"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[variant]

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!

It's not dismissing something out of hand if you are doing so for the valid logical reason that it's definition of terms is incoherent.

(Both of you are using the colloquial "dismissing out of hand" incorrectly), which generally means "immediately, and without consideration"

 

[quatona]

Btw., you are tangling yourself up in your own sophstry and word trickery:
1. You asserted that (non-) existence is a property.
2. You asserted that non-existence is the only property of non-existing entities.
3. You asserted that greatness is a property.
And now you want me to compare a non-existing entity (which, according to you, has no other properties) by the criterium of the property "greatness" to another entity?

 

[Chesterton]

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.

I'm saying you don't need any "better" conception, you only need a conception.

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.

The "we're much smarter now" argument is lame.

 

[Chesterton]

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

I asked what I asked.

 

[variant]

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.

I retract this post given Guanilo of Marmoutiers a contemporary believer correctly criticized the argument for mixing the ideas of conceptions of things and their actual existence.

Now if some one should tell me that there is … an island [than which none greater can be conceived], I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty. But suppose that he went on to say, as if by a logical inference: "You can no longer doubt that this island which is more excellent than all lands exists somewhere, since you have no doubt that it is in your understanding. And since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist. For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it; and so the island understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent."

 

[Chesterton]

It's not dismissing something out of hand if you are doing so for the valid logical reason that it's definition of terms is incoherent.

(Both of you are using the colloquial "dismissing out of hand" incorrectly), which generally means "immediately, and without consideration"

I'm meaning you're avoiding the heart of the issue by saying it needs precise terms when it really doesn't. That's my contention anyway, if it does need them, explain why.

 

[quatona]

I asked what I asked.

And what you asked made no sense. When I have a conception it exists. When I don´t have a conception it doesn´t exist. I don´t know how to compare a conception I have to a conception I don´t have, in terms of greatness or any other criterium.

 

[variant]

I'm saying you don't need any "better" conception, you only need a conception.

You actually asked if it would be greater, of which better is a synonym.

The "we're much smarter now" argument is lame.

With 1000 years to consider the argument philosophers generally overwhelmingly consider Anselms lame.

 

[Chesterton]

Btw., you are tangling yourself up in your own sophstry and word trickery:
1. You asserted that (non-) existence is a property.
2. You asserted that non-existence is the only property of non-existing entities.
3. You asserted that greatness is a property.
And now you want me to compare a non-existing entity (which, according to you, has no other properties) by the criterium of the property "greatness" to another entity?

Where did I assert that non-existence is a property? Are you talking about the other thread where I indicated it was said half-jokingly as I said it?

 

[anonymous person]

It's not dismissing something out of hand if you are doing so for the valid logical reason that it's definition of terms is incoherent.

(Both of you are using the colloquial "dismissing out of hand" incorrectly), which generally means "immediately, and without consideration"

Exactly.

Atheists are all of a sudden clueless as to what the word "great" means.

That's ok though. We know you guys are just pulling our leg.

 

[variant]

I'm meaning you're avoiding the heart of the issue by saying it needs precise terms when it really doesn't. That's my contention anyway, if it does need them, explain why.

I am not saying it needs to be precise at all, I said it needs to make a clear enough distinction to tell it from something that is not it.

 

[variant]

Exactly.

Atheists are all of a sudden clueless as to what the word "great" means.

That's ok though. We know you guys are just pulling our leg.

We know what the word great means, it's just that we know all sorts of things you could mean by Great and thus the definition for the purposes of the argument doesn't work.

 

[Chesterton]

I retract this post given Guanilo of Marmoutiers a contemporary believer correctly criticized the argument for mixing the ideas of conceptions of things and their actual existence.

He incorrectly criticized the argument; any being would be greater than any island, unless you want to argue otherwise.

 

[variant]

He incorrectly criticized the argument; any being would be greater than any island, unless you want to argue otherwise.

No he correctly provided a counter example since his argument shows that the most excellent imaginable island must exist for the very same reason God must according to the original argument.

 

[Chesterton]

And what you asked made no sense. When I have a conception it exists. When I don´t have a conception it doesn´t exist. I don´t know how to compare a conception I have to a conception I don´t have, in terms of greatness or any other criterium.

You don't need to form a new conception you don't already have, you only need to conceive of that conception being real.

 

[quatona]

Where did I assert that non-existence is a property? Are you talking about the other thread where I indicated it was said half-jokingly as I said it?

Yes, probably I was taking you too seriously.

 

[anonymous person]

We know what the word great means, it's just that we know all sorts of things you could mean by Great and thus the definition for the purposes of the argument doesn't work.

No you all don't know what it means. Some of you claim the word is meaningless.

 

[quatona]

You don't need to form a new conception you don't already have, you only need to conceive of that conception being real.

What - in your terminology - is the apparently significant semantic difference between a conception "existing" and a conception "being real"?

 

[Chesterton]

No he correctly provided a counter example since his argument shows that the most excellent imaginable island must exist for the very same reason God must according to the original argument.

The argument includes the word "being". That is critical.

 

[variant]

No you all don't know what it means. Some of you claim the word is meaningless.

It is meaningless out of context.