"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[SkyWriting]

I don´t think that "The Greatest Conceivable Being exists" allows for serious investigation, mainly for two reasons:
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".
2. "Conceivable" - by whom?

Seems fine to me.

Any conversion process has some "waste" involved unless the process is 100% efficient.

Every "cause" has a "result" associated with it
or
every "result" has a "cause."
or
Every "Created" has a "Creator."

What is the cause of all the intelligence in the cosmos and what Created it?
Something of equal or greater intelligence and power.​

 

[Radrook]

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

Unceremoniously tagging things irrelevant is easy.
Proving that they actually are irrelevant is an entirely different matter.

 

[FredVB]

Every "cause" has a "result" associated with it
or
every "result" has a "cause."
or
Every "Created" has a "Creator."

What is the cause of all the intelligence in the cosmos and what Created it?
Something of equal or greater intelligence and power.​

Any of the universe has not been found to be necessary existence, creating everything else. The universe needs that, which is then beyond it. The necessary existence does not need cause of itself, being necessary beyond our understanding. What is conceivable is not so relevant, as that would have limitations. This Creator of all else, the necessary existence, is necessarily eternal and unlimited, in extent, and in intelligence, which is there showing in the design, the right parameters, the right provisions for us with our intelligence, and all living beings. And the Creator would be unlimited in power, for all creation, with us, to be caused, and of perfect goodness and completeness, including righteousness and love, compassion and mercy, so that all we see going wrong is from our rebellion against the Creator, and the curse with us, with justice that is right, but with the great act always planned by the Creator, for redemption made available to all, if they turn from the rebellion and respond with trust to the provision of the Creator, that will include them in the great restoration that comes.

 

[variant]

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.

It's special pleading because the argument itself relies on a rule that applies to everything except the one thing that it is trying to show.

You're proposing a rule that must have an exception in order to show the exception exists. Once you admit an exception to the rule of the ontological argument exists then you suppose the rule to be false and open yourself up to other exceptions to your "rule".

The ontological argument is fallacious because it rests upon a premise that it indeed proves to be a false premise.

The special pleading fallacy.

 

[variant]

Unceremoniously tagging things irrelevant is easy.
Proving that they actually are irrelevant is an entirely different matter.

It's even easier when you didn't reply to an idea I expressed in the post I was talking about.

I appreciate it when people quote my posts to actually be talking to me instead of AT me with some random point that has no relation to anything I said.

 

[Radrook]

It's even easier when you didn't reply to an idea I expressed in the post I was talking about.

I appreciate it when people quote my posts to actually be talking to me instead of AT me with some random point that has no relation to anything I said.

Constantly chanting that things have absolutely no relation to what was said is easy.
Demonstrating exactly how they have absolutely no relation to what was said is the hard part.

 

[variant]

Constantly chanting that things have absolutely no relation to what was said is easy.
Demonstrating exactly how they have absolutely no relation to what was said is the hard part.

I'm sorry you don't see it.

It makes it hard to communicate with people that can't understand the obvious.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry you don't see it.

It makes it hard to communicate with people that can't understand the obvious.

I see it!

 

[Radrook]

I'm sorry you don't see it.

It makes it hard to communicate with people that can't understand the obvious.

Maybe what is very obvious to the minority isn't obvious to the vast majority of mankind for very good logical reasons.

 

[variant]

For the slow among us (not naming names):

My post addresses how the greatest conceivable being even existing isn't in evidence, as comparing what we conceive and what we can show for a fact exists are two differn't kinds of ideas.

Refute the idea when it becomes supported by something.

Conceivable beings and existent beings are two different sets of things.

If existence is imposed as a criterion for greatness then mice are greater than dragons.

Given that imagination easily outstrips reality, the more fantastical a being the LESS likely it is to exist (say a life form larger than a galaxy), then God if greatness is defined by the absolute extreme conception of greatness, is very unlikely to exist following that trend the probability of God should drop to near or equal to zero given greater and greater attributes via the conception of an imagination.

The direct reply:

Your imaginative inability or perhaps refusal to perceive mind at work in DNA, the nano-cellular machines , or the Fibonacci Sequence doesn't disprove that mind is clearly manifested in nature.

Fails to address any point I have made and instead tries to support the idea of God via an attempt at direct evidence....

If God were supported by direct evidence we would not need this "greatest conceivable being" nonsense.

 

[variant]

Maybe what is very obvious to the minority isn't obvious to the vast majority of mankind for very good logical reasons.

You're hilarious.

I'm glad your "majority" can see things for "good and logical" reasons.

Hopefully some of them can read and understand a simple argument and reply with related ideas.

 

[bhsmte]

For the slow among us (not naming names):

My post addresses how the greatest conceivable being even existing isn't in evidence, as comparing what we conceive and what we can show for a fact exists are two differn't kinds of ideas.



The direct reply:



Fails to address any point I have made and instead tries to support the idea of God via an attempt at direct evidence....

If God were supported by direct evidence we would not need this "greatest conceivable being" nonsense.

Right there in black and white and still denial.

Not shocked though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

That's rather gnomic... I don't see how 'basic RNA' is relevant. Would you count antibiotic resistance as a 'find'?

 

[Breckmin]

Basic logic, such as?

such as the VERY BASIC logic that ALL events have causes.... regardless of whether or not
you "see" or observe the cause... or can determine the cause... clearly every effect has a
cause... everything which takes place in the natural order which changes or moves is clearly
an effect and it clearly has a cause... regardless of whether or not a theoretical physicists
ignores the cause (because he can't determine it ...or doesn't know the cause yet).

Question everything.

 

[Breckmin]

That's rather gnomic... I don't see how 'basic RNA' is relevant. Would you count antibiotic resistance as a 'find'?

No.

That would be incongruous to the subject matter of the origin of DNA. The original
subject with Radrook was that DNA came from "mind." This is a subject of origination.
You claimed "DNA has been observed to evolve under both natural and artificial selection pressure..."
so I'm asking you to substantiate or support it with a find...and how it is relevant to origins...

my suspicion is that you equivocated to the subject of "change" rather than origin.

 

[Breckmin]

It's special pleading because the argument itself relies on a rule that applies to everything except the one thing that it is trying to show.

You're proposing a rule that must have an exception in order to show the exception exists. Once you admit an exception to the rule of the ontological argument exists then you suppose the rule to be false and open yourself up to other exceptions to your "rule".

The ontological argument is fallacious because it rests upon a premise that it indeed proves to be a false premise.

The special pleading fallacy.

I'm sorry...

but you demonstrate here (like most atheists I encounter) that you "do not" understand the argument...

Your first sentence "relies on a rule that applies to everything except the one thing that it is trying to show." fully
demonstrates this (that you do not understand the philosophical quirk.. and the logical reason for the philosophical
quirk and how it is justifiable).

I don't personally use the ontological argument...because I believe a case can be made for an equivocation fallacy
..... how the first premise is an issue of concept verses reality. (but I do understand how it only applies to "God." Capital - G).

To falsely accuse the ontological argument of special pleading fully demonstrates that you do not understand
the uniqueness of "special cases." Justifiable special cases are self-evident in reason... unless you have a
bias against such reason (reasoning and logic).

Something is preventing you from seeing the difference in category...which is causing you (and many other
atheists who are allowing their bias to prevent them from seeing such reason) to miss the logic of the special
case.

Justifiable special cases are NOT special pleading fallacies... regardless of the uniqueness of what they
demonstrate philosophically. There is NOTHING else to compare "an infinite being for which nothing
greater can be imagined." It IS clearly a special case... which makes accusations of the special
pleading fallacy easily demonstrated as false accusations IF you understand the argument.

To even compare anything tangible to God clearly demonstrates that the person doesn't understand
the ontological argument. I don't like to use Anselm's argument...or even Kurt Godel's version of it..
but someone is misleading you if they are claiming it is a special pleading fallacy.

False accusations of the special pleading fallacy are so abundant these days it is an evidence that
the philosophical understanding has BECOME sophomoric. In fact, I would be very very very
interested in any publication before 1970 which accused the Ontological Argument of a special
pleading fallacy.

 

[Breckmin]

You're proposing a rule that must have an exception in order to show the exception exists. Once you admit an exception to the rule....

I'm curious here...

Do you believe that Bill Craig's version of the Kalam Argument (where he claims that you can not have an
infinite regress) is somehow a special pleading fallacy also?

FTR, I don't use WLC's version of the KA either.

 

[Eudaimonist]

clearly every effect has a cause...

By definition. But not everything is necessarily an effect.

everything which takes place in the natural order which changes or moves is clearly
an effect and it clearly has a cause...

The cause may be itself. It may have caused itself to change in some way.

Question everything.

I certainly try.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

Personally I still don't see the problem with using the ontological argument to define the world's greatest hot dog into existence.

 

[Breckmin]

The cause may be itself. It may have caused itself to change in some way.

Is it logical for you... for something to be able to do this... without a mind?

IOW, it begs the question... "What caused it to cause itself to change....etc."

self cause is logical when there is mind to self-generate... but if there
is no mind... how does it "decide" to change rather than external forces affecting it?

Are we now talking about "self-creation" here also?