"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[quatona]

We don't fully understand quantum mechanics either.

Yeah, but if quantum mechanics were defined as the "greatest conceivable theory", we wouldn´t be able to even trying to understand it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So we would be incorrect to say that the population of China is greater than that of Mexico?

Given the context of the sentence, the word "greater" means "more numerous". This is an objective meaning for the word "greater", although "more numerous" is more descriptive.

Or that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

Given the context of the sentence, the word "greater" means "better". This is a completely subjective meaning for the word "greater", as there's no measure by which we can establish something to be better. There are countless examples of things whose parts are "greater" than the whole, depending on how you interpret "greater".

So, by your own examples, you're showing that the word "greater" can be thought of as wholly subjective without a supporting context. Like with the phrase "the greatest conceivable being"...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ooh, nice. A piece of non-existent music as the greatest conceivable. You've certainly thrown a loop into the thread.

As was my intention.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Clearly the greatest conceivable being is one that could create the universe without the benefit of existing, so ...

 

[quatona]

4'33" by John Cage, obviously...

No, it´s too short for being the greatest conceivable piece of music. It would have to be of infinite duration.

 

[anonymous person]

Given the context of the sentence, the word "greater" means "more numerous". This is an objective meaning for the word "greater", although "more numerous" is more descriptive.



Given the context of the sentence, the word "greater" means "better". This is a completely subjective meaning for the word "greater", as there's no measure by which we can establish something to be better. There are countless examples of things whose parts are "greater" than the whole, depending on how you interpret "greater".

So, by your own examples, you're showing that the word "greater" can be thought of as wholly subjective without a supporting context. Like with the phrase "the greatest conceivable being"...

Whether or not the word "greater" is a synonym for "more numerous", my point still stands. The word can and is used to communicate objective truths.

Additionally, why think that just because a proposition is a statement of how someone views something in comparison with something else, that therefore the proposition cannot be said to speak of objective truths?

"I am more tired than I was this morning" is a proposition that is both an expression of how I feel now compared to how I felt this morning and it at the same time conveys an objective truth.

It seems to me that you would argue that it is not objectively true that I am more tired than I was this morning because there is no "measure" by which to establish this.

This seems an odd view to take. Why do you hold to it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The words can refer to opinions. They can be used to convey facts too.

Whether or not the word "greater" is a synonym for "more numerous", my point still stands. The word can and is used to communicate objective truths.

Are you committed to arguing that Yahweh is "factually" greater than any other being that could be conceived? What criteria are you using to determine this "greatness"? Your previous examples have clear criteria by which to assess greatness. What's your criteria for assessing the "greatness" of conceivable beings?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Whether or not the word "greater" is a synonym for "more numerous", my point still stands. The word can and is used to communicate objective truths.

Your point is... pointless... since the word "greatest" in the phrase "greatest conceivable being" requires an objective definition in order for it to be able to be corroborated, which it does not have. There's no criteria implied by the phrase to apply to the word "greatest".

Additionally, why think that just because a proposition is a statement of how someone views something in comparison with something else, that therefore the proposition cannot be said to speak of objective truths?

I didn't say that at all. You don't seem to be following what's being discussed. As you'll recall in your population example, since the word "greatest" can be tied to "more numerous", you have an objective measure for the word (population in numerical form), and the comparison is objective.

In your second example, without a criteria or measure to apply to "greatest", it becomes subjective, as does the comparison. It cannot be corroborated.

This is exceedingly simple to understand. Please let me know how I can get you to understand it as well.

"I am more tired than I was this morning" is a proposition that is both an expression of how I feel now compared to how I felt this morning and it at the same time conveys an objective truth.

If you're applying a criteria to the phrase "more tired" in your sentence, it's objective to you. If you're not, it's subjective to you. It's not both, because that would be a contradiction.

But since we're not discussing personal statements that can't be corroborated, we should probably not stray from the OP.

What's your criteria for the word "greatest" in the phrase "greatest conceivable being"?

 

[anonymous person]

Are you committed to arguing that Yahweh is "factually" greater than any other being that could be conceived? What criteria are you using to determine this "greatness"? Your previous examples have clear criteria by which to assess greatness. What's your criteria for assessing the "greatness" of conceivable beings?

Intuition, scripture, and revelation are three off the top of my head.

Certain things seem intuitively true.

For example, it is intuitively true that it is greater to exist than not, to exist necessarily as opposed to contingently, to be everywhere present as opposed to not being everywhere present, to be morally perfect as opposed to not.

It is greater to harbor a desire to love one's neighbor instead of harboring a desire to hate them. It is greater to give than to receive. Mother Teresa was more moral than Adolph Hitler.

All of these propositions seem intuitively true. IOW, I don't need arguments or evidence to recognize they are true. When I see them, and when I know what the words mean, I know they are true the same way when I know what two is and what four is, I know that two added to two is four.

Scripture tells us a lot about what is great, what is not great. What is Holy, what is profane. What is good and what is bad.

Revelation confirms the aforementioned.

 

[anonymous person]

What's your criteria for the word "greatest" in the phrase "greatest conceivable being"?

I use intuition, scripture, and revelation. Those are three that I can think of right off the top of my head.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I use intuition, scripture, and revelation. Those are three that I can think of right off the top of my head.

So, subjective methods...

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Intuition, scripture, and revelation are three off the top of my head.

Certain things seem intuitively true.

Intuition would seem to be a poor guide in this regard, wouldn't it? In my view, Yahweh is far from the "greatest" deity one could imagine. You disagree, but perhaps that's because your intuitions regarding "greatness" are shaped by your pre-existing theological commitments?

For example, it is intuitively true that it is greater to exist than not, to exist necessarily as opposed to contingently, to be everywhere present as opposed to not being everywhere present, to be morally perfect as opposed to not.

Regarding existence as a property, please see the recent discussion on this. Regarding moral perfection, you have already disqualified Yahweh from the "greatest" category, solely by intuition.

All of these propositions seem intuitively true. IOW, I don't need arguments or evidence to recognize they are true. When I see them, and when I know what the words mean, I know they are true the same way when I know what two is and what four is, I know that two added to two is four.

Propositions that seem intuitively rational can nonetheless be wrong. Remember, you are claiming "greatness" in this instance is something "factual." So what objective criteria are you using to establish these "facts"?

Scripture tells us a lot about what is great, what is not great. What is Holy, what is profane. What is good and what is bad.

Why should we use scripture as our standard? That seems to introduce bias into our analysis: after all, the Bible is obviously going to claim that the Biblical God is "greater" than all others.

 

[quatona]

I guess once "intuition" has been declared the preferred method, the best I can do is argue from my intuition. That would make things much easier for me.
That´s kind of funny, since when it comes to discussing arguments against his intuitively gained convictions, ap regularly applies quite different standards and criteria.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I guess once "intuition" has been declared the preferred method, the best I can do is argue from my intuition. That would make things much easier for me.
That´s kind of funny, since when it comes to discussing arguments against his intuitively gained convictions, ap regularly applies quite different standards and criteria.

If we use subjective intuition to determine greatness, then the conversation (and the argument) dies on the vine. Especially since two people can define "greatest conceivable being" in contradictory terms, which leads to two things that necessarily exist together that actually can't exist together.

Which means the original argument is nonsense, just like most of us thought...

 

[quatona]

If we use subjective intuition to determine greatness, then the conversation (and the argument) dies on the vine. Especially since two people can define "greatest conceivable being" in contradictory terms, which leads to two things that necessarily exist together that actually can't exist together.

Which means the original argument is nonsense, just like most of us thought...

Yeah, that´s what my intuition told me all along.

 

[anonymous person]

Intuition would seem to be a poor guide in this regard, wouldn't it? In my view, Yahweh is far from the "greatest" deity one could imagine. You disagree, but perhaps that's because your intuitions regarding "greatness" are shaped by your pre-existing theological commitments?

Regarding existence as a property, please see the recent discussion on this. Regarding moral perfection, you have already disqualified Yahweh from the "greatest" category, solely by intuition.

Propositions that seem intuitively rational can nonetheless be wrong. Remember, you are claiming "greatness" in this instance is something "factual." So what objective criteria are you using to establish these "facts"?

Why should we use scripture as our standard? That seems to introduce bias into our analysis: after all, the Bible is obviously going to claim that the Biblical God is "greater" than all others.

These are questions you will have to answer and decisions you will have to make.

 

[anonymous person]

If we use subjective intuition to determine greatness, then the conversation (and the argument) dies on the vine. Especially since two people can define "greatest conceivable being" in contradictory terms, which leads to two things that necessarily exist together that actually can't exist together.

Which means the original argument is nonsense, just like most of us thought...

What argument?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

These are questions you will have to answer and decisions you will have to make.

Ummm... no, since I'm not the one making the claims. You are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If we use subjective intuition to determine greatness, then the conversation (and the argument) dies on the vine. Especially since two people can define "greatest conceivable being" in contradictory terms, which leads to two things that necessarily exist together that actually can't exist together.

Which means the original argument is nonsense, just like most of us thought...

Unsurprisingly, it is simply the apologist asserting that his theology is the "greatest" that can be conceived. It is the "greatest" because his theology tells him so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What argument?

You can play smug or you can play dumb, but you cannot do both.