Half of English No Longer Christian

[none]

Oh great not evidence but inference
I've seen this shit before

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...in that case #12 replaces #100 as the upper limit of maximal greatness.

But the best-in-class remains a REAL being - not an imaginary being - because real maximal beings are greater than maximal beings that don't exist.

Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

 

[none]

Hmm I'm wondering how one maximally great being is all that maximally great

 

[Keith&Co.]

...in that case #12 replaces #100 as the upper limit of maximal greatness.

But the best-in-class remains a REAL being - not an imaginary being - because real maximal beings are greater than maximal beings that don't exist.

Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

It would seem to be a human definition of 'great' is necessary for identifying a maximally great being.
And we all know how much the universe cares about a subjective human assessment of 'greatness.' So therefore, the universe we created cannot help but accede to our desires that something exist to fill this hypothetical position we've subjectively invented. It's inescapable. Or, at least, inescapable if we can show that the universe is subject to human opinion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

It would seem to be a human definition of 'great' is necessary for identifying a maximally great being.
And we all know how much the universe cares about a subjective human assessment of 'greatness.' So therefore, the universe we created cannot help but accede to our desires that something exist to fill this hypothetical position we've subjectively invented. It's inescapable. Or, at least, inescapable if we can show that the universe is subject to human opinion.

My point is that it doesn't seem to matter what definition we use. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there is some objective criteria for greatness which every being in every universe can be measured and ranked with, it still doesn't get you any closer to a proof of God.

Even if the premises of the claim weren't so fundamentally flawed, those premises still wouldn't lead to any sort of theistic conclusion. All it gets you to is that Frank here is number one - way to go, Frank, but so what?

 

[Lion IRC]

...Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

"B" is your maximally great being. You don't need to get from MGB to God if God is the MGB.

And there is no getting from "B" to "C" either.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

"B" is your maximally great being. You don't need to get from MGB to God if God is the MGB.

And there is no getting from "B" to "C" either.

OK, true, but that's a rather big if. What if B is just some guy named Frank who's the most awesome dude ever, but is still just some dude? You seem to be saying that some beings are better than others and therefore we can conclude that the best one is God. Why couldn't the best one just be Frank and that's as good as anyone ever gets? I don't get the logical connection to the divine.

 

[Lion IRC]

The connection would be that in this particular universe/multiverse it's pretty unlikely that Frank is THE maximally great being. Possible. But unlikely.

Now, Frank might be an alien life form who can do stuff we find amazing - almost supernatural - and we could conclude that he is the non-divine MGB. And while Frank goes around healing lepers and turning water into wine, we could still theoretically remain atheistic in our outlook.

But what's really going on here if we say...oh yeah Frank is real, and Frank is all powerful but Frank isnt "divine".

 

[Keith&Co.]

...Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

"B" is your maximally great being. You don't need to get from MGB to God if God is the MGB.

But that would be cheating.
If the MGB is an argument to show that a god is (or must) exist, you can't assume that the MGB is a god.
It makes it a rigged vote, or a poor thought experiment, that your evidence to support your argument is the conclusion the argument is supposed to produce.

 

[RavenSky]

A brain-dead moron atheist might continue hating the idea of God forever - even from within hell where the gates are locked from the inside. And they might, if they were a great big
[expletive deleted] idiot, just keep on telling themselves the two great rules of atheism.

Rule 1
There is no God.
Rule 2
If there is a God, I hate Him

Rule 3

Lion doesn't understand anything at all about atheists

 

[Keith&Co.]

But what's really going on here if we say...oh yeah Frank is real, and Frank is all powerful but Frank isnt "divine".

Well, then we're watching Star Trek, where people can meet omnipotent, omniscient beings and claim with a straight face that 'you're no god!'

But the problem really is, if this hypothetical MGB can be met with a mortal being like Frank, then what pushes us to go to a divine being after we've found Frank?
Frank exists. What would make us think any being greater than Frank exists?

And if we're going to just add greater beings, why stop at a god? Why not imagine that god's father? Or that god's father's mother? Why stop at any arbitrary point?

 

[none]

Yep I'm not seeing the maximally greatness of just one maximally great being

 

[RavenSky]

My point is that if you, as a self-professed atheist, hate the idea of God existing...

Good grief man... if you keep moving those goal posts around so damned fast you are going to throw your back out!

 

[Lion IRC]

"B" is your maximally great being. You don't need to get from MGB to God if God is the MGB.

But that would be cheating.
If the MGB is an argument to show that a god is (or must) exist, you can't assume that the MGB is a god.
It makes it a rigged vote, or a poor thought experiment, that your evidence to support your argument is the conclusion the argument is supposed to produce.

Note I said "if" God is the MGB then you don't need to progress from "A" to "B"

But wherever, or whatever, or whoever the maximally great being 'is', its ontological existence is the thing being proven by such an argument - not whether its name is Frank. (Or whether its greatness amounts to something approaching divinity.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

But that would be cheating.
If the MGB is an argument to show that a god is (or must) exist, you can't assume that the MGB is a god.
It makes it a rigged vote, or a poor thought experiment, that your evidence to support your argument is the conclusion the argument is supposed to produce.

Note I said "if" God is the MGB then you don't need to progress from "A" to "B"

Yeah. Skipping right to the end. The question was how to get to the point where we acknowledge that God IS the MGB?
Is the screen not clear, where you are?

But wherever or whatever or whoever the maximally great being 'is', its ontological existence is the thing being proven not whether its name is Frank. (Or whether its greatness amounts to someone approaching divinity.)

Um, yes, that is the point. You're trying to prove that a god exists. Specifically, your god.
The name is not the problem, just an example.
We have a few billion people on the planet.
We can stipulate that if we had some criteria to measure human greatness, we might eventually be able to identify the maximally greatest human that exists.
We'll call that MGB human 'Frank' for the purpose of discussion, because it's easier than typing 'maximally great human by some hypothetical criteria.'
You're not showing us any reason to assume that there's any need for a being greater than Frank.

You also have yet to show why the Maximally Greatest Human is any greater than a hypothetical Maximally Greatest Bacteria, other than a subjective value developed by lesser humans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The connection would be that in this particular universe/multiverse it's pretty unlikely that Frank is THE maximally great being. Possible. But unlikely.

Now, Frank might be an alien life form who can do stuff we find amazing - almost supernatural - and we could conclude that he is the non-divine MGB. And while Frank goes around healing lepers and turning water into wine, we could still theoretically remain atheistic in our outlook.

But what's really going on here if we say...oh yeah Frank is real, and Frank is all powerful but Frank isnt "divine".

And that's what I'm talking about. You're just randomly making the jump into someone doing miracles for absolutely no reason related to the logical progression you're starting with. I'm not suggesting that Frank can heal lepers, I'm saying that Frank is awesome. Best person ever, but still just a person.

Also, what does all-powerful have to do with anything? Like I said earlier, all-powerful would be a 100 on the Greatness Scale and reality may top out at 12 for all we know. Super advanced alien technology could easily replicate what primitive societies would call miracles, but it's not necessarily anywhere close to omnipotent power.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

...Right, I get that. My question is how that fits into a religious discussion. I assume that you're making a claim that your MGB argument either works as a proof for God or is a step along the way towards a proof of God. If that's the case, I don't see how it gets you from A to B.

"B" is your maximally great being. You don't need to get from MGB to God if God is the MGB.

And there is no getting from "B" to "C" either.

How dare you suggest the maximally great being is merely "B".

 

[Atheos]

I

Agreed. But the category surely exists.
Ordinal numbers, superlatives, good..better..best, 1st, 2nd, 3rd. etc.
Surely if we can even have the notion of a 'thing' (set of things) then we aren't violating any logic by saying that thing 'A' is better - in some way or another - than another thing in the same set.

...The Maximally Great Being is no more real than the Maximally Deadly Disease. After all a disease that kills every life form is worse than one that only kills most. And a Maximally Deadly Disease that actually exists and has already killed every life form everywhere is much more deadly than one which does not exist.

YES! ������. (Emoji thumbs up)
Great example.
And the fact that beings still live suggests that whilst there may well be a 'maximally great' disease somewhere in space/time, that maximal disease apparently isn't fatal - or HASNT found you yet.
I certainly agree that the ontological existence of a maximally great pathogen doesnt necessarily tell us that such a being always kills its host.

... Therefore we're all dead because the Maximally Deadly Disease is an irrefutable philosophical certainty. Woo.

No. Even if you define the maximally great disease as 100% fatal it still might be that you haven't yet encountered it in real life.

Remember, even if you are talking about maximally great chocolate cakes, or MG beer, or an MG football team, (pick your own criteria for judging good/better/best,) there must be one somewhere in the universe.

If none of the cakes or beers anywhere in space/time meet the (subjective) criteria you have chosen - IOW they all came 2nd place or 3rd place or 4th place - that WOULDNT mean no superlative cake/beer exists.

All it would mean is that all the 2nd place getters were now the contenders for First Place and you would have to judge again to see which of them was the best-in-class.

Your rejoinder is a non-starter because a malevolent disease that is present everywhere, and therefore already in contact with every life form in existence is by definition more maximally deadly than one that is safely quarantined somewhere. You don't get to erect hypothetical barriers to the disease's deadliness if you're not willing to erect similar barriers to the MGB's greatness (which by the way has yet to be defined). Your hypothetical in this situation limits the deadliness of the disease by geographic constraint. If I recall correctly the textbook definition of MGB includes the verbiage "of which no greater being can be conceived." Since I can so easily conceive of a Maximally Deadly Disease that is far deadlier than the one you posit in this rejoinder you are failing to play by the rules of the game you started. If you give in and allow barriers to encumber your MGB we can immediately counter by conceiving of a greater MGB unencumbered by this limitation. It is a fatal flaw in your logic.

Edit: Plantinga plays this same card by arguing that if in some possible world the MGB exists then an MGB who exists in all possible worlds would still be a greater MGB. Therefore the MGB has to exist in all possible worlds and therefore exists in this one.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Your rejoinder is a non-starter because a malevolent disease that is present everywhere, and therefore already in contact with every life form in existence is by definition more maximally deadly than one that is safely quarantined somewhere.

You don't nullify my rejoinder by agreeing with me.
An omnipresent lethal disease (which exists everywhere) is a good example of superiority.

...You don't get to erect hypothetical barriers to the disease's deadliness if you're not willing to erect similar barriers to the MGB's greatness (which by the way has yet to be defined).

I don't need to erect my own hypothetical barriers. I'm happy to work with whatever measure of greatness you apply.
The point is not how we define good/better/best. The point is whether these categories ontologically exist.
And if we take the set of things called good/better/best, I think it's reasonable to infer that the best-in-class necessarily exists.

... Your hypothetical in this situation limits the deadliness of the disease by geographic constraint. If I recall correctly the textbook definition of MGB includes the verbiage "of which no greater being can be conceived." Since I can so easily conceive of a Maximally Deadly Disease that is far deadlier than the one you posit in this rejoinder you are failing to play by the rules of the game you started.

So can I. And if we conceive (or discover) a new contender for MGB what's wrong with that?
We both agree that a maximally great disease exists in one form or another.
I really don't see where it is you think I'm not "playing by the rules".

...If you give in and allow barriers to encumber your MGB we can immediately counter by conceiving of a greater MGB unencumbered by this limitation. It is a fatal flaw in your logic.

No, no, no.
I 100% agree with you on this.
Where are you getting the idea that I'm not willing to accept YOUR definition of a maximally great being/disease?
And if we are talking about the same 'thing' and using the same definition of maximal greatness then the only remaining problem would be if that disease didn't actually exist.
Because if it didn't exist, then the previous second best contender for maximally great disease (which actually DOES exist) would then become the real MGB.

...Plantinga plays this same card by arguing that if in some possible world the MGB exists then an MGB who exists in all possible worlds would still be a greater MGB. Therefore the MGB has to exist in all possible worlds and therefore exists in this one.

So long as we agree that we are talking about the same being, and using the same definition of greatness (common denominator) then the ontological basis of the discussion is sound.

 

[Atheos]

So if I understand you correctly you are not suggesting that a god exists, only that something exists that could be described as maximally great. In theory this will be true for any condition in which the nebulous term "great" is rigorously defined and quantifiable.

Otherwise it's meaningless babble. We're down to beauty-contest rules.