahweh-apologetics, or they wouldn't exist.

 

[quatona]

Then what argument is it about? You did not provide any argument in the OP.

Well. you were the one to start talking about the ontological argument, all of a sudden.

I didn't say that at all.

So then you can answer your own question "What does it have to do with Holy Books?".

So "greatness" is a sound concept when you require it and nonsensical when you don't?

I don´t recall questioning that "greatness" was a "sound concept".

"Non sequitur" does not mean that there is a missing link in an argument, it means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises and syllogisms.

Which is practically the same.
So since a poster called a non-sequitur, apparently he
a. felt I worked from premises and
b. felt that I arrived at a conclusion and
c. felt that the conclusion follow from the premises.
In short, he felt I made an argument (in syllogistic form).
When I asked him to point out the error in the argument, strangely enough, he then proceeded to tell me I hand´t made an argument, in the first place.

 

[zippy2006]

Then what argument is it about? You did not provide any argument in the OP.

Well. you started to talk about the ontological argument, all of a sudden.

I know of no other. You didn't answer my question. What argument is the thread about? You did not provide any argument in the OP, nor did you link the post you referred to in the OP. (After reading through more of the thread, I can see that a large number of people, atheists included, have been assuming that the topic is Anselm's argument.)

So then you can answer your own question "What does it have to do with Holy Books?".

This thread is not about holy books, it is about an argument for the existence of God. If you want to talk about holy books you could start a new thread.

I don´t recall questioning that "greatness" was a "sound concept".

Allow me to refresh your memory, from the original post:

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".

Which is practically the same.
So since a poster called a non-sequitur, apparently he
a. felt I worked from premises and
b. felt that I arrived at a conclusion and
c. felt that the conclusion follow from the premises.
In short, he felt I made an argument (in syllogistic form).
When I asked him to point out the error in the argument, strangely enough, he then proceeded to tell me I hand´t made an argument, in the first place.

He felt that your conclusion didn't follow from the rest of what you said. If what you said was not thought to be a coherent argument, then the conclusion would naturally not follow. Whether he was correct or not, I'm not sure.

 

[Chesterton]

You forgot what you had asked a couple of minutes ago?

My apologies, I thought I might have asked more than one question.

(post #73),
and funnily enough - when I first called you upon the semantics problem in your question - you answered "I asked what I asked" in post #84 - immediately before you suddenly forgot what you had asked.

There's no trickery involved. Except possibly on your part for making me have to guess what question you want me to ask you. But I'll try:

Would the greatest conceivable being be greater or lesser if it actually existed?

I don't know if that's the re-wording you want, but it sort of amounts to the same thing, and it's a rhetorical question anyway, not really needing an answer unless you have some very innovative spin to put on it.

 

[quatona]

I know of no other. You didn't answer my question. What argument is the thread about? You did not provide any argument in the OP, nor did you link the post you referred to in the OP. (After reading through more of the thread, I can see that a large number of people, atheists included, have been assuming that the topic is Anselm's argument.)

Well, I suggest you just read the OP. If there´s anything unclear, feel free to ask.

This thread is not about holy books, it is about an argument for the existence of God.

No, it isn´t.

If you want to talk about holy books you could start a new thread.

Holy books are closely related to the topic of Gods and religions. This thread is not about holy books, but this doesn´t mean they may not be mentioned.

He felt that your conclusion didn't follow from the rest of what you said. If what you said was not thought to be a coherent argument, then the conclusion would naturally not follow.

Exactly, and I was asking which argument he felt I made, what he felt the conclusion was, and where there´s a logical gap in the argument.

 

[quatona]

Would the greatest conceivable being be greater or lesser if it actually existed?

For a being to be anything it must exist, in the first place. So this question makes no sense at all.