"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[bhsmte]

Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God. For example, some had tried to attack on the grounds that a flying spaghetti monster must then exist. Sorry, again, won't work. You have to come up with a being who has maximal perfection,' arguments, etc., do not have that, only God does.

Assume much?

 

[variant]

Clever move, KC from NC. However, it doesn't work here. You cannot apply the ontological argument to any beings other than God. For example, some had tried to attack on the grounds that a flying spaghetti monster must then exist. Sorry, again, won't work. You have to come up with a being who has maximal perfection,' arguments, etc., do not have that, only God does.

A being must exist that is so special that special pleading is not a fallacy.

I love it.

We're left with the logical question of why such a special being must exist in the first place though.

A greatest being must exist for any coherent and realized definition of great but we have no reason to believe that the ontological argument gives us a category of great that actually exists.

 

[Radrook]

Tsk, the very idea!

I hope you realize that trying to provoke an angered response via mockery is against forum rules.

 

[Radrook]

Weird how all atheists need is a simple coded signal at SETI to conclude mind but when in the presence of the DNA code the very thought of a designing mind of a superior entity which they might have to call God instantly perceptually incapacitates them..

 

[variant]

Weird how all atheists need is a simple coded signal at SETI to conclude mind but when in the presence of the DNA code the very thought of a designing mind of a superior entity which they might have to call God instantly perceptually incapacitates them..

Coded radio broadcasts are indeed more convincing than natural life in terms of whether or not minds are present.

Although, Coded radio broadcasts would probably just be an indication that natural life ended up producing other organic brains somewhere else in the universe.

Maybe God should send some radio broadcasts if he wants to convince us atheists...

 

[Radrook]

Coded radio broadcasts are indeed more convincing than natural life in terms of whether or not minds are present.

Although, Coded radio broadcasts would probably just be an indication that natural life ended up producing other organic brains somewhere else in the universe.

Maybe God should send some radio broadcasts if he wants to convince us atheists...

When the criterion which justifies certain conclusion is identical and yet ignored when convenient it isn't logical nor scientific. It is called inconsistency of policy and is categorized under fallacious reasoning.

BTW
Concluding GOD isn't a requirement. Concluding mind is.

 

[Radrook]

The fact that you can imagine what you present as evidence for a mind is not evidence of a mind.

The ability to conceive of something or evaluations of greatness of something don't act as evidence for things.

Beyond that though, given that you aren't even replying to the argument I presented or the nor are you supporting the original argument to which I was replying, I'm going to ignore you.

I won't disturb your thread any longer.
My apologies!

 

[KCfromNC]

A being must exist that is so special that special pleading is not a fallacy.

I love it.

We're left with the logical question of why such a special being must exist in the first place though.

A greatest being must exist for any coherent and realized definition of great but we have no reason to believe that the ontological argument gives us a category of great that actually exists.

And that's not to say the being will be maximally great, just better than anything else. I'm the greatest engineer in my office right now - but that's only because I'm the only one there. Being the of that set greatest doesn't mean I possess omni-engineeringness or anything, and unfortunately no one is going to mistake me for a god because of it.

 

[variant]

When the criterion which justifies certain conclusion is identical and yet ignored when convenient it isn't logical nor scientific. It is called inconsistency of policy and is categorized under fallacious reasoning.

BTW
Concluding GOD isn't a requirement. Concluding mind is.

They would be identical if radio broadcasts and DNA were in any way similar (or more correctly identical) but sadly they are not.

Perhaps you should actually examine the reasoning behind why we would think complex coded radio signals would be evidence of minds but we don't think DNA leads us to that conclusion.

 

[variant]

I won't disturb your thread any longer.
My apologies!

Or, you could actually reply to posts with relevant thoughts!

 

[variant]

And that's not to say the being will be maximally great, just better than anything else. I'm the greatest engineer in my office right now - but that's only because I'm the only one there. Being the of that set greatest doesn't mean I possess omni-engineeringness or anything, and unfortunately no one is going to mistake me for a god because of it.

Well, your language seems to be crafted for dealing with real things instead of imagining Gods into existence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I hope you realize that trying to provoke an angered response via mockery is against forum rules.

That wasn't the intent - I thought link was amusingly apt - but I apologise if you found it provocative.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When the criterion which justifies certain conclusion is identical and yet ignored when convenient it isn't logical nor scientific. It is called inconsistency of policy and is categorized under fallacious reasoning.

The criteria are different. DNA has been observed to evolve under both natural and artificial selection pressure, consistent with the principles of modern evolutionary theory. It's reasonable to infer it has done so in the past - and the available evidence all supports the inference.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, your language seems to be crafted for dealing with real things instead of imagining Gods into existence.

Tis a heavy burden.

 

[anonymous person]

Define your terms. Remember your debate with cjlr?

I have defined these terms several times since I began posting here.

Universe = all matter all energy and the space-time manifold
Begins to exist = comes into being
Cause = efficient cause i.e. that which produces an effect

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have defined these terms several times since I began posting here.

Universe = all matter all energy and the space-time manifold
Begins to exist = comes into being

Are you referring to things that come to be ex materia or ex nihilo?

Cause = efficient cause i.e. that which produces an effect

Why are you deliberately omitting the material cause?

 

[Breckmin]

A being must exist that is so special that special pleading is not a fallacy.

I love it.

We're left with the logical question of why such a special being must exist in the first place though.

A greatest being must exist for any coherent and realized definition of great but we have no reason to believe that the ontological argument gives us a category of great that actually exists.

It's not a special pleading fallacy IF the circumstances are nowhere near similar.

Note: I'm not defending the ontological argument... I'm only making the observation that in order for the
special pleading fallacy to apply... there must be similar circumstances. There is a huge difference between
the infinite and the finite for example.

 

[Breckmin]

DNA has been observed to evolve under both natural and artificial selection pressure,...

Please support this with a find (other than basic RNA).

 

[Breckmin]

Re: effects/virtual particles/virtual disturbances without causes...

Yes, actually, this is heavily implied by quantum physics.

Only when intelligent people go to sleep on their very basic assumptions...
and forget very basic logic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Only when intelligent people go to sleep on their very basic assumptions...
and forget very basic logic.

Basic logic, such as?