radical_logic
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 1,300
|
| | 08/13/09 at 02:01 PM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
WLC and others assert (1) there is no such thing as the "best" possible world -- they can be graded as "better" without limit -- and (2) that God is the greatest possible being that can be ever conceived. This is a strange asymmetry. Why suppose there is such thing as "the greatest being?" How would the following argument challenged?
1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.
What are some good reasons for rejecting (3)? In other words, what are some good reasons for preferring the view that God is "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" to the view that "there is no such greatest being because beings can be greater without limit?"
|
| Loading... | |
tcampen
Registered: 03/09/09
Posts: 1,201
|
| | 08/13/09 at 02:32 PM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by radical_logic
WLC and others assert (1) there is no such thing as the "best" possible world -- they can be graded as "better" without limit -- and (2) that God is the greatest possible being that can be ever conceived. This is a strange asymmetry. Why suppose there is such thing as "the greatest being?" How would the following argument challenged?
1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.
What are some good reasons for rejecting (3)? In other words, what are some good reasons for preferring the view that God is "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" to the view that "there is no such greatest being because beings can be greater without limit?"
But I still think the concept of "greater" in the context of a person is inherently subjective, and therefore meaningless in the ontological argument.
__________________
I do not believe in a personal God. - Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
radical_logic
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 1,300
|
| | 08/13/09 at 02:36 PM | Reply with quote | #3 |
|
The challenge to theists (particularly Christians) is to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/13/09 at 05:37 PM | Reply with quote | #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by radical_logic
The challenge to theists (particularly Christians) is to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?
Depends who is making the rules and what those rules are. If one uses the ordinary rules of common English grammar, then it is possible to have a "best possible world," regardless of what some theologian requires for his/her beliefs.
As for the "greatest possible being." I forget from which philosopher/theologian of old this comes but I think you're twisting his meaning somewhat. He meant that "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived," NOT "the greatest being that can be conceived."
I understand that this is subjective, but that it is supposed to apply to all humans across the board. I would guess that the "what" of this "greater than which can be conceived" may be different for the sensitive mystic than for the menial labourer. However, for each of them, God would be that than which nothing greater can be conceived. In other words, they can conceive of nothing greater than that which they understand to be behind the glories of a sunset, or whatever it is that puts them in absolute awe.
Christians, before you rip this to pieces just for the sake of rejecting the words of an atheist, please provide the single correct description for the beauty of a rose. Or for love. You know full well that no two people experience these things in exactly the same way, and that neither do they experience "God" in exactly the same way.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
radical_logic
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 1,300
|
| | 08/13/09 at 05:42 PM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
What is the difference between "that being which nothing greater can be conceived" and "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?"
|
| Loading... | |
Maxeo
Registered: 06/13/09
Posts: 1,718
|
| | 08/13/09 at 06:11 PM | Reply with quote | #6 |
|
Quote: What is the difference between "that being which nothing greater can be conceived" and "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?"
"The being which nothing greater can be conceived" gives God the infinite qualitative property. "The greatest possible being" I think would be semantically synonymous. If it is the greatest possible being then nothing can possibly be greater, so I don't think there is a difference. I actually prefer Anselm's definition (1) over Craig's for the purpose of semantic clarity.
__________________
The first to present his case seems right until
another comes forward and questions him. -Prov. 18.17
twitter.com/maxeoa |
| Loading... | |
tcampen
Registered: 03/09/09
Posts: 1,201
|
| | 08/14/09 at 12:03 AM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by MaxeoQuote: What is the difference between "that being which nothing greater can be conceived" and "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?"
"The being which nothing greater can be conceived" gives God the infinite qualitative property. "The greatest possible being" I think would be semantically synonymous. If it is the greatest possible being then nothing can possibly be greater, so I don't think there is a difference. I actually prefer Anselm's definition (1) over Craig's for the purpose of semantic clarity.
I still think the OA it is a pointless argument from the outset.
__________________
I do not believe in a personal God. - Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/14/09 at 12:16 AM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by radical_logic
What is the difference between "that being which nothing greater can be conceived" and "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?"
My thinking is that as we mature we become capable of conceiving ever greater complexities and abstractions. Thus, when we allow God to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived, we allow God to be a dynamic being that grows with our personal understanding of life and the universe. Whereas, if we in our youth visualize God as the greatest being we can conceive early in life, I am thinking we come up with a sterile Being devoid of the dynamic growing conceptualization of the maturing adult. This would lead to a situation where God no longer is that than which nothing greater can be conceived because the fifty or sixty year old Christian can conceive of something far greater than the teenage had been capable of. This is simply the way life works; life experience does that to a person. That is how I think the two differ.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
