| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 05:30:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: agnostic |
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are any
gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all - then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist) in
that case.
HTH
[copied to alt.atheism, as I haven't been spending much time there
lately.]
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
16 Feb 2005 11:58:40 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are any
gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all - then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist) in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka 717" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 12:09:52 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:1118cogq5lhivc1@corp.supernews.com...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are any
gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all - then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist) in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That
which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I don't think your definition is correct. Where did you get that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 05:59:17 AM |
|
|
aka 717 wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:1118cogq5lhivc1@corp.supernews.com...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are
any
gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences
are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist)
in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That
which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I don't think your definition is correct. Where did you get that?
St. Anselm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "formerly known as cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 07:05:07 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108641557.949502.50860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: aka 717 wrote:
: > "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
: > news:1118cogq5lhivc1@corp.supernews.com...
: > >
: > > "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: > > news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: > >> formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
: > >> > Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
: > >> > since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
: > >> > How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
: > >>
: > >> Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are
: any
: > >> gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
: > >>
: > >> If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
: then
: > >> "There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences
: are
: > >> neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
: > >> So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist)
: in
: > >> that case.
: > >
: > > The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
: "That
: > > which
: > > nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
: > >
: >
: > I don't think your definition is correct. Where did you get that?
:
: St. Anselm.
St. Anselm was around the 11th century, right? So for half of time
since Jesus and thousands of years before that... ? His idea doesn't
ring a big bell for me. Is there a school or tradition of defining God/
god by his definition? which seems academic compared to the faith
definitions of most religious people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
19 Feb 2005 09:08:02 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
Your contradictory deity cannot be conceived, which means you have said
nothing at all useful.
Regards,
Josef
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
-- Robert Heinlein
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 06:25:26 AM |
|
|
However, it can also be said that the uiverse would meet that
criterion, and we talk about the universe as having
characteristics---that is, it can be conceived (of.) Your objection is
misplaced.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 08:16:51 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, tg poured fuel on the fire with the
following:
However, it can also be said that the uiverse would meet that
criterion, ...
Which criterion?
...and we talk about the universe as having
characteristics---that is, it can be conceived (of.) Your objection is
misplaced.
Are you making some sort of argument for pantheism?
As to my objection being misplaced ....., that does not follow. I stated
that Randy's contradictory deity cannot be conceived, so his
"definition" conveys no useful information.
Furthermore, deities cannot be defined into existence.
Regards,
Josef
Besides learning to see, there is another art to be learned: not to see
what is not.
-- Maria Mitchell
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 12:49:29 PM |
|
|
I know what you stated---why repeat it instead of clarifying it?
I observe only that the definition of universe could be the same as
Randy's definition of God. I don't see how it is contradictory, and I
think it is useful. I am instructed by it in my understanding of
physics and cosmology, in particular.
So, your objection is misplaced because you are responding to some idea
about "deity" which is not contained in the statement itself.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "formerly known as cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 02:37:59 PM |
|
|
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1108925369.495824.301100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
:I know what you stated---why repeat it instead of clarifying it?
:
: I observe only that the definition of universe could be the same as
: Randy's definition of God. I don't see how it is contradictory, and I
: think it is useful. I am instructed by it in my understanding of
: physics and cosmology, in particular.
:
: So, your objection is misplaced because you are responding to some idea
: about "deity" which is not contained in the statement itself.
:
: -tg
It would be helpful if you would include what you are
responding to so that I know what you are talking
about. Or maybe you would be better off responding
on a private note since you seem to be speaking to
one person only.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 01:53:41 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, tg poured fuel on the fire with the
following:
I know what you stated---why repeat it instead of clarifying it?
Because you appear to be confused by it. See below.
I observe only that the definition of universe could be the same as
Randy's definition of God.
And I can suggest something that is "greater" than the universe.
I don't see how it is contradictory, and I
think it is useful.
Perhaps it is not contradictory, but in what way is it useful? What does
"greater" mean in this context? Greater in an objective sense, or a
subjective sense? How would we agree on the "greatness" of subjective
criteria?
....
So, your objection is misplaced because you are responding to some idea
about "deity" which is not contained in the statement itself.
Your objection is misplaced. I was responding to the definition given by
Randy. Since his deity cannot be conceived, then one can hardly claim
that it is the greatest thing that can be conceived.
Regards,
Josef
We cannot make it rain, but we can see to it that the rain falls on
prepared soil.
-- Henri Nouwen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 05:18:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:08:02 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
Your contradictory deity cannot be conceived, which means you have said
nothing at all useful.
Randy likes to be consistent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 02:37:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:58:40 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are any
gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all - then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist) in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
Since it is very vague, it says nothing at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "formerly known as cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 07:09:40 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:f3s911pjimn880r5vhm0n103bgcp049746@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:58:40 -0800, "Randy Story"
: <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
:
: >
: >"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: >news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: >> formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
: >> > Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
: >> > since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
: >> > How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
: >>
: >> Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are any
: >> gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
: >>
: >> If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all - then
: >> "There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences are
: >> neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
: >> So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist) in
: >> that case.
: >
: >The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That
which
: >nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
: >
:
: Since it is very vague, it says nothing at all.
I think I coined a term but which may not be original... MIT which
stands for Most Inclusive Term. The MIT for everyone is that which
contains all of everything. If a person believes in God/a god then
the MIT would be God and all of creation, probably, unless he/she
has something which I am not aware of. An atheist's MIT would be
everything but without the God part, I guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 08:28:57 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
Isn't it rational to say that I do not know, especially
since God really isn't defined. I know this isn't original.
How can someone be an atheist when God isn't defined?
Someone can be an atheist simply by not believing that there are any
gods - IOW, by not holding "There is a god" to be true.
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all - then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist) in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this. "That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
Still a stupid concept.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 05:54:10 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences
are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist)
in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that would
mean giving a more specific definition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "formerly known as cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 07:06:35 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: Randy Story wrote:
: > "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: > news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:
: > > If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
: then
: > > "There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences
: are
: > > neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
: > > So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist)
: in
: > > that case.
: >
: > The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
: "That which
: > nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
Wouldn't the faithful say that God is not knowable nor
conceivable? And that God is beyond understanding?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "danti" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 08:12:14 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless
sentences
are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an
atheist)
in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
would
mean giving a more specific definition.
greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously greater
in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but can't tie his
shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining and not result in a
satisfactory god......
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. A. Joyce" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
24 Feb 2005 07:02:06 PM |
|
|
"danti" <danti@att.netnospam> wrote in message
news:2D1Rd.48375$Th1.18516@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless sentences
are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an atheist)
in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that would
mean giving a more specific definition.
greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an intellect......"greater"
is the operative word..and obviously greater in all ways......what value
is a god who is greater but can't tie his shoelaces?? "specifics" would be
far too confining and not result in a satisfactory god......
But without specifics, all we have is an anagram of "dog." This, and
talking in circles, is as great as it gets? St. Anselm should have got out
more, methinks. ;o)
--
=SAJ=
[Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
http://tangents.home.att.net/
[In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to alt.philosophy,
any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
Thanks.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "danti" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 07:27:38 AM |
|
|
"S. A. Joyce" <S.A.Joyce@SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:iOuTd.276579$w62.158251@bgtnsc05-
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
would
mean giving a more specific definition.
greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously
greater in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but
can't tie his shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining
and not result in a satisfactory god......
But without specifics, all we have is an anagram of "dog." This,
and talking in circles, is as great as it gets? St. Anselm should
have got out more, methinks. ;o)
an anagram of a dog?.........to those who believe in god, to them this
god is greater...get into specifics and the circle begins.....
--
=SAJ=
[Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
http://tangents.home.att.net/
[In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to
alt.philosophy, any serious reply to this message should be directed
to that group. Thanks.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 07:41:52 AM |
|
|
"danti" <danti@att.netnospam> wrote in message news:<2D1Rd.48375$Th1.18516@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108596624.513445.22710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If 'god' is not defined - if 'god' doesn't mean anything at all -
then
"There is a god" is a meaningless sentence. Meaningless
sentences
are
neither true nor false. So it's illogical to hold one as true.
So it's illogical to believe there is a god (to not be an
atheist)
in
that case.
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
would
mean giving a more specific definition.
greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously greater
in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but can't tie his
shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining and not result in a
satisfactory god......
Even conceiving of a god that's 'greater in all ways' entails
conceiving of a god with some properties. If god is greater in all
ways, it's greater in every way: greater in size, greater in mass,
greater in power, greater in knowledge, etc. - meaning that god has a
size, a mass, power, and knowledge. A god without any properties
cannot be the greatest conceivable being, as it couldn't even be a
conceivable being.
Nor does a god with *all* properties seem any more conceivable, as
some properties are inherently contradictory. It's impossible for
anything to be the greatest in knowledge and the greatest in
ignorance, or the most beautiful and the ugliest, for example. A god
that has all properties (including all mutually contradictory
properties cannot be the greatest conceivable being either, as it
couldn't be a conceivable being.
In order to conceive of any type of object that could exist (be real),
one has to conceive of an object that is real in some way - that has
some properties and not others. Without that, that type of object is
simply not a conceivable being. In which case, of course, it could
not be the greatest conceivable being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. A. Joyce" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 09:58:39 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:fa6f97d4.0502270541.4fcd9899@posting.google.com...
"danti" <danti@att.netnospam> wrote in message
news:<2D1Rd.48375$Th1.18516@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Randy Story wrote:
The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
"That which
nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
would
mean giving a more specific definition.
greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously greater
in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but can't tie his
shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining and not result in a
satisfactory god......
Even conceiving of a god that's 'greater in all ways' entails
conceiving of a god with some properties. If god is greater in all
ways, it's greater in every way: greater in size, greater in mass,
greater in power, greater in knowledge, etc. - meaning that god has a
size, a mass, power, and knowledge. A god without any properties
cannot be the greatest conceivable being, as it couldn't even be a
conceivable being.
Nor does a god with *all* properties seem any more conceivable, as
some properties are inherently contradictory. It's impossible for
anything to be the greatest in knowledge and the greatest in
ignorance, or the most beautiful and the ugliest, for example. A god
that has all properties (including all mutually contradictory
properties cannot be the greatest conceivable being either, as it
couldn't be a conceivable being.
In order to conceive of any type of object that could exist (be real),
one has to conceive of an object that is real in some way - that has
some properties and not others. Without that, that type of object is
simply not a conceivable being. In which case, of course, it could
not be the greatest conceivable being.
"Greatest conceivable thing" would seem to be a highly variable concept,
depending a lot on the times, attitudes, and circumstances of who's doing
the conceiving. If, for the sake of argument, we allow that St. Anselm was
the originator of the expression, we might reasonably assume that what he
was referring to was the God of the Vulgate (the Bible of the Roman Catholic
Church, Latin translation).
In that work, God is portrayed as fallible in many ways. To begin with, the
Divinity has an identity problem (alternately refers to Himself / Themselves
as "I" and "We"). Anselm's God is perverse (creates human instincts that
are contrary to divine law), untruthful (tells Adam and Eve they will die on
the very day they eat from the Tree of Knowledge), error-prone (the Genesis
accounts of creation don't match what is observed), indecisive (expresses
misgivings about the Flood), unjust (arbitrarily favors the line of Abraham
of Ur over all others), vain (craves human adulation), fearful (is jealous
of competition), bloodthirsty (bids the Israelites smite Amalek and others),
self-contradictory (bans census-taking, then later commands it), ignorant
(evidently hasn't a clue that biological conception involves union of both
male and female gametes), and generally capricious, moody, arrogant,
etc.--qualities we normally consider severe faults in humans. (And that
list is just for starters.)
Now, I would guess that most of us could easily conceive of something
distinctly greater than that--e.g., something always truthful, incapable of
error, consistently decisive, even-handed, knowledgeable, just, and so
forth. But allowing for this, the God of the Bible need not exist, since
something even greater is clearly conceivable (as we've just demonstrated),
and only the greatest must necessarily exist, by Anselm's own reasoning. We
might suppose that such a superior concept is approximately what the deistic
thinkers of the Enlightenment had in mind seven centuries later, when they
spoke of a "Creator" and a "Natural God."
Yet even at that time, the true greatness of the natural universe, as modern
science has since begun to reveal it, was mostly unknown and inconceivable.
Beside its natural greatness, all the "greatest conceivable" imaginings of
men of previous ages seem puny and despicable by comparison. What's
more--unlike mankind's gods, whose existence can only be speculated
about--the natural universe clearly does exist. (Either that, or you're
only imagining that you're reading this.) Furthermore, if past experience
is any indicator, we may anticipate that in the future the natural universe
will be discovered to be even greater than we can conceive of it today,
i.e., greater by far than any human concept to date.
So, if God is defined as the greatest thing conceivable, and if the natural
universe, by vastly exceeding even the greatest human conceptions of the
past, is evidently the greatest thing even remotely conceivable, have we
then effectively defined the natural universe as "God"? Does Anselm's
Ontological Argument* inevitably lead us, not to the biblical deity (as he
supposed), but rather to pantheism? If so, in order to know "God," we must
shelve any previous assumptions about It--e.g., that It has a gender, that
It has conscious intelligence, that It has a purpose and a will, that It
defines morality, that It demands adulation, etc.--and then simply
investigate the natural universe as thoroughly and objectively as we can.
Indeed, we must toss out any preconceived notions of what greatness is, and
study the natural universe to learn what that term really means.
However, as we see, my little discourse has begun to talk in circles, just
as Anselm's did. This is a strong clue that, even if it offers something to
think about, it should be regarded as suspect, and not as any kind of
"truth."
On the other hand, we could simply accept "greatness" as exemplified by
Anselm's God, and conclude that "great" people are those who exhibit
qualities of arrogance, deceit, ignorance, inconsistency, injustice,
jealousy, perversion, vanity, and viciousness. After all, we might reflect
that many "great" leaders of history have had such qualities--Sargon,
Akhenaton, Alexander, Qin Shi Huangdi, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible,
Hitler, and Stalin, to name a few. (Even a few of the present day spring to
mind.) Then we might want to ponder whether thoughtful people of conscience
ought to glorify and emulate such qualities, or instead consign them to the
rubble-heap of failed ideas.
--
=SAJ=
[Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
http://tangents.home.att.net/
*Ontological Argument, from the Proslogium (1078) of Anselm, at the time an
abbot in Normandy. Anselm defined God as the highest idea conceivable, then
"proved" the existence of God by postulating that existence is a higher
concept than non-existence, therefore a necessary part of the highest
concept, God. However, as Immanuel Kant observed in 1781, all that had been
proved to exist was the *concept* of God, not God Himself.
[In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to alt.philosophy,
any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
Thanks.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat herder" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 11:55:06 PM |
|
|
I like the term MIT for most inclusive term which means to me
whatever it is that individuals see or term the biggest concept
that they have...
So I should like to copy your GCT, greatest conceivable thing
as similar to MIT. But I have one question: Does the GCT have
to have existence as an attribute? Can it be the greatest without
being real? This is a common question when talking about God/
god, right?
"S. A. Joyce" <S.A.Joyce@SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:PFwUd.85291$Th1.44056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:
: "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: news:fa6f97d4.0502270541.4fcd9899@posting.google.com...
: > "danti" <danti@att.netnospam> wrote in message
: > news:<2D1Rd.48375$Th1.18516@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
: >> "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: >> news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: >> > Randy Story wrote:
:
: >> >> The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
: >> > "That which
: >> >> nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
: >> >
: >> > I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
: >> > whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
: >> > would
: >> > mean giving a more specific definition.
: >>
: >> greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
: >> intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously greater
: >> in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but can't tie his
: >> shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining and not result in a
: >> satisfactory god......
: >
: > Even conceiving of a god that's 'greater in all ways' entails
: > conceiving of a god with some properties. If god is greater in all
: > ways, it's greater in every way: greater in size, greater in mass,
: > greater in power, greater in knowledge, etc. - meaning that god has a
: > size, a mass, power, and knowledge. A god without any properties
: > cannot be the greatest conceivable being, as it couldn't even be a
: > conceivable being.
: >
: > Nor does a god with *all* properties seem any more conceivable, as
: > some properties are inherently contradictory. It's impossible for
: > anything to be the greatest in knowledge and the greatest in
: > ignorance, or the most beautiful and the ugliest, for example. A god
: > that has all properties (including all mutually contradictory
: > properties cannot be the greatest conceivable being either, as it
: > couldn't be a conceivable being.
: >
: > In order to conceive of any type of object that could exist (be real),
: > one has to conceive of an object that is real in some way - that has
: > some properties and not others. Without that, that type of object is
: > simply not a conceivable being. In which case, of course, it could
: > not be the greatest conceivable being.
:
: "Greatest conceivable thing" would seem to be a highly variable concept,
: depending a lot on the times, attitudes, and circumstances of who's doing
: the conceiving. If, for the sake of argument, we allow that St. Anselm
was
: the originator of the expression, we might reasonably assume that what he
: was referring to was the God of the Vulgate (the Bible of the Roman
Catholic
: Church, Latin translation).
:
: In that work, God is portrayed as fallible in many ways. To begin with,
the
: Divinity has an identity problem (alternately refers to Himself /
Themselves
: as "I" and "We"). Anselm's God is perverse (creates human instincts that
: are contrary to divine law), untruthful (tells Adam and Eve they will die
on
: the very day they eat from the Tree of Knowledge), error-prone (the
Genesis
: accounts of creation don't match what is observed), indecisive (expresses
: misgivings about the Flood), unjust (arbitrarily favors the line of
Abraham
: of Ur over all others), vain (craves human adulation), fearful (is jealous
: of competition), bloodthirsty (bids the Israelites smite Amalek and
others),
: self-contradictory (bans census-taking, then later commands it), ignorant
: (evidently hasn't a clue that biological conception involves union of both
: male and female gametes), and generally capricious, moody, arrogant,
: etc.--qualities we normally consider severe faults in humans. (And that
: list is just for starters.)
:
: Now, I would guess that most of us could easily conceive of something
: distinctly greater than that--e.g., something always truthful, incapable
of
: error, consistently decisive, even-handed, knowledgeable, just, and so
: forth. But allowing for this, the God of the Bible need not exist, since
: something even greater is clearly conceivable (as we've just
demonstrated),
: and only the greatest must necessarily exist, by Anselm's own reasoning.
We
: might suppose that such a superior concept is approximately what the
deistic
: thinkers of the Enlightenment had in mind seven centuries later, when they
: spoke of a "Creator" and a "Natural God."
:
: Yet even at that time, the true greatness of the natural universe, as
modern
: science has since begun to reveal it, was mostly unknown and
inconceivable.
: Beside its natural greatness, all the "greatest conceivable" imaginings of
: men of previous ages seem puny and despicable by comparison. What's
: more--unlike mankind's gods, whose existence can only be speculated
: about--the natural universe clearly does exist. (Either that, or you're
: only imagining that you're reading this.) Furthermore, if past experience
: is any indicator, we may anticipate that in the future the natural
universe
: will be discovered to be even greater than we can conceive of it today,
: i.e., greater by far than any human concept to date.
:
: So, if God is defined as the greatest thing conceivable, and if the
natural
: universe, by vastly exceeding even the greatest human conceptions of the
: past, is evidently the greatest thing even remotely conceivable, have we
: then effectively defined the natural universe as "God"? Does Anselm's
: Ontological Argument* inevitably lead us, not to the biblical deity (as he
: supposed), but rather to pantheism? If so, in order to know "God," we
must
: shelve any previous assumptions about It--e.g., that It has a gender, that
: It has conscious intelligence, that It has a purpose and a will, that It
: defines morality, that It demands adulation, etc.--and then simply
: investigate the natural universe as thoroughly and objectively as we can.
: Indeed, we must toss out any preconceived notions of what greatness is,
and
: study the natural universe to learn what that term really means.
:
: However, as we see, my little discourse has begun to talk in circles, just
: as Anselm's did. This is a strong clue that, even if it offers something
to
: think about, it should be regarded as suspect, and not as any kind of
: "truth."
:
: On the other hand, we could simply accept "greatness" as exemplified by
: Anselm's God, and conclude that "great" people are those who exhibit
: qualities of arrogance, deceit, ignorance, inconsistency, injustice,
: jealousy, perversion, vanity, and viciousness. After all, we might
reflect
: that many "great" leaders of history have had such qualities--Sargon,
: Akhenaton, Alexander, Qin Shi Huangdi, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible,
: Hitler, and Stalin, to name a few. (Even a few of the present day spring
to
: mind.) Then we might want to ponder whether thoughtful people of
conscience
: ought to glorify and emulate such qualities, or instead consign them to
the
: rubble-heap of failed ideas.
: --
: =SAJ=
: [Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
: http://tangents.home.att.net/
:
: *Ontological Argument, from the Proslogium (1078) of Anselm, at the time
an
: abbot in Normandy. Anselm defined God as the highest idea conceivable,
then
: "proved" the existence of God by postulating that existence is a higher
: concept than non-existence, therefore a necessary part of the highest
: concept, God. However, as Immanuel Kant observed in 1781, all that had
been
: proved to exist was the *concept* of God, not God Himself.
:
: [In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
: original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to
alt.philosophy,
: any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
: Thanks.]
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. A. Joyce" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 12:30:32 PM |
|
|
"cat herder" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YmyUd.133289$0u.70483@fed1read04...
I like the term MIT for most inclusive term which means to me
whatever it is that individuals see or term the biggest concept
that they have...
So I should like to copy your GCT, greatest conceivable thing
as similar to MIT. But I have one question: Does the GCT have
to have existence as an attribute? Can it be the greatest without
being real? This is a common question when talking about God/
god, right?
"S. A. Joyce" <S.A.Joyce@SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:PFwUd.85291$Th1.44056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:
Have at it, friend. But please understand I've seen the argument
represented different ways--"greatest conceivable thing," "highest concept
imaginable," and so forth. So I honestly don't know what's definitive.
Part of the problem is that the original was in Latin, and when translated
into English, a variety of wordings are possible. The word "maximus," for
example, can be read as "greatest," "biggest," "highest," "best," or
probably a number of other ways. One OA translation I've heard of uses
"highest" (though what altitude has to do with a concept is beyond me). I
just used "greatest" here because I was responding to George's post, and
"great" is what he had used.
By Anselm's reasoning (since it was his idea, not mine), a necessary quality
of the GCT (or HCI or whatever) is that it must exist, since the concept of
existence is greater / higher than the concept of non-existence. If we can
conceive of two gods--each by itself supremely greater than all else in all
respects, except that we conceive of one of the two as existing and the
other as not existing--then only the one we conceive of as existing can be
greatest. (So since God is greatest, He must exist. Neat, huh?)
Other than "existence / non-existence," Anselm neglected to mention any
criteria of "greatness." He just accepted that, whatever greatness is, God
has more of it than anyone or anything else. And he knew this because he
read it in the scriptures, which all good Christians know is God's very own
word, and therefore unquestionably true. So, in addition to confusing "the
concept of God" with "God Himself," Anselm got his cause-and-effect a little
tangled as well. Thus, through an equivocation fallacy, this argument (or
at least this version of it) ends up chasing its own tail--though in a
rather peculiar way that has eluded many who have tried to pinpoint the key
flaw. I'm given to understand that Kant, for one, simply observed that
existence is not a quality that can be imparted to anything by a mere
concept. Some people find that sufficiently convincing, but others do not.
I would argue that we can conceive of things greater than anything extant
(e.g., world peace), or even greater than anything possible (e.g., Around
the Universe in 80 Days). On the other hand, many surpassingly great things
exist well beyond human conception, until they are discovered (e.g.,
quasars). However, I would also argue that GCT, as such, is an indefinable
and meaningless notion, like "the largest number" (infinity being a concept,
not a number). If someone says, "I define the GCT as something having the
optimum of all qualities A-Z," we can always top that with "optimum
qualities A-Z, plus A'," and so on ad ridiculam.
I'm pretty sure the same would apply to your MIT, since whatever it might be
today could always be expanded upon tomorrow. Remember when no one had ever
heard of "string theory"?
--
=SAJ=
[Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
http://tangents.home.att.net/
[In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to alt.philosophy,
any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
Thanks.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 01:10:04 AM |
|
|
cat herder wrote:
I like the term MIT for most inclusive term which means to me
whatever it is that individuals see or term the biggest concept
that they have...
So I should like to copy your GCT, greatest conceivable thing
as similar to MIT. But I have one question: Does the GCT have
to have existence as an attribute? Can it be the greatest without
being real? This is a common question when talking about God/
god, right?
The GCT has problems. God as an greatest imaginable entity soon
collapses when the maximalist attributes soon collide and create
impossible contraditions.
The main kicker is omnipotence which turns out to be a rather self
defeating concept.
So whatever can be GCT does not have omnipotence.
Omnipotence is to metaphysis what self reference is to logic.
The idea of god as defined by theology was to maximalize claims
for god's attributes to be totally maximalized, and this has failed.
As for existance, yes, if a thing has no existance, its obviously
not a real thing. And a lowly thing with existance is greater
than an imagined great and grand thing without existance.
Existance is a fact that cannot be defined into reality. As was pointed
ot in 1000 AD. Saying there is a perfect island does not make that Island
eist simply because it is proclaimed to be perfect, and thus to have
existance because perfect things do have existance.
And perfect things that turn out to be self defeating are still less
perfect or existant.
So gods that are maximalist types of gods do not exist, and
ontological trick questions don't work for these on two
levels. Perfection does not mandate exiatnce and maximalist
gods cannot exist by reason of their built in destruction
because of self contradicting claims.
The other problem with god is the problem of reality.
Does god make the rules, the laws, the very logic of the Universe?
If yes he could create a world where the rules are, man has free will but
freely chooses only to do moral good. If he does not do this, and can,
he is not as defined, omnibenevolent. And thus not the GCT.
He is in fact evil since evil exists solely because of go.
But if you answer no, he cannot, to escape that, the the rules,
the laws, the logic of the Universe are obviously outside and beyond god.
These things are collectively the GCT. And you cannot tell if they
are somehow connected, a bundle of seperate things, where they come from, if
they are consistant and never change, or much about them really.
And it seems that the rules as we know them are physics which rules out
things like gods, disemboddie enities not made of matter and energy.
The GCT things are all of a sudden, not that great in comparison
to ideas about gods, and maximalist gods are forever doomed to
failure as ideas.
"S. A. Joyce" <S.A.Joyce@SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:PFwUd.85291$Th1.44056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:
: "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: news:fa6f97d4.0502270541.4fcd9899@posting.google.com...
: > "danti" <danti@att.netnospam> wrote in message
: > news:<2D1Rd.48375$Th1.18516@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
: >> "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: >> news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: >> > Randy Story wrote:
:
: >> >> The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
: >> > "That which
: >> >> nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
: >> >
: >> > I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
: >> > whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
: >> > would
: >> > mean giving a more specific definition.
: >>
: >> greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
: >> intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously greater
: >> in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but can't tie his
: >> shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining and not result in
: >> a satisfactory god......
: >
: > Even conceiving of a god that's 'greater in all ways' entails
: > conceiving of a god with some properties. If god is greater in all
: > ways, it's greater in every way: greater in size, greater in mass,
: > greater in power, greater in knowledge, etc. - meaning that god has a
: > size, a mass, power, and knowledge. A god without any properties
: > cannot be the greatest conceivable being, as it couldn't even be a
: > conceivable being.
: >
: > Nor does a god with *all* properties seem any more conceivable, as
: > some properties are inherently contradictory. It's impossible for
: > anything to be the greatest in knowledge and the greatest in
: > ignorance, or the most beautiful and the ugliest, for example. A god
: > that has all properties (including all mutually contradictory
: > properties cannot be the greatest conceivable being either, as it
: > couldn't be a conceivable being.
: >
: > In order to conceive of any type of object that could exist (be real),
: > one has to conceive of an object that is real in some way - that has
: > some properties and not others. Without that, that type of object is
: > simply not a conceivable being. In which case, of course, it could
: > not be the greatest conceivable being.
:
: "Greatest conceivable thing" would seem to be a highly variable concept,
: depending a lot on the times, attitudes, and circumstances of who's
: doing
: the conceiving. If, for the sake of argument, we allow that St. Anselm
was
: the originator of the expression, we might reasonably assume that what
: he was referring to was the God of the Vulgate (the Bible of the Roman
Catholic
: Church, Latin translation).
:
: In that work, God is portrayed as fallible in many ways. To begin with,
the
: Divinity has an identity problem (alternately refers to Himself /
Themselves
: as "I" and "We"). Anselm's God is perverse (creates human instincts
: that are contrary to divine law), untruthful (tells Adam and Eve they
: will die
on
: the very day they eat from the Tree of Knowledge), error-prone (the
Genesis
: accounts of creation don't match what is observed), indecisive
: (expresses misgivings about the Flood), unjust (arbitrarily favors the
: line of
Abraham
: of Ur over all others), vain (craves human adulation), fearful (is
: jealous of competition), bloodthirsty (bids the Israelites smite Amalek
: and
others),
: self-contradictory (bans census-taking, then later commands it),
: ignorant (evidently hasn't a clue that biological conception involves
: union of both male and female gametes), and generally capricious, moody,
: arrogant,
: etc.--qualities we normally consider severe faults in humans. (And that
: list is just for starters.)
:
: Now, I would guess that most of us could easily conceive of something
: distinctly greater than that--e.g., something always truthful, incapable
of
: error, consistently decisive, even-handed, knowledgeable, just, and so
: forth. But allowing for this, the God of the Bible need not exist,
: since something even greater is clearly conceivable (as we've just
demonstrated),
: and only the greatest must necessarily exist, by Anselm's own reasoning.
We
: might suppose that such a superior concept is approximately what the
deistic
: thinkers of the Enlightenment had in mind seven centuries later, when
: they spoke of a "Creator" and a "Natural God."
:
: Yet even at that time, the true greatness of the natural universe, as
modern
: science has since begun to reveal it, was mostly unknown and
inconceivable.
: Beside its natural greatness, all the "greatest conceivable" imaginings
: of
: men of previous ages seem puny and despicable by comparison. What's
: more--unlike mankind's gods, whose existence can only be speculated
: about--the natural universe clearly does exist. (Either that, or you're
: only imagining that you're reading this.) Furthermore, if past
: experience is any indicator, we may anticipate that in the future the
: natural
universe
: will be discovered to be even greater than we can conceive of it today,
: i.e., greater by far than any human concept to date.
:
: So, if God is defined as the greatest thing conceivable, and if the
natural
: universe, by vastly exceeding even the greatest human conceptions of the
: past, is evidently the greatest thing even remotely conceivable, have we
: then effectively defined the natural universe as "God"? Does Anselm's
: Ontological Argument* inevitably lead us, not to the biblical deity (as
: he
: supposed), but rather to pantheism? If so, in order to know "God," we
must
: shelve any previous assumptions about It--e.g., that It has a gender,
: that It has conscious intelligence, that It has a purpose and a will,
: that It defines morality, that It demands adulation, etc.--and then
: simply investigate the natural universe as thoroughly and objectively as
: we can. Indeed, we must toss out any preconceived notions of what
: greatness is,
and
: study the natural universe to learn what that term really means.
:
: However, as we see, my little discourse has begun to talk in circles,
: just
: as Anselm's did. This is a strong clue that, even if it offers
: something
to
: think about, it should be regarded as suspect, and not as any kind of
: "truth."
:
: On the other hand, we could simply accept "greatness" as exemplified by
: Anselm's God, and conclude that "great" people are those who exhibit
: qualities of arrogance, deceit, ignorance, inconsistency, injustice,
: jealousy, perversion, vanity, and viciousness. After all, we might
reflect
: that many "great" leaders of history have had such qualities--Sargon,
: Akhenaton, Alexander, Qin Shi Huangdi, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible,
: Hitler, and Stalin, to name a few. (Even a few of the present day
: spring
to
: mind.) Then we might want to ponder whether thoughtful people of
conscience
: ought to glorify and emulate such qualities, or instead consign them to
the
: rubble-heap of failed ideas.
: --
: =SAJ=
: [Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
: http://tangents.home.att.net/
:
: *Ontological Argument, from the Proslogium (1078) of Anselm, at the time
an
: abbot in Normandy. Anselm defined God as the highest idea conceivable,
then
: "proved" the existence of God by postulating that existence is a higher
: concept than non-existence, therefore a necessary part of the highest
: concept, God. However, as Immanuel Kant observed in 1781, all that had
been
: proved to exist was the *concept* of God, not God Himself.
:
: [In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
: original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to
alt.philosophy,
: any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
: Thanks.]
:
:
:
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat herder" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 10:26:59 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:4223b1db$0$88031$16895aa@news.airnews.net...
: cat herder wrote:
:
: >
: > I like the term MIT for most inclusive term which means to me
: > whatever it is that individuals see or term the biggest concept
: > that they have...
: >
: > So I should like to copy your GCT, greatest conceivable thing
: > as similar to MIT. But I have one question: Does the GCT have
: > to have existence as an attribute? Can it be the greatest without
: > being real? This is a common question when talking about God/
: > god, right?
: >
:
:
: The GCT has problems. God as an greatest imaginable entity soon
: collapses when the maximalist attributes soon collide and create
: impossible contraditions.
:
: The main kicker is omnipotence which turns out to be a rather self
: defeating concept.
: So whatever can be GCT does not have omnipotence.
:
: Omnipotence is to metaphysis what self reference is to logic.
:
: The idea of god as defined by theology was to maximalize claims
: for god's attributes to be totally maximalized, and this has failed.
:
: As for existance, yes, if a thing has no existance, its obviously
: not a real thing. And a lowly thing with existance is greater
: than an imagined great and grand thing without existance.
: Existance is a fact that cannot be defined into reality. As was pointed
: ot in 1000 AD. Saying there is a perfect island does not make that Island
: eist simply because it is proclaimed to be perfect, and thus to have
: existance because perfect things do have existance.
:
: And perfect things that turn out to be self defeating are still less
: perfect or existant.
:
: So gods that are maximalist types of gods do not exist, and
: ontological trick questions don't work for these on two
: levels. Perfection does not mandate exiatnce and maximalist
: gods cannot exist by reason of their built in destruction
: because of self contradicting claims.
:
: The other problem with god is the problem of reality.
: Does god make the rules, the laws, the very logic of the Universe?
:
: If yes he could create a world where the rules are, man has free will but
: freely chooses only to do moral good. If he does not do this, and can,
: he is not as defined, omnibenevolent. And thus not the GCT.
: He is in fact evil since evil exists solely because of go.
:
: But if you answer no, he cannot, to escape that, the the rules,
: the laws, the logic of the Universe are obviously outside and beyond god.
:
: These things are collectively the GCT. And you cannot tell if they
: are somehow connected, a bundle of seperate things, where they come from,
if
: they are consistant and never change, or much about them really.
:
: And it seems that the rules as we know them are physics which rules out
: things like gods, disemboddie enities not made of matter and energy.
:
: The GCT things are all of a sudden, not that great in comparison
: to ideas about gods, and maximalist gods are forever doomed to
: failure as ideas.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: > "S. A. Joyce" <S.A.Joyce@SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
: > news:PFwUd.85291$Th1.44056@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
: > :
: > : "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: > : news:fa6f97d4.0502270541.4fcd9899@posting.google.com...
: > : > "danti" <danti@att.netnospam> wrote in message
: > : > news:<2D1Rd.48375$Th1.18516@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
: > : >> "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
: > : >> news:1108641250.215983.234760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: > : >> > Randy Story wrote:
: > :
: > : >> >> The definition of God since early time went somthing like this.
: > : >> > "That which
: > : >> >> nothing greater can be conceived" This seems to say it all.
: > : >> >
: > : >> > I can see a further question popping up immediately: "Greater to
: > : >> > whom?" and "Greater in what way(s)?" Attempting to answer that
: > : >> > would
: > : >> > mean giving a more specific definition.
: > : >>
: > : >> greater to the bushman, greater in the eyes of an
: > : >> intellect......"greater" is the operative word..and obviously
greater
: > : >> in all ways......what value is a god who is greater but can't tie
his
: > : >> shoelaces?? "specifics" would be far too confining and not result
in
: > : >> a satisfactory god......
: > : >
: > : > Even conceiving of a god that's 'greater in all ways' entails
: > : > conceiving of a god with some properties. If god is greater in all
: > : > ways, it's greater in every way: greater in size, greater in mass,
: > : > greater in power, greater in knowledge, etc. - meaning that god has
a
: > : > size, a mass, power, and knowledge. A god without any properties
: > : > cannot be the greatest conceivable being, as it couldn't even be a
: > : > conceivable being.
: > : >
: > : > Nor does a god with *all* properties seem any more conceivable, as
: > : > some properties are inherently contradictory. It's impossible for
: > : > anything to be the greatest in knowledge and the greatest in
: > : > ignorance, or the most beautiful and the ugliest, for example. A
god
: > : > that has all properties (including all mutually contradictory
: > : > properties cannot be the greatest conceivable being either, as it
: > : > couldn't be a conceivable being.
: > : >
: > : > In order to conceive of any type of object that could exist (be
real),
: > : > one has to conceive of an object that is real in some way - that has
: > : > some properties and not others. Without that, that type of object
is
: > : > simply not a conceivable being. In which case, of course, it could
: > : > not be the greatest conceivable being.
: > :
: > : "Greatest conceivable thing" would seem to be a highly variable
concept,
: > : depending a lot on the times, attitudes, and circumstances of who's
: > : doing
: > : the conceiving. If, for the sake of argument, we allow that St.
Anselm
: > was
: > : the originator of the expression, we might reasonably assume that what
: > : he was referring to was the God of the Vulgate (the Bible of the Roman
: > Catholic
: > : Church, Latin translation).
: > :
: > : In that work, God is portrayed as fallible in many ways. To begin
with,
: > the
: > : Divinity has an identity problem (alternately refers to Himself /
: > Themselves
: > : as "I" and "We"). Anselm's God is perverse (creates human instincts
: > : that are contrary to divine law), untruthful (tells Adam and Eve they
: > : will die
: > on
: > : the very day they eat from the Tree of Knowledge), error-prone (the
: > Genesis
: > : accounts of creation don't match what is observed), indecisive
: > : (expresses misgivings about the Flood), unjust (arbitrarily favors the
: > : line of
: > Abraham
: > : of Ur over all others), vain (craves human adulation), fearful (is
: > : jealous of competition), bloodthirsty (bids the Israelites smite
Amalek
: > : and
: > others),
: > : self-contradictory (bans census-taking, then later commands it),
: > : ignorant (evidently hasn't a clue that biological conception involves
: > : union of both male and female gametes), and generally capricious,
moody,
: > : arrogant,
: > : etc.--qualities we normally consider severe faults in humans. (And
that
: > : list is just for starters.)
: > :
: > : Now, I would guess that most of us could easily conceive of something
: > : distinctly greater than that--e.g., something always truthful,
incapable
: > of
: > : error, consistently decisive, even-handed, knowledgeable, just, and so
: > : forth. But allowing for this, the God of the Bible need not exist,
: > : since something even greater is clearly conceivable (as we've just
: > demonstrated),
: > : and only the greatest must necessarily exist, by Anselm's own
reasoning.
: > We
: > : might suppose that such a superior concept is approximately what the
: > deistic
: > : thinkers of the Enlightenment had in mind seven centuries later, when
: > : they spoke of a "Creator" and a "Natural God."
: > :
: > : Yet even at that time, the true greatness of the natural universe, as
: > modern
: > : science has since begun to reveal it, was mostly unknown and
: > inconceivable.
: > : Beside its natural greatness, all the "greatest conceivable"
imaginings
: > : of
: > : men of previous ages seem puny and despicable by comparison. What's
: > : more--unlike mankind's gods, whose existence can only be speculated
: > : about--the natural universe clearly does exist. (Either that, or
you're
: > : only imagining that you're reading this.) Furthermore, if past
: > : experience is any indicator, we may anticipate that in the future the
: > : natural
: > universe
: > : will be discovered to be even greater than we can conceive of it
today,
: > : i.e., greater by far than any human concept to date.
: > :
: > : So, if God is defined as the greatest thing conceivable, and if the
: > natural
: > : universe, by vastly exceeding even the greatest human conceptions of
the
: > : past, is evidently the greatest thing even remotely conceivable, have
we
: > : then effectively defined the natural universe as "God"? Does Anselm's
: > : Ontological Argument* inevitably lead us, not to the biblical deity
(as
: > : he
: > : supposed), but rather to pantheism? If so, in order to know "God," we
: > must
: > : shelve any previous assumptions about It--e.g., that It has a gender,
: > : that It has conscious intelligence, that It has a purpose and a will,
: > : that It defines morality, that It demands adulation, etc.--and then
: > : simply investigate the natural universe as thoroughly and objectively
as
: > : we can. Indeed, we must toss out any preconceived notions of what
: > : greatness is,
: > and
: > : study the natural universe to learn what that term really means.
: > :
: > : However, as we see, my little discourse has begun to talk in circles,
: > : just
: > : as Anselm's did. This is a strong clue that, even if it offers
: > : something
: > to
: > : think about, it should be regarded as suspect, and not as any kind of
: > : "truth."
: > :
: > : On the other hand, we could simply accept "greatness" as exemplified
by
: > : Anselm's God, and conclude that "great" people are those who exhibit
: > : qualities of arrogance, deceit, ignorance, inconsistency, injustice,
: > : jealousy, perversion, vanity, and viciousness. After all, we might
: > reflect
: > : that many "great" leaders of history have had such qualities--Sargon,
: > : Akhenaton, Alexander, Qin Shi Huangdi, Julius Caesar, Ivan the
Terrible,
: > : Hitler, and Stalin, to name a few. (Even a few of the present day
: > : spring
: > to
: > : mind.) Then we might want to ponder whether thoughtful people of
: > conscience
: > : ought to glorify and emulate such qualities, or instead consign them
to
: > the
: > : rubble-heap of failed ideas.
: > : --
: > : =SAJ=
: > : [Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
: > : http://tangents.home.att.net/
: > :
: > : *Ontological Argument, from the Proslogium (1078) of Anselm, at the
time
: > an
: > : abbot in Normandy. Anselm defined God as the highest idea
conceivable,
: > then
: > : "proved" the existence of God by postulating that existence is a
higher
: > : concept than non-existence, therefore a necessary part of the highest
: > : concept, God. However, as Immanuel Kant observed in 1781, all that
had
: > been
: > : proved to exist was the *concept* of God, not God Himself.
: > :
: > : [In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
: > : original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to
: > alt.philosophy,
: > : any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
: > : Thanks.]
: > :
: > :
: > :
:
: --
:
:
: Cheerful Charlie
For me some terms like MIT are useful but not defined, exactly. That is
their usefulness because you and I can talk about the MIT even though
the term may and probably does mean different things to each of us. We
know that we are talking about different things but we also know that to
each of us the MIT means the most inclusive term, ie it's referent, to both
of us. Does that make sense?
It could be like us both talking about the most beautiful woman in the
world.
Different referents but similar response, or not, which would be an
interesting
part. And perhaps if I described my idea of the most beautiful woman in the
world, your idea might change. But I would never insist that mine were
right,
and of course my idea could change too.
Another thing is that it avoids arguing over what the MIT is so that an
conversation
can continue without painstakingly defining every term. And maybe ending a
conversation that might be productive because terms could not be agreed
upon.
___
The idea of omnipotence is interesting in that it isn't clear who defines
omnipotence
and what it means. I guess God would have another idea of omnipotence than
man. It also seems strange that people try to say that God can't lift an
immoveable
object. To God there are no immoveable objects. "So you mean that God
can't create an immoveable object." "No, I mean that God can't be diminished
by
your little logical mind."
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. A. Joyce" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
03 Mar 2005 10:39:01 AM |
|
|
"cat herder" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgbVd.147195$0u.85121@fed1read04...
For me some terms like MIT are useful but not defined, exactly. That is
their usefulness because you and I can talk about the MIT even though
the term may and probably does mean different things to each of us. We
know that we are talking about different things but we also know that to
each of us the MIT means the most inclusive term, ie it's referent, to
both
of us. Does that make sense?
It could be like us both talking about the most beautiful woman in the
world.
Different referents but similar response, or not, which would be an
interesting
part. And perhaps if I described my idea of the most beautiful woman in
the
world, your idea might change. But I would never insist that mine were
right,
and of course my idea could change too.
Another thing is that it avoids arguing over what the MIT is so that an
conversation
can continue without painstakingly defining every term. And maybe ending a
conversation that might be productive because terms could not be agreed
upon.
As long as everyone agrees that MIT is a subjective and personal concept,
varying as one's information base changes, and with no stipulation that it
must be true in the real world, I don't see a problem with it. On the other
hand, I'm not sure I see a use for it, other than a game of "Anything you
can contemplate, I can contemplate something bigger." Maybe my brain just
isn't in gear yet this morning. Could you give a brief example of an MIT,
and how one might use it?
As to GCT, I could see it as something similar, or maybe even identical, to
MIT. However, that would be different from Anselm's concept, since at the
outset he stipulated that GCT = God. And, since he was a Christian priest,
we might safely assume he meant the God of the Christian Bible. So as he
saw it, GCT wasn't personal or subjective or variable; it was a very
specific thing (whether Creator of Trinity probably doesn't matter in this
context), which he considered an immutable truth, and therefore ought to be
accepted by everyone in Christendom. In his view, there was only one thing,
his God, that could be described as "greatest" and "perfect." As long as he
could keep everything couched in vague terms like these, Anselm could keep
everyone (including himself) happily buffaloed by his own peculiar
reasoning, the logical flaws of which wouldn't be identified for centuries.
However, the ambiguity becomes evident as soon as we back off a bit and ask,
"Exactly what is it that we mean by 'great' and 'perfect'?" When we try to
shift from vague terms to specific, we discover that different people have
very different ideas about what constitutes "great" and "perfect," thus very
different ideas about what might constitute a GCT, hence different ideas
about God.
If a believer and a skeptic engage in dialogue, at this point it typically
goes something like this:
Believer: "We mere mortals are not in a position to define 'great' and
'perfect.' These are simply whatever God is."
Skeptic: "Okay, so what exactly is God?"
B: "God is what is greatest and perfect."
S: "Fine, but that gets us nowhere. If you have some specific reason to
believe that God is great and perfect, then you must have some specific idea
what is meant, either by "great" and 'perfect,' or by 'God.' Otherwise,
what you believe would be just a memorized collection of words you recite
with no understanding of their meanings. A cassette recorder can do that."
B: "When Moses asked about God, God replied, "I am what I am."
S: "Which explains no more when God says it than when Popeye says it."
Presently it becomes evident that the B-S exchange is not going to yield any
useful answers. So the believer is left with his comfy illusions, and the
skeptic is left to infer, perhaps, that "great," "perfect," and "godly" must
mean "able to talk in circles without saying anything." Which would seem to
indicate that, to lead a godly life, one ought to seek a career in the
ministry, conservative politics, advertising, or theater ... but I repeat
myself.
___
The idea of omnipotence is interesting in that it isn't clear who defines
omnipotence
and what it means. I guess God would have another idea of omnipotence than
man. It also seems strange that people try to say that God can't lift an
immoveable
object. To God there are no immoveable objects. "So you mean that God
can't create an immoveable object." "No, I mean that God can't be
diminished
by
your little logical mind."
The problem is usually stated, "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't
lift it?"
This timeworn little conundrum is designed around a fallacy of conflicting
premises:
(1) that God has the power to create something that can't be lifted, and
(2) that God has the power to lift anything.
It is not logically possible for both premises, as stated, to be true; they
are mutually exclusive. Thus any answer that attempts to accommodate both
typically leads to more B-S. The usual response is some form of evasion,
such as the example you've given.
--
=SAJ=
[Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
http://tangents.home.att.net/
[In responding to others, I sometimes reply to all newsgroups in the
original poster's list. Since I currently subscribe only to alt.philosophy,
any serious reply to this message should be directed to that group.
Thanks.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat herder" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostic |
03 Mar 2005 03:03:48 PM |
|
|
"S. A. Joyce" <S.A.Joyce@SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:F4HVd.97233$Th1.65039@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:
: "cat herder" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:hgbVd.147195$0u.85121@fed1read04...
: >
: > For me some terms like MIT are useful but not defined, exactly. That is
: > their usefulness because you and I can talk about the MIT even though
: > the term may and probably does mean different things to each of us. We
: > know that we are talking about different things but we also know that to
: > each of us the MIT means the most inclusive term, ie it's referent, to
: > both
: > of us. Does that make sense?
: >
: > It could be like us both talking about the most beautiful woman in the
: > world.
: > Different referents but similar response, or not, which would be an
: > interesting
: > part. And perhaps if I described my idea of the most beautiful woman in
: > the
: > world, your idea might change. But I would never insist that mine were
: > right,
: > and of course my idea could change too.
: >
: > Another thing is that it avoids arguing over what the MIT is so that an
: > conversation
: > can continue without painstakingly defining every term. And maybe ending
a
: > conversation that might be productive because terms could not be agreed
: > upon.
:
: As long as everyone agrees that MIT is a subjective and personal concept,
: varying as one's information base changes, and with no stipulation that it
: must be true in the real world, I don't see a problem with it. On the
other
: hand, I'm not sure I see a use for it, other than a game of "Anything you
: can contemplate, I can contemplate something bigger." Maybe my brain just
: isn't in gear yet this morning. Could you give a brief example of an MIT,
: and how one might use it?
:
: As to GCT, I could see it as something similar, or maybe even identical,
to
: MIT. However, that would be different from Anselm's concept, since at the
: outset he stipulated that GCT = God. And, since he was a Christian
priest,
: we might safely assume he meant the God of the Christian Bible. So as he
: saw it, GCT wasn't personal or subjective or variable; it was a very
: specific thing (whether Creator of Trinity probably doesn't matter in this
: context), which he considered an immutable truth, and therefore ought to
be
: accepted by everyone in Christendom. In his view, there was only one
thing,
: his God, th | | | | | | | | | | |
