-
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.
"The Greatest Conceivable Being"
- Thread starter quatona
- Start date
Well, when you first mentioned it you wrote: "Summum bonum, that's what the scholastics may have called it."
Since you didn´t explain what the "it" referred to, I was naturally assuming it referred to the subject of this thread.
Upvote
0
No. Please go here:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...xistence-of-god.7920806/page-82#post-69064393
Thank you!
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
Falsifiability. That's empiricism, science etc. The ontological arguments are a priori - i.e. rationalistic.
Maybe theres another "pairing" or twin.
Maths and logic are indespensable to science (as in the indespensibility thesis), and a priori conceptions of god are indespensible to theology.
Maybe theres another "pairing" or twin.
Maths and logic are indespensable to science (as in the indespensibility thesis), and a priori conceptions of god are indespensible to theology.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Accepting that premise for a moment, now, how would I go about the request of a person falsify the claim that "God (The GreatestConceivableBeing" exists?
That´s actually the very irony of the entire thread: A person makes an unfalsifiable claim and asks for attempts to falsify it.
And make no mistake, logic (or at least it´s acknowledgement and the more or less successful attempt to employ it) is very much incespensable to theology. Theology is the very permanent attempt to make religious a priori conceptions appear logical. Plus, your apologists never get tired of pointing out illogicalities whenever they feel they spot them in the arguments presented against their ideas.
Upvote
0
Wikipedia:
Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas, but can also mean the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary, or school of divinity
Upvote
0
Rationalist ideas would still only be valid if they are falsifiable. You need to be able to conceive of how you could be wrong in order to know how it is correct on pretty much everything that isn't a priori truth (and I would even argue that such truths contain the same test given that a priori truths are accepted because the alternative is a reduction to the absurd).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
If you wanted to discuss politics, how would a formal definition get you anywhere? The reality is far too complex to be wrapped up in a formal definition.
Upvote
0
It should have read "the existence of something".
But please enlighten us. That´s what this thread is for: How do I go about obliging to the request to make an attempt at disproving the existence of something that isn´t properly defined?
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I didn't make the request, but the answer is probably that you can't. None of the monotheistic religions has a formal definition, perhaps because formal definitions belong to the realm of abstract logic.
You could maybe define an internal combustion engine as a device for converting chemical energy into mechanical energy, but that wouldn't tell you over much about an internal combustion engine.
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.
Upvote
0
And therein lies the very absurdity (or should I say "dishonesty"?) of the request. It asks for abstract logic but refuses to provide the prerequisites for it.
Upvote
0
When discussing politics it is helpful that all the terms you are using are clearly defined, for instance, one party could call another "liberal" or a "fascist" and, as long as those terms aren't clearly defined the discussion will be inherently useless.
If you don't clearly define your terms, discussions can be basically just talking past each other if your terms differ significantly, with "God" we know that we are always talking past each other because the term isn't capable of being well defined.
And no, the Bible doesn't clearly define a christian conception of God for purposes like having a discussion about God in the philosophical context of argueing that such a being does indeed exist.
Upvote
0
If God were known a priori there wouldn't be atheists.
All a prori concepts are only accepted because the alternative is a reduction to the absurd, an a priroi concept is something you don't know through experience but you do indeed know.
If you want to claim to know God a priori you have to reduce the idea of not God to the absurd.
So, if you don't understand, I am arguing that rationalist ideas do indeed require an idea be falsifiable, in that you need to know what a negative result looks like when you are claiming to KNOW something through it's process.
Since God and not God look entirely alike rationally or empirically, there is no falcifiability and thus no knowledge.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"Greatest conceivable being" was originally devised as a method of importing the idea of existence into the basic idea of God itself.
Since existing things are greater than non existing things the greatest conceivable being must exist.
However, again since mice exist and dragons do not then mice are greater than dragons.
So we evauate the next two sentances:
Mice are greater than dragons. (true)
Mice are greater than Gods. (?)
And now you know why the argument doesn't work, we can't tell if mice or Gods are greater conceptions given the implied definition that always pops up in these arguments.
This is why as the OP argued, the definition of Great is the sticking point.
While there should definitely always be a greatest being that exists (if the definition of great is coherent)(and there are a finite number of beings), there is no way to tell if such a being is a God.
Being asked to disprove that a greatest being exists without a definition of great is incoherent, but also impossible because there will always be a greatest being if you have a coherent definition of great. The key then is to argue that there is no validity to a definition that reads as the following:
God is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
It simply does not define anything if greatest isn't defined, and is likely to define something other than God if it is.
A purposefully indefinite definition, for the purpose of obfuscation, kind of the opposite of what it is pretending to do.
Since existing things are greater than non existing things the greatest conceivable being must exist.
However, again since mice exist and dragons do not then mice are greater than dragons.
So we evauate the next two sentances:
Mice are greater than dragons. (true)
Mice are greater than Gods. (?)
And now you know why the argument doesn't work, we can't tell if mice or Gods are greater conceptions given the implied definition that always pops up in these arguments.
This is why as the OP argued, the definition of Great is the sticking point.
While there should definitely always be a greatest being that exists (if the definition of great is coherent)(and there are a finite number of beings), there is no way to tell if such a being is a God.
Being asked to disprove that a greatest being exists without a definition of great is incoherent, but also impossible because there will always be a greatest being if you have a coherent definition of great. The key then is to argue that there is no validity to a definition that reads as the following:
God is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
It simply does not define anything if greatest isn't defined, and is likely to define something other than God if it is.
A purposefully indefinite definition, for the purpose of obfuscation, kind of the opposite of what it is pretending to do.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've never liked this argument for god, the biggest flaw I find is, it tries to assume that certain things are instrinsic. Like goodness, and such, but probably is many of these things are value judgements, preferences. What makes the greatest good, better then the greatest evil? We prefer it, but even assuming good/evil can be instrinsic properties of objects *I don't think they can be* then what defines good better then evil objectivly? It requires a value judgement, someone to prefer one over the other, it can't be nature I don't think because you fall into the same problem what would give the greatest possible being the greatest good over greatest evil or anything like that, it just sounds too much like trying to argue something into existance, eitehr god exists, or he doesn't, you can't create faulty logic then make him real.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
