The Greatest Conceivable being???

Originally posted by Doward
I reject the entire premis of your statement/question.

Human beings are finite, we are limited in what we are able to "concieve" A supreme being has no such limits placed on it, thus we cannot know the reasons for many of the tragedies that befall our species.

I reject the premise of your rejection of my original premise - reason being that "God is the greatest conceivable being" is not so much a fact about your god, but a claim made by humans about your god -and I'm perfectly entitled to challenge that; and though an answer of the form
"the Lord works in mysterious ways"
might work for you, it's a somewhat trivial and lazy answer (that actually answers nothing). Moreover the salient point is that whether or whether not I can know of your god's schemes - if it is the greatest conceivable being then this world is maximally awesome, it cannot have been made or evolved any better (otherwise a better god would have done this).
To that end, I ask the same question to you as I asked josephw:

Is a worldReveal Hidden Contentwhere Hitler didn't get struck by lightning before his rise to power better than a world where millions of jews were not tortured/killed, and millions of people did not die painful deaths trying to help put an end to a madman's evil schemes?


*edit* I also fail to accept as necessary your insistence that a supreme being has no limits - how would you know what constraints a supernatural being can or cannot be bound by? are you supernatural too???

Originally posted by Agerg
I reject the premise of your rejection of my original premise - reason being that "God is the greatest conceivable being" is not so much a fact about your god, but [b]a claim made by humans about your god -and I'm perfectly entitled to challenge that; and though an answer of the form
"the Lord works in mysterious ways"
might work for you, it's a ...[text shortened]... constraints a supernatural being can or cannot be bound by? are you supernatural too???[/b]

I reject your rejection of my rejection of your original premis

Originally posted by Doward
I reject your rejection of my rejection of your original premis

Then assuming you're going to skirt round my point, avoid my questions, and come up with objections which aren't actually relevant to my argument (on topic - but irrelevant none the less [1]); to avoid the same end to this discussion as occured in our last, I shall bow out of discourse with you - thanks for you input.



-------------------------------------------
1) in case you missed this edit, the salient point is that whether or whether not I can know of your god's schemes - if it is the greatest conceivable being then this world is maximally awesome, it cannot have been made or evolved any better (otherwise a better god would have done this).

Originally posted by Agerg
Putting aside Anselm's argument (which I think is flawed anyway - merely by a few trivial substitutions) Some theists (I suspect many) hold that their formulation of "God" is the greatest conceivable being. Now If we suppose hypothetically, that such a god exists (and say it's your god [hidden](assuming you, the reader of this post, believe in \"God\" and agre ...[text shortened]... of the universe's potential to improve - and so would be bettered by one that did.

I don't see why you have complicated this discussion by introducing Anselm. This just seems to be the age-old objection to theodicy.

Anyway, I don't think that, when Anselm discussed the greatest being, he necessarily meant the greatest moral being. Again, I don't see what bearing Anselm has here.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't see why you have complicated this discussion by introducing Anselm. This just seems to be the age-old objection to theodicy.

Anyway, I don't think that, when Anselm discussed the greatest being, he necessarily meant the greatest moral being. Again, I don't see what bearing Anselm has here.

I mentioned him, saying "putting aside Anselm's argument", because I didn't really want the thread to be clouded by his argument that God exists, from whence I believe the phrase was coined (I may be wrong here). As for why I have created this thread - I agree, it is just a rephrasing of the same argument; but firstly it is in response to a claim made by a theist in another thread, secondly I'm just trying to maneuver it in a particular direction (no doubt not an original direction of course), thirdly as is often the intention with the threads I start - I hope to have way of referencing the arguments made by theists here on other (perhaps deeper) topics where I see claims made which are inconsistent with the claims they make here.

It is my position that the belief in certain characteristics of god (note: not the existence of a god for whom their formulation is the best approximation) are a spaghetti trail of invalid logic and premises that can (perhaps by someone else) be successflly untangled.

Finally, if we aren't to take it as necessary that Anselm meant the "greatest moral being" then I think his argument would perhaps carry less weight from the perspective of theists who currently agree with it - i.e. greatest what?? Moreover, many theists, I assume, do think that to be a necessary facet of "God's" so-called greatness.

Originally posted by Doward
I reject the entire premis of your statement/question.

Human beings are finite, we are limited in what we are able to "concieve" A supreme being has no such limits placed on it, thus we cannot know the reasons for many of the tragedies that befall our species.

Well I can think of one: That the universe could give a crap if we live or die. See Dinosaurs if you think any different.

Originally posted by Agerg
I disagree - me ending up with terminal cancer at some point, wracked with pain and causing emotional suffering to those who have to witness such an ordeal is not so good as me finding out I have terminal cancer then being killed by some mysterious bolt of lightning immediately afterwards (circumventing the pain and suffering). In this sense I can conceive of ...[text shortened]... r being than the one who would let me live out the rest of my life (in this scenario) in misery.

You caused you cancer now live with it.........until you take another birth

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well I can think of one: That the universe could give a crap if we live or die. See Dinosaurs if you think any different.

No one ever dies....its an illusion for the soul is you and it is eternal.

The only thing that appears to die is the body of dust.

Originally posted by Dasa
You caused you cancer now live with it.........until you take another birth

I see 😕 well assuming I do have cancer (don't think I do - but then again I haven't checked)...how does one cause cancer to take hold (let's say such a person eats responsibly, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't knowingly expose him/herself to asbestos etc...)???

Moreover, how is this an answer to my claim that the scenario I suggested is better than one where I live in pain??? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
Then assuming you're going to skirt round my point, avoid my questions, and come up with objections which aren't actually relevant to my argument (on topic - but irrelevant none the less [1]); to avoid the same end to this discussion as occured in our last, I shall bow out of discourse with you - thanks for you input.



----------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... it cannot have been made or evolved any better (otherwise a better god would have done this).

when my children were little it was the greatest of affronts that i made them brush their teeth and be in bed by 8pm. I must have been an idiot to expect that they make their bed in the morning as well, after all they were only going to mess it up again in 14 hours or so.

Limited intellect percieves "error" in the construct of the world as we know it. However if we could see the entire picture we might see that there is no error, and that all of "creation" is in harmony.

hence my rejection of your premis, if we rely merely on our subjective judgement of reality, we eliminate objectivity.

Originally posted by Doward
when my children were little it was the greatest of affronts that i made them brush their teeth and be in bed by 8pm. I must have been an idiot to expect that they make their bed in the morning as well, after all they were only going to mess it up again in 14 hours or so.

Limited intellect percieves "error" in the construct of the world as we know it. Howe premis, if we rely merely on our subjective judgement of reality, we eliminate objectivity.

I realise this is your contention but it is not a necessarily true statement that your god is maximally great - it is a human claim yet to be substantiated. Reveal Hidden Content It is the claim I'm actually challenging.

What we can measure however is the world we exist in and use this as a means to gauge whether that human claim is tenable, to this end I'll rephrase my statement as follows:

If both

1) your God exists, and
2) one can conceive of no greater god (where benevolence is included in the set of things that are great)

are true then we must conclude, objectively, this world is the best it can be...do you agree with this so far? (or do you think one can conceive of no greater god despite the fact this world could be improved???)

Originally posted by Dasa
First of all there has never been one single person who has drowned, been burnt, or given cancer.....for the body is dust and not the real person.

Tell that to the Jews right before they got put into the gas chambers or ovens.






Manny

Originally posted by Dasa
You caused you cancer now live with it.........until you take another birth

WTF? No one I know would ask for cancer. If you believe in what you say then go run out in front of a car or jump off of a building because as you say your soul will live on.
I really don't think anyone in there right mind will do this. I don't think that you will either. This material world is just as real as any mumbo jumbo world.




Manny

Originally posted by Agerg
Putting aside Anselm's argument (which I think is flawed anyway - merely by a few trivial substitutions) Some theists (I suspect many) hold that their formulation of "God" is the greatest conceivable being. Now If we suppose hypothetically, that such a god exists (and say it's your god [hidden](assuming you, the reader of this post, believe in \"God\" and agre ...[text shortened]... of the universe's potential to improve - and so would be bettered by one that did.

You remind me of one Joseph Stalin who made it his lifes endevour to stamp out all religion while all the while insisting that God does not exist. Then on his death with fist raised in the air in defiance, breathed his last.

Originally posted by menace71
WTF? No one I know would ask for cancer. If you believe in what you say then go run out in front of a car or jump off of a building because as you say your soul will live on.
I really don't think anyone in there right mind will do this. I don't think that you will either. This material world is just as real as any mumbo jumbo world.




Manny

Why on earth would the understanding that I am an eternal spiritual being, equate to me jumping in front of a car.

Of course no one asks for cancer, and when someone smokes they do not pray for lung cancer either.