Why do you not believe in God?

[KnockEmOuttt]

Even if objective greatness existed (and it does not), how can you objectively measure the greatness of a being who is, by all accounts, beyond our capacity to measure in any way?

Well we know anything that would make it less great he cannot be. So for example, if he lacks compassion, and that would make him less great, then he cannot lack that. Therefore whatever what make him greater, he must have, because he doesn't lack greatness, and whatever would make him less great, he doesn't have, because he doesn't lack greatness. Ofcourse, we can't fully fathom ultimate compassion or ultimate love or ultimate goodness or ultimate power, but by virtue of knowledge that he is ultimately great, we know these attributes are a must.

A proof of premise 2, is that we know there is potential of greatness and there is no limit towards that. This we can see when we imagine super heroes in shows and anime, we make people greater then people we know of in real life. When coming across to imaginary super individuals, if objective greatness is true, one would surely be greater. But we can't imagine all levels of greatness, but we know potential is there. But as humans, we often have faulty logic of what is greater or not. There seems to be a need of knowledge that would be the basis to our knowledge of greatness, for whatever level of greatness we can perceive and whatever possible great beings can perceive.

So from this thought process, from what we know of greatness, there seems to be a need of source that contains knowledge of all greatness.

In short, if objective greatness were to exist, all possible greatness must have a basis, and if all possible greatness has a basis, so does the ultimate level of it have a basis.

It doesn't seem to make much sense, that we say objective greatness exists, but only to the extent of our limited perception and anything beyond that is not greatness.

Despite the number of times you managed to work the word "great" into this post, you still haven't provided me with the evidence I've asked for. There is nothing in here other than a basis for why we make up characters with superpowers. It's still all claims, not evidence. Insufficient.

[Simon Moon]

Even if objective greatness existed (and it does not), how can you objectively measure the greatness of a being who is, by all accounts, beyond our capacity to measure in any way?

Well we know anything that would make it less great he cannot be. So for example, if he lacks compassion, and that would make him less great, then he cannot lack that. Therefore whatever what make him greater, he must have, because he doesn't lack greatness, and whatever would make him less great, he doesn't have, because he doesn't lack greatness. Ofcourse, we can't fully fathom ultimate compassion or ultimate love or ultimate goodness or ultimate power, but by virtue of knowledge that he is ultimately great, we know these attributes are a must.

A proof of premise 2, is that we know there is potential of greatness and there is no limit towards that. This we can see when we imagine super heroes in shows and anime, we make people greater then people we know of in real life. When coming across to imaginary super individuals, if objective greatness is true, one would surely be greater. But we can't imagine all levels of greatness, but we know potential is there. But as humans, we often have faulty logic of what is greater or not. There seems to be a need of knowledge that would be the basis to our knowledge of greatness, for whatever level of greatness we can perceive and whatever possible great beings can perceive.

So from this thought process, from what we know of greatness, there seems to be a need of source that contains knowledge of all greatness.

In short, if objective greatness were to exist, all possible greatness must have a basis, and if all possible greatness has a basis, so does the ultimate level of it have a basis.

It doesn't seem to make much sense, that we say objective greatness exists, but only to the extent of our limited perception and anything beyond that is not greatness.

All you're doing is defining a god into existence.

You're giving your god specific attributes (ultimate greatness, ultimate compassion or ultimate love or ultimate goodness or ultimate power), and presupposing that since you can think about these 'ultimate' attributes, there must be a being that has them.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Here's a parody of what you essentially doing. Proof for the Non-existence of god is as follows:

1. The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4. The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.Therefore, God does not exist.

[Ryantology]

Well we know anything that would make it less great he cannot be. So for example, if he lacks compassion, and that would make him less great, then he cannot lack that. Therefore whatever what make him greater, he must have, because he doesn't lack greatness, and whatever would make him less great, he doesn't have, because he doesn't lack greatness. Ofcourse, we can't fully fathom ultimate compassion or ultimate love or ultimate goodness or ultimate power, but by virtue of knowledge that he is ultimately great, we know these attributes are a must.

A proof of premise 2, is that we know there is potential of greatness and there is no limit towards that. This we can see when we imagine super heroes in shows and anime, we make people greater then people we know of in real life. When coming across to imaginary super individuals, if objective greatness is true, one would surely be greater. But we can't imagine all levels of greatness, but we know potential is there. But as humans, we often have faulty logic of what is greater or not. There seems to be a need of knowledge that would be the basis to our knowledge of greatness, for whatever level of greatness we can perceive and whatever possible great beings can perceive.

So from this thought process, from what we know of greatness, there seems to be a need of source that contains knowledge of all greatness.

In short, if objective greatness were to exist, all possible greatness must have a basis, and if all possible greatness has a basis, so does the ultimate level of it have a basis.

It doesn't seem to make much sense, that we say objective greatness exists, but only to the extent of our limited perception and anything beyond that is not greatness.

I don't think 'objective greatness' makes any sense because 'great' is an entirely subjective term. There are several questions which need answers:

♥ How do we objectively define 'great'?
♥ What is the base unit of greatness?
♥ Why this unit as opposed to any hypothetical other?
♥ How can I objectively measure greatness?
♥ How does greatness prove the existence of ultimate greatness?
♥ If there is an ultimate greatness, how do you prove that it is Yahweh as opposed to any other deity with a similar claim?

[KnockEmOuttt]

I think we all need to admit that he can't provide us with what we're asking for. You've got to provide real evidence, MysticKnight. You've made a claim and you're supporting it with further claims rather than real evidence. None of your equations mean anything. They are deficient arguments. It's simply bad science on your end, and I'm sorry but science so far has done a better job of convincing me than any purported god.

[Mystic]

I don't think 'objective greatness' makes any sense because 'great' is an entirely subjective term. There are several questions which need answers:

♥ How do we objectively define 'great'?
♥ What is the base unit of greatness?
♥ Why this unit as opposed to any hypothetical other?
♥ How can I objectively measure greatness?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I also think they are loaded questions. 1st one is assuming we have to be able to define it rigorously to have a concept of it. 2 is assuming there is a base unit to it. The 3rd is assuming along with there is a base unit to it, that there can be other hypothetical ones. Depending what you mean by measure, this can be a loaded question. I will await what you mean by measure it.

♥ How does greatness prove the existence of ultimate greatness?

This is what I argued for.

♥ If there is an ultimate greatness, how do you prove that it is Yahweh as opposed to any other deity with a similar claim?

I don't believe in religion nor believe in God as presented by Judaism, Christianity or Islam is reflective of the True God.

[Ryantology]

What I mean is that if greatness is objective, there must be a way to objectively measure greatness. It is a loaded question because that is quite impossible.

And, though I invoked Yahweh mistakenly, it doesn't matter what deity we're talking about. The deist's Great Watchmaker, if you prefer.

You do not need to be able to measure something to have a concept of it, I agree, but I took your argument to be for the existence of God, which is very different. Every atheist has the concept of God and/or gods if his or her atheism is conscious.

[Simon Moon]

I don't believe in religion nor believe in God as presented by Judaism, Christianity or Islam is reflective of the True God.

But you have your religious views listed as 'deist'.

One thing is for sure, you are no deist.

Just because you don't follow a specific religion or believe in one of the gods in the various religions , doesn't mean you are not a theist.

You might want to look up the meaning of 'deist'. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[jonb]

MysticKnight
Don't look for outside validation, your truth is inside you. The rest of the universe is small compared to that.
The ideas you a wrestling with are partly from your inherited culture, I like a lot of others here are not of that culture and don't fully understand what you are grappling with. Which is not to say We don't mean you well, and I like you around because your alternative prospective is often enlightening.

[Angrboda]

I believe the past is reliable because memory is ubiquitous. All animals are capable of at least some form of information storage and recall, as well as many non-animals, and of course, computers.

It's true that at the bottom, accepting the past as reality requires an assumption to be made. But, all assumptions are not equally valid. Belief in the reality of the past is an assumption which sits on the very edge of solipsism, to the point where only a solipsistic argument can be made to dispute it. That might be fun for a philosophy discussion, but it's useless for establishing truth in any practical sense, and Christianity demands that you accept God and Jesus as practical realities, not as mere philosophical possibilities.

This is true. Not only do my assumptions taste great, they are less filling.

---

Briefly, not wanting to get dragged in by the undertow.

Regarding "objective greatness" and similar ontological arguments.

Assume an inclusive set of all properties P in U, such that for all X having properties Q [= {p1, p2, p3, p4...pn} ], all properties in Q are also members of U. (In basic language, make U contain all possible properties that it is possible for a thing to have.) Demonstrate that there is a natural ordering property that is intrinsic to the set such that using a well defined ordering function O(), the set can be partitioned deterministically into two sets, G and NG (great and not great).

The problem is that there is no ordering function O() that is more natural than ordering function O2(), which partitions the set differently, or even diametrically opposite. So, in a nutshell, there is no objective greatness because greatness has no objective definition. (Or viewed alternatively, the devil's bread is buttered on a different side than God's is.)


(ETA: I just noticed this, so am unsure of where it leads, but... I presume the "property" of the members of the set that is used in ordering the set is also itself a member of the set. I'm primarily concerned with the complement of that property, though issues such as Russell's paradox may loom on the horizon.)

[Colanth]

I don't think 'objective greatness' makes any sense because 'great' is an entirely subjective term. There are several questions which need answers:

♥ How do we objectively define 'great'?
♥ What is the base unit of greatness?
♥ Why this unit as opposed to any hypothetical other?
♥ How can I objectively measure greatness?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I also think they are loaded questions. 1st one is assuming we have to be able to define it rigorously to have a concept of it.

If you can't define it, your argument is <insert undefined term here>, which means that you have no argument.

You can't prove the existence of A by claiming that B, which you can't define, proves A. An undefined term is evidence only of your inability to use a term that has meaning. IOW, proof that you have presented no argument.

Please try to think before you post. Many of us have heard your arguments before, have devoted some, or a lot of, time to countering them and, in some cases, have come up with undefeatable counter-arguments long before you were born. You're merely repeating nonsense that was shown to be nonsense a long time ago. (And the ontological argument is one of the worst, since it's so easy to defeat.)

BTW, most arguments of the type you present are just as "valid" in proving that all sorts of other gods exist, so if you want to prove that yours, and only yours, exists, you'll have to come up with MUCH better arguments.