Ontological Argument: Understanding What is Meant by the Term 'Greatness' and How It's Applied to the Idea of God

[Shake]

A Picasmo that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.

A debate that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A Picasmo that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.

A debate that exists in reality is greater than one in the imagination.

A debate that Wiploc won over Picasmo in reality...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Pizza is the most excellent thing ever.

The only thing excellenter than pizza is pizza that is in my hand right now.

Therefore, there is pizza in my hand right now.

If you say pizza is not necessary, you are wrong. The excellence of pizza makes it necessary. Didn't you read my previous argument?

There's a pizza problem here.

From the time the pizza is in your hand it's all downhill: Assume it's in your hand right now. So, what do you do?

If you don't eat it, I don't see why it would be excellent to have pizza in your hand you can't or don't want to eat.

If you eat it, it's no longer in your hand and then it's not so excellent.

So, maybe, another pizza pops up into your hand as soon as you get the first one eaten. But then, are you even still hungry? Or, if you are, then this second pizza also goes down your gullet. Are you still hungry now? Because you have another pizza in your hand right now.

Pizzas are still excellent?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

To begin this conversation, I will lay out what Wiploc and I have have come to agree on in our discussion:

1. Greatness is not a quality in and of itself but the sum of many different qualities that deem a thing as great or greater than something else

When you want to discuss God, you need to drop our default narrowness of mind. Just think of greatness as a quality and the rest follows nicely. And if you have maximal greatness then clearly you are greater in every respect than other things. Which has to be good.

2. Existence in reality does not make qualities greater as opposed to only existing in the understanding

I think it does. It does not make things necessarily better, but greater sounds good to me.

And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.

3. There must be some degree of objectivity to the term 'greatness', or else there could be no true way to deem something as greater than another thing

Greatness is a concept so it's a matter of whether we have a sufficient intuitive idea of it. I think we do, except perhaps when we don't want to!

4. We are not speaking of 'greatness' as in size or quantity (not specifically, at least). We are referrng to greatness in a way that is similar to the title 'Great' in the name 'Alexander the Great'

No. We're talking about our most abstract sense of what greatness could be, I think. It's like the mathematical concept of being superior to. It's as general as could be.

Please comment on whether you agree with our baseline understanding of greatness or add upon our baseline understanding if you agree with it.

So, I disagree with your line of argument.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Step 2 strikes me as sleight of mouth. If a god exists only in understanding, then it does not exist. It doesn't exist in understanding; rather it does not exist.

Personally, I feel that my understanding is very real and that the ideas I have do exist. Therefore, I think it's not absurd to say that I have an idea of God and that this God does exist in my understanding.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now a days, this is all known to theologians as perfect being theology. We exchange such words as greatest for perfect. That is, not lacking in any powerful ability or attribute to its greatest possible extent. This has several major problems. The well known problem of contradictions that occur when examining how these perfect abilities interact with each other. And the fact that the Universe does not resemble a Universe with an all powerful, unlimited, perfectly good God. The Universe in fact most resembles a universe with no God at all. Trying to square all of this with the nature of the Universe becomes a problem of saving appearances for perfect being theologians.

Perfection is not necessarily greatness.

Perfection necessarily has a moral value, implying a subjective perspective. Greatness can have a subjective angle to it but not necessarily. It can be conceived as a straightforward fact, independent of our judgement. That how you need to read Anselm's argument.

Well, that's how I see it, anyway!
EB

 

[Treedbear]

Step 2 strikes me as sleight of mouth. If a god exists only in understanding, then it does not exist. It doesn't exist in understanding; rather it does not exist.

Personally, I feel that my understanding is very real and that the ideas I have do exist. Therefore, I think it's not absurd to say that I have an idea of God and that this God does exist in my understanding.
EB

You (i.e., we) have the understanding of an ant, which places Anselm's God at about the level of a cockroach.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now a days, this is all known to theologians as perfect being theology. We exchange such words as greatest for perfect. That is, not lacking in any powerful ability or attribute to its greatest possible extent. This has several major problems. The well known problem of contradictions that occur when examining how these perfect abilities interact with each other. And the fact that the Universe does not resemble a Universe with an all powerful, unlimited, perfectly good God. The Universe in fact most resembles a universe with no God at all. Trying to square all of this with the nature of the Universe becomes a problem of saving appearances for perfect being theologians.

Perfection is not necessarily greatness.

Perfection necessarily has a moral value, implying a subjective perspective.

And this is the weakness of the argument. "Perfection" and "Greatness" are a set of jumbled scribbles we call letters. Scribbles have absolutely no value in the universe. Trying to argue whether a bunch of scribbles can have any implications on the universe is utter nonsense. Scribbles put together in science have viability because they can predict outcomes and indicate at least a minor understanding of a behavior of the universe.

Philosophical "proofs" are just a collection of scribbles that are designed only to presume to know something. While the scientific method requires the initial hypothesis to be tested, there is no test for the philosophical proof. It ends at the hypothesis (if we even dare call it that). What is worse is that the philosophical hypothesis pretends to have undergone some rigorous process to come up with the conclusion... which in fact was the sole reason for the "proof" to even be developed in the first place.

No one starts with Point 1 independently, then flows to 2, then 3, and then Eureka!!! No... it starts at the end and works backwards, which is utter folly. Philosophical proofs have some level of usefulness, but generally only in the world of understood concepts. To try and use presumption to prove truth, however, is embracing ignorance as evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally, I feel that my understanding is very real and that the ideas I have do exist. Therefore, I think it's not absurd to say that I have an idea of God and that this God does exist in my understanding.
EB

You (i.e., we) have the understanding of an ant, which places Anselm's God at about the level of a cockroach.

So, you can't explain why Anselm's argument is flawed?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Perfection is not necessarily greatness.

Perfection necessarily has a moral value, implying a subjective perspective.

And this is the weakness of the argument. "Perfection" and "Greatness" are a set of jumbled scribbles we call letters. Scribbles have absolutely no value in the universe. Trying to argue whether a bunch of scribbles can have any implications on the universe is utter nonsense. Scribbles put together in science have viability because they can predict outcomes and indicate at least a minor understanding of a behavior of the universe.

Philosophical "proofs" are just a collection of scribbles that are designed only to presume to know something. While the scientific method requires the initial hypothesis to be tested, there is no test for the philosophical proof. It ends at the hypothesis (if we even dare call it that). What is worse is that the philosophical hypothesis pretends to have undergone some rigorous process to come up with the conclusion... which in fact was the sole reason for the "proof" to even be developed in the first place.

No one starts with Point 1 independently, then flows to 2, then 3, and then Eureka!!! No... it starts at the end and works backwards, which is utter folly. Philosophical proofs have some level of usefulness, but generally only in the world of understood concepts. To try and use presumption to prove truth, however, is embracing ignorance as evidence.

Are you going to tell me that you don't do anything unless it's properly vetted by a comprehensive scientific investigation?!
We're merely discussing Anselm's argument here. I don't think one needs to deny value to all beliefs which are not scientific to make the point that this particular argument is wrong.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And this is the weakness of the argument. "Perfection" and "Greatness" are a set of jumbled scribbles we call letters. Scribbles have absolutely no value in the universe. Trying to argue whether a bunch of scribbles can have any implications on the universe is utter nonsense. Scribbles put together in science have viability because they can predict outcomes and indicate at least a minor understanding of a behavior of the universe.

Philosophical "proofs" are just a collection of scribbles that are designed only to presume to know something. While the scientific method requires the initial hypothesis to be tested, there is no test for the philosophical proof. It ends at the hypothesis (if we even dare call it that). What is worse is that the philosophical hypothesis pretends to have undergone some rigorous process to come up with the conclusion... which in fact was the sole reason for the "proof" to even be developed in the first place.

No one starts with Point 1 independently, then flows to 2, then 3, and then Eureka!!! No... it starts at the end and works backwards, which is utter folly. Philosophical proofs have some level of usefulness, but generally only in the world of understood concepts. To try and use presumption to prove truth, however, is embracing ignorance as evidence.

Are you going to tell me that you don't do anything unless it's properly vetted by a comprehensive scientific investigation?!
We're merely discussing Anselm's argument here. I don't think one needs to deny value to all beliefs which are not scientific to make the point that this particular argument is wrong.
EB

When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you going to tell me that you don't do anything unless it's properly vetted by a comprehensive scientific investigation?!
We're merely discussing Anselm's argument here. I don't think one needs to deny value to all beliefs which are not scientific to make the point that this particular argument is wrong.
EB

When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.

Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.

Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB

That isn't true. The universe... to the best of our awareness, does exist. And if god exists, then that means there is some medium in which that god exists. So science is in the ballpark.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When arguing something about science, at some point it should be expected that science will enter the room and smack stupidity in the face.

Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB

And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.

It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Anselm's is an argument about the existence of God, i.e. an all powerful being which, if He existed, could make all of us have all the good scientific reasons to think He does not exist. So, no, it's not a question science could possibly address.
EB

And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.

It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.

Uh-ho.

There's a whole tribe of you, then!

Still, it's important to point out that there's a difference between positively believing some fantastic tale and just observing that it is a logical possibility.

And your tale is in fact less fantastic than the God one, if you want my opinion.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

How about this:

...
And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.
...

Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. Doesn't even come close. So although if there is a God it must exist by definition, the argument obtains no support from whatever may exist conceptually in our imaginations. Like what Tom Sawyer said in the parable about his aunt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.

It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.

Uh-ho.

There's a whole tribe of you, then!

Still, it's important to point out that there's a difference between positively believing some fantastic tale and just observing that it is a logical possibility.

Where the term "logical possibility" means nothing. There is an old Vulcan saying, "Shut the fuck up and listen!"

Ordering words into a certain order doesn't make something possible, it is just a presumption of possibility.

Huddersfield beating Liverpool this weekend is possible. Why? Because Huddersfield and Liverpool exist and Liverpool's defense is just real crap right now. I don't need to use the English language to try and justify the existence of those two Football Clubs or that they play tomorrow. YNWA

I work in a field with a tremendous number of unknowns. And sometimes we need to dig deep and try to figure out why certain things are happening the way they are... without really ever knowing for certain in the end. We do so by using experience and observation. Not by pretending we can bend words to meet our conclusion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. While what you said has internal logical consistency, it is actually just nonsense. It has about as much relation to actual reality as a paranoid's claim that people can't say he's crazy about the CIA following him since they haven't taken into account the potential of the government having alien cloaking fields which make them invisible, so the fact that they can't see anyone following him isn't some sort of disconfirmation of his claim.

It's meaningless babble, not some kind of argument.

Uh-ho.

There's a whole tribe of you, then!

Still, it's important to point out that there's a difference between positively believing some fantastic tale and just observing that it is a logical possibility.

And your tale is in fact less fantastic than the God one, if you want my opinion.
EB

Yes, it's a logical possibility. So is Superman getting his powers due to the radiation from a yellow sun. That's very distinct from having discussions of the nature of solar radiation include that it allows Kryptonians to fly.

If there's not a method to associate the logical possibility to reality, it's no different than a nonsense statement, regardless of how internally consistent the logic may be.

 

[fromderinside]

Pciasmo1 hasn't been back since 10/15.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How about this:

...
And it's not any quality, it's the thing that's greater. A God that exists is greater than a God that's only in the understanding.
...

Therefore it seems logical that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. Doesn't even come close. So although if there is a God it must exist by definition, the argument obtains no support from whatever may exist conceptually in our imaginations. Like what Tom Sawyer said in the parable about his aunt.

Ah! That's better. You're not quite there but close.

You're not quite there because there's nothing logical in saying that a God that exists in our understanding is not a God at all. For example, suppose God does exist, then you would have to accept that God is everywhere and therefore in your understanding as well. So, no, there's nothing logical in your statement.

Still, you're getting nearer the truth of it.

As I see it anyway.
EB