(September 27, 2018 at 10:39 am)Khemikal Wrote: Examining ones convictions and compartmentalization aren't the same things.  You compartmentalize the dumb shit and assume there must be some explanation for dumb shit, somewhere.  I note that it won't matter if there is, because it's still explaining dumb shit. 

(September 27, 2018 at 11:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's called begging the question. You have already confirmed in you mind that something is "dumb shit" and instead of wondering if your initial assessment in any way hasty or unfair, your attitude is this. You don't have to figure out if what appears to be the case is actually the case because you already know without question that what appears to be the case is actually so. That's why it is pointless, in general to argue with you, which I'm not. I'm simply pointing out how closed-minded you are.

(September 27, 2018 at 11:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 27, 2018 at 10:39 am)Khemikal Wrote: Examining ones convictions and compartmentalization aren't the same things.  You compartmentalize the dumb shit and assume there must be some explanation for dumb shit, somewhere.  I note that it won't matter if there is, because it's still explaining dumb shit. 

That's called begging the question. You have already confirmed in you mind that something is "dumb shit" and instead of wondering if your initial assessment in any way hasty or unfair, your attitude is this. You don't have to figure out if what appears to be the case is actually the case because you already know without question that what appears to be the case is actually so. That's why it is pointless, in general to argue with you, which I'm not. I'm simply pointing out how closed-minded you are.

(September 27, 2018 at 10:24 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 26, 2018 at 8:13 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Either you have to show why the mathematical analogy doesn't apply or you have to admit your argument is nonsense.

The correct analogy considers one the largest number because it represents the highest degree of unity possible.

---

LMAO. Well, then, you have just lost the argument.

(September 27, 2018 at 11:46 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 27, 2018 at 11:41 am)robvalue Wrote: It's easy to show it's possible that there is no greatest being, using whatever metric you like, with the maths we have already used.

Let's say it so happens that there are an infinite number of beings that exist, numbered 1,2, and so on. We've numbered them so that there "score" according to this metric is equal to their number. So score(being 1) = 1, score(being 2) = 2, and so on.

Which being has the greatest score? There isn't one.

This is just one possible scenario, out of infinitely many, in which you end up with no greatest being. I expect the counter will be that there cannot be infinitely many beings. Scrabbling around with science isn't going to help you. Science can never be used to definitively discount any possibilities entirely, it just gives us a "best guess" as to what is going on. We certainly can't reliably extrapolate what we know outside of whatever section of reality we inhabit, let alone even assume what we think we know applies to everything within it.

Just stating things are impossible because they don't seem logical to you isn't evidence either. He who lives by pure philosophy dies by it. If we're interested in our "best guess" then we use science, and this produces zero gods due to zero evidence.

I think you make a good point.  I will note, however, that Steve categorically rejects the possibility of an actual infinity.

(September 27, 2018 at 12:08 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I thinks it's intuitively easy, btw, to exclude babykilling in greatness, but that has to do with our reaction to the word.  Let's try a babykiller by a different name.

A warrior.  If god is the greatest possible being, would he not have to be the greatest warrior?  How many cracked skulls does one need to notch up for that honorific?