(September 25, 2018 at 10:44 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 25, 2018 at 9:16 am)polymath257 Wrote: Yep. Without a definite concept of 'greater', there is nothing else that can be concluded. For example, does your version of 'greater' actually have a 'greatest' element? Not all partial orders do. Some have maximal elements (none greater) that are not 'greatest' (all lesser). That depends on whether you have a linear order. But it is very far from clear that there is a well defined linear order that merges all the characteristics you seem to want to lump into a deity.

You want to claim the existence of a greatest. But a greatest need not exist for most partial orders. Even for linear orders there may not be a greatest.

So, you are just ducking the central issue: what does it mean to be greater in this context? How do you know there must be a greatest in that definition of greater? How do you know there isn't more than one 'maximal'? All of these are very relevant questions that need to be addressed *first*, before any claims of existence can be demonstrated.

What are you talking about? 

When talking about characteristics of a conscious being, there are definitely 'greater than' determinations that can be made. 

It is greater to be all-powerful or limited?
Is it greater to be eternal or finite?
Is it greater to be all knowing or limited in knowledge?
Is it greater to be Good or Evil?
Loving or hateful?
Creative or destructive?
Just or unjust?
Holy or unholy?
Immutable or fickle?
Keep promised or break them?
Merciful or unmerciful? 

In case it isn't clear to you, it is clear in the Bible that the former is greater than the latter in this list. Therefore a biblically-informed Perfect Being Theology is entirely coherent, rational, and not particularly hard to understand. The fact you can dream up a mathematical set that has no greatest member is sooooo irrelevant.

Is it greater to be finite and good, or to be infinite and evil? Is it greater to be unjust and merciful or just and unmerciful?

The problems come when you attempt to have a single scale that merges more than one of those concepts. Are you sure there aren't playoffs between them that prevent simultaneous greatness for all? You need an argument to show they are consistent in this rather difficult way.

Also, how do you know there is a greatest for any of these? Maybe each is unbounded in scale and so no greatest exists. You need another argument that this doesn't happen.

Then, of course, you need to prove there is actually a greatest being that fulfills all of them at the same time.

Good luck with that one.

Which hell is worse ?
Christian hell or Islamic hell ?

I don't know why you guys bother Steves to arrogant to think anyone else here can be as smart as him and to pompous to even really listen. He's right and he will consider nothing else .Why i don't bother with him .

(September 25, 2018 at 3:20 pm)tahaadi Wrote: Which hell is worse ?
Christian hell or Islamic hell ?

The real question is whether or not it takes a greater god to produce either hell. If islamic hell is hellier than christer hell...does that make moongod a greater hellmaker than wargod?

I prefer Talos myself.

(September 25, 2018 at 4:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 25, 2018 at 3:20 pm)tahaadi Wrote: Which hell is worse ?
Christian hell or Islamic hell ?

The real question is whether or not it takes a greater god to produce either hell. If islamic hell is hellier than christer hell...does that make moongod a greater hellmaker than wargod?

Nopes.
Both are fake.
Don’t exist.
I was just wondering, which group have more brutality in their hell.

(September 25, 2018 at 5:39 pm)tahaadi Wrote:

(September 25, 2018 at 4:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The real question is whether or not it takes a greater god to produce either hell.  If islamic hell is hellier than christer hell...does that make moongod a greater hellmaker than wargod?

Nopes.
Both are fake.
Don’t exist.
I was just wondering, which group have more brutality in their hell.

As a conceptual comparison..it doesn't matter if either or both are fake.  

Is Tamora or Aaron the greater villain in Titus Andronicus?  My votes on Aaron.

Quote:Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
Even now I curse the day—and yet, I think,
Few come within the compass of my curse,—
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.

Sure...sure, Tamora was spiteful, consumed by revenge.... evil, and a coconspirator with Aaron...but Aaron was wholly unrepentent to the swinging end and did it all for none of the reasons Tamora had. Even the question you just asked goes to my own, in fact it was my own. Who's is the more brutal hell? Is the greater god the one that manufactures a more brutal hell?

(September 20, 2018 at 12:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are talking about the concept of what should we expect God to be like or to do. To answer that, we can't start with, "well, if I were God, I would...". We have to infer our list from revealed information, the concept of God, and the natural world.

If it is true that god is a rational, intelligent mind who is bound by his nature, then it follows that god’s actions must be logically consistent with his expressed goals and desires. If god’s expressed goal is to save as many souls as possible, then any action (or inaction) that fails to secure the best possible outcome is logically inconsistent with that goal. 

Quote:2. Is it not the case that God is hidden from everyone. There are countless testimonies of people's experience of God. There are no defeaters for these billions of experiences so the claim really is: God is hidden from me when atheist demand or surmise that God would show himself if he were real.

Wait.  You’ve already conceded in this discussion that god is capable of showing himself with some next level revealatory power, or as you called it:

Quote:An advertisement in the sky—

But, that that action would: 

Quote:Seem to undercut that part of the process.

When I asked you for a reason to justify why it has to be a process, you deflected.  You asked me follow-ups unrelated to my point, and never answered my question. So again, if god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would show himself plainly, and indisputably to every single person, right now.

Quote:3. God provided substantial evidence of himself in the person of Jesus and the events of the early first century. This is exactly what you seem to be asking for. God himself lived among us for 33 years and did many miraculous things culminating in the death and resurrection--with has huge existential meaning in both salvation and the possibility of a personal relationship through the Holy Spirit.

If god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would penetrate every slice of space-time that exists, and show himself plainly and indisputably with this ‘advertisement in the sky’ to every single person who ever lived, and ever will live; not leave it up to the stories of temporally existing human witnesses to convince every generation from that point in time forward.

Quote:4. God provides substantial evidence of himself in nature that is easily reflected on and has been for millennium. Why is there something rather than nothing?

If god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would penetrate every slice of space-time that exists, and show himself plainly, and indisputably with this ‘advertisement in the sky’ to every single person who ever lived and ever will live; not leave people to hopefully make correct inferences about nature and the origins of the universe.  Asking why is there something rather than nothing is logically incoherent, but that’s for another discussion.

Quote:5. God gives everyone a sense of himself.

See above.

Quote:6. Every bit of evidence suggests that God's purposes are personal in nature. God desires a personal relationship with each person--NOT recognition that he exists.

Belief is the rationally necessary pre-requisite, Steve.  Do reasonable people desire to have relationships with things they don’t believe are real? 

All I have to do is show, using the premise you’ve allowed, that god’s actions are not logically consistent with his expressed goal.  According to you, god has acted below his full potential for getting as close as possible to fulfilling his wishes.  So, either:

1. It is not true that god wishes to save as many souls as possible, or

2. God is acting irrationally; against his nature.

Which is it?

Plus i will point out their is no contradiction between a god who creates beings with freewill and beings who only choose god due the perfect goodness they were created with .

(September 25, 2018 at 11:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 25, 2018 at 9:01 am)SteveII Wrote: The Christian God is defined as the greatest possible being (scripture-informed Perfecting Being Theology). If you cobble together some lesser characteristics and say "your God could be this way", you are redefining the word. For this conversation and every one after, I do not grant the redefining of the term 'God'. There is nothing incoherent about the standard definition. You can easily glean attributes of God from the Bible and then systematize them into a doctrine using philosophy/logic. The concept has been discussed since Augustine. 

It doesn't help that the Christian God has been defined as the greatest possible being if greatness itself has no objective basis.  That is not cobbling together lesser characteristics nor redefining the word.  It's pointing out that the word has no objective meaning, and thus, from an objective standpoint, the concept is incoherent.  I suspect you still fail to understand the actual problem.  Your complaints here seem nothing more than throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.  The fact that the concept has been discussed since Augustine is really not particularly relevant.  Even Godel himself didn't seem to grasp the problem.  Gleaning things from special revelation doesn't provide any more of an objective foundation, which is required if you are going to justify the conclusion from God's greatness.  I suspect, too, that the bible also assumes an objective ordering of properties and so you would simply be trying to support one mistake with the same flawed argument.  In the Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology, the question is briefly discussed, with no actual conclusions forthcoming.  It is simply more or less assumed that objectively ordering properties might have some basis and then quickly moves on from there.  There are problems with their discussion, but since that doesn't appear to be your issue, I'll deal with them if they are brought up.

'Greater than' has an objective basis. It is a greater characteristic of a conscious being to be infinite than to be finite, to be omniscient that to have limited knowledge. That concept is all that is needed because a series of 'greater thans' can get you to greatest possible--given all the merging of the characteristics. Regarding the more difficult characteristics like Love, if a characteristic is not perfect, it has an imperfection and by definition it is not the greatest possible. We don't need to know what constitutes an imperfection--only that they exist.