Requirement for proof "God" doesn't exist

Originally posted by Doward
Then god 1 or god max is not the greatest god concievable. If you reformulate then that new formulation is the greatest concievable god, though yes tomorrow you may concieve of an even greater god, it does not negate the proof, it merely strengthens it.

The point of contradiction assumes we can think of a conceivable greatest being and it fails if we are not successful in acquiring such a thought.

I don't see how I have strengthened your proof here.

Originally posted by Agerg
I checked it out...same old *some people believe in God - ergo god exists* line...so what!???


I see nothing in that article which undermines my proof God doesn't exist

Well I truly feel sorry for you my friend as you are missing out on so much in life even though you don't know it. Maybe someday your viewpoint will change.

Originally posted by Agerg
The point of contradiction assumes we can think of a conceivable greatest being and it fails if we are not successful in acquiring such a thought.

I don't see how I have strengthened your proof here.

every time you think of yet another aspect of god that would be "more optimal" the closer to an actual optimal god your concept becomes. the closer you are the stronger the proof.

Of course if the opposite were true and we could concieve of the greatest possible being then there is no contradiction. In fact only one person need be able to do that.

Originally posted by Doward
every time you think of yet another aspect of god that would be "more optimal" the closer to an actual optimal god your concept becomes. the closer you are the stronger the proof.

Of course if the opposite were true and we could concieve of the greatest possible being then there is no contradiction. In fact only one person need be able to do that.

Who's to say I don't reject details which apply to your god as I home in on my "greatest conception" of God?

Originally posted by Agerg
Who's to say I don't reject details which apply to your god as I home in on my "greatest conception" of God?

I have considered this. If one is to reflect on what would be optimal then one must weigh whether the conception is optimal or not. For example: If you concieve of a god that likes to scare little children while sleeping, is that an optimal trait or concept for a god? likely not.

As far as the details are concerned: this proof only works if one can be objective and universal. I can't assume that my personal concept of the Judeo christian god is the correct detail. A universal approach MUST be taken. In doing so we leave out personal prejudice

Originally posted by Doward
I have considered this. If one is to reflect on what would be optimal then one must weigh whether the conception is optimal or not. For example: If you concieve of a god that likes to scare little children while sleeping, is that an optimal trait or concept for a god? likely not.

As far as the details are concerned: this proof only works if one can be obj detail. A universal approach [b]MUST be taken. In doing so we leave out personal prejudice[/b]

So now we have the constraint that we must all think of, in an objective and universal sense, the correct greatest conceivable God.

I see no justification for any assertion that I, you, or anyone else could possibly satisfy that constraint. Moreover I'd then have to conceive of such an entity beyond any trivial attribution of parameters to some object. (For example I could attribute to the notion of a "jashkab" the constraint that it is a square, and it is a triangle. Have I actually conceived of this entity or have I merely described some of its properties? (tenable or not))

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I truly feel sorry for you my friend as you are missing out on so much in life even though you don't know it. Maybe someday your viewpoint will change.

Could you explain what I'm missing out on in "life" by not believing in God (other than an opportunity to praise God etc...)?

Originally posted by Agerg
So now we have the constraint that we must all think of, in an objective and universal sense, the correct greatest conceivable God.

I see no justification for any assertion that I, you, or anyone else could possibly satisfy that constraint. Moreover I'd then have to conceive of such an entity beyond any trivial attribution of parameters to some object. (For ...[text shortened]... conceived of this entity or have I merely described some of its properties? (tenable or not))

This is where Anselm falls apart. His proof is based on a subjective viewpoint. If however one can be truly objective then his proof is stronger (perhaps even provable). True objectivity is an excedingly rare thing but not, I think, impossible.

Originally posted by Doward
This is where Anselm falls apart. His proof is based on a subjective viewpoint. If however one can be truly objective then his proof is stronger (perhaps even provable). True objectivity is an excedingly rare thing but not, I think, impossible.

Well one could substitute any deity like entity (for example the FSM) for "God" and the 'proof' would be no less applicable to them too, it is a bias on your part that would compel you to argue that it only proves your God. Indeed, to have the true objectivity you say here presupposes "God" exists in the first place in order for the person with such (yet to be proven) objectivity to conceptualise the God you want to exist; I could equally well play the same game with any deity like entity distinct from your God that I substitute.
Now I don't know about you, but anything that could prove infinitely many distinct mutually exclusive entities (depending upon each person's own bias for a given deity) exist looks a bit suspect if you ask me.


It also remains to be demonstrated that one can actually conceive of something (not in the non-trivial sense I suggested earlier) that is the greatest he/she will ever conceive. Incremental refinements until the cows come home doesn't work since this "proof" requires that a thought about the greatest conceivable God is actually attained.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well one could substitute any deity like entity (for example the FSM) for "God" and the 'proof' would be no less applicable to them too, it is a bias on your part that would compel you to argue that it only proves your God. Indeed, to have the true objectivity you say here presupposes "God" exists in the first place in order for the person with such (yet to be ...[text shortened]... oof" requires that a thought about the greatest conceivable God is actually attained.

I would disagree with the infinite umber argument. As stated earlier and god or gods that are conceptually lesser would either be negated or become a subset of descriptors for the grreater concept.


There is no bias on my part. It is an intellectual exercise which requires I speak of god or think of god in universal terms. Notice I have not capitalized throughout the discussion😏

Originally posted by Doward
I would disagree with the infinite umber argument. As stated earlier and god or gods that are conceptually lesser would either be negated or become a subset of descriptors for the grreater concept.


There is no bias on my part. It is an intellectual exercise which requires I speak of god or think of god in universal terms. Notice I have not capitalized throughout the discussion😏

Well the discussion started out (page 5) as a proof of "God"; but anyhow taking your objection on board and now assuming it tries to prove any old god or gods (i.e. conceptually greatest but by no means necessarily close to yours), how does one decide that they have formulated the greatest conceivable entity without following a particular recipe or skeleton of a recipe? and given you started this discussion as a proof of "God", how is it that your god wins the greatest conceivable god challenge over all other gods?

Originally posted by Agerg
Well the discussion started out (page 5) as a proof of "God"; but anyhow taking your objection on board and now assuming it tries to prove any old god or gods (i.e. conceptually greatest but by no means necessarily close to yours), how does one decide that they have formulated the greatest conceivable entity without following a particular recipe or skeleton of ...[text shortened]... d", how is it that your god wins the greatest conceivable god challenge over all other gods?

my god doesn't "win". If someone concieves of a god greater than my conception, then my conception is a subset of the greater concept and not different from it.

Formulating the greatest concievable entity would be a work of pure reason and cold hard objectivity. I am afraid I don't posess near enough of the two to do the work myself.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well the discussion started out (page 5) as a proof of "God"; but anyhow taking your objection on board and now assuming it tries to prove any old god or gods (i.e. conceptually greatest but by no means necessarily close to yours), how does one decide that they have formulated the greatest conceivable entity without following a particular recipe or skeleton of ...[text shortened]... d", how is it that your god wins the greatest conceivable god challenge over all other gods?

Lets rework this a bit shall we?

We seem to be hung up on defining the greatest possible entity. Perhaps a change of vocabulary is in order. Instead of trying to concieve all the atributes of the greatest possible entity let's say instead that god=perfection. By definition of the word there can be nothing greater or better, and nothing that has not been accounted for...perfection.

If a being concieved is perfect then it is neccesary that for perfection that being exist. One could not concieve of a perfect being unless a perfect being existed, for existance is part of that perfection.

"But as regards God, if I were not overwhelmed by philosophical prejudices, and if the images of things perceived by the senses did not besiege my thought on every side, I would certainly acknowledge him sooner and more easily than anything else. For what is more manifest than the fact that the supreme being exists, or that God, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists?" Descarte

Originally posted by Doward
Lets rework this a bit shall we?

We seem to be hung up on defining the greatest possible entity. Perhaps a change of vocabulary is in order. Instead of trying to concieve all the atributes of the greatest possible entity let's say instead that god=perfection. By definition of the word there can be nothing greater or better, and nothing that has not been ac ...[text shortened]... me being exists, or that God, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists?"[/i] Descarte

This "proof" fares no better now that we have to be able to conceive of perfect entities!

Originally posted by Agerg
This "proof" fares no better now that we have to be able to conceive of perfect entities!

one need not concieve of perfection but simply assign perfection as a descriptor, so it does succeed under this description