(September 28, 2018 at 7:30 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Love is a clear example of a moral virtue (if not the clearest). 
2. Killing babies for no reason constitutes a lack of love and therefore a lack of moral virtue.
3. Yahweh is considered all-loving and therefore defined as having the greatest possible moral virtue at all times. 
4. Greater moral virtue is better than lesser moral virtue because it regulates other attributes for more positive/less negative outcomes. 
5. More positive outcomes is better than more negative outcomes.
6. Therefore Yahweh is greater than a god that kills babies.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 26, 2018 at 8:13 pm)polymath257 Wrote: So the doctrine is that there is a single version of 'greater' that applies to all virtues? How about bravery vs compassion? How about honesty vs respect?

Besides, the whole debate boils down to the existence of your fairy tale deity. In the absence of such a creature, the rest of this goes out the window.

And, again, the problem isn't the impossibility of maximal versions of each virtue (that is a separate issue). The question is the consistency between different virtues. The virtues may be possible, and even a greatest for each individual virtue, without having a single entity be maximal for *all* virtues.

And how do you know there isn't more than one 'maximum'? Again, such are quite possible and even reasonable. But you make no mention to dispense with that possibility.

There only has to be a greatest WITHIN the property for this to make sense. Your unconnected pairs do nothing to undermine the concept. 

Bravery: does not apply to God.
Compassion: the greatest amount of compassion possible
Honesty: the highest possible standard
Respect: does not apply to God. 

Each property has within itself the concept of what is greater. There is no external standard that has to be dreamed up. It is already there. There is no "maximal for *all* virtues." Just string the greatest possible attributes together--and then you have God.

(September 28, 2018 at 7:52 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 7:34 am)polymath257 Wrote: OK, let me say it more clearly: you have given no coherent definition of the term 'greater' for any individual virtue. This I don't see as a huge thing: it is probably possible to do so.

Then, you have failed to give a coherent way to merge the different types of 'greater'. This is a major problem: it is actually very seldom that two different orderings give a 'nice' merged ordering. There are two main ways to attempt this: known as the product order and the lexicographic order. Which you pick will determine the properties of any 'maximum'. But they give different results and there are multiple ways to do the lexi order: each with very different properties.

So, by waving your hands, you fail to note that you cannot get the properties you want from this argument unless you give details. Again, that makes your whole argument incoherent: you have to do the work to make it make sense.

Finally, even if you resolve the issues of how to merge different virtues into an overall ordering, you still need to proven the existence of a greatest. Most partial orders do NOT have a greatest at all (especially if they allow infinities). Often, there are two or more 'maximal' entities that cannot be compared at all. You want to claim a *unique* maximal entity for the merged order and allowing infinite progressions. That is very, very unlikely.

And, ultimately, your lack of understanding of basics means that you wave away serious difficulties and fail to comprehend fundamental problems with the argument. That, in addition, leads to incoherence: your confusion is such that the details cannot be understood.

I gave you a definition (from a dictionary, those things, that provide definitions for words).  I also notice, that you keep trying to talk about other things, than the topic at hand without any real specifics.  And I still don't think that you can equivocate on the term incoherance in this way, and have both your arguments be coherent.  You need to pick one.

---

I think you are having issues, making a non-math problem into a math problem.  To a hammer... everything is a nail.

(September 28, 2018 at 10:09 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 7:30 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Love is a clear example of a moral virtue (if not the clearest). 
2. Killing babies for no reason constitutes a lack of love and therefore a lack of moral virtue.
3. Yahweh is considered all-loving and therefore defined as having the greatest possible moral virtue at all times. 
4. Greater moral virtue is better than lesser moral virtue because it regulates other attributes for more positive/less negative outcomes. 
5. More positive outcomes is better than more negative outcomes.
6. Therefore Yahweh is greater than a god that kills babies.

Then god isn't the greatest possible being at all.  He's an examplar of a limited series of limited sets.  Great at what he does, shit at what he doesn't.  I'll note again that he doesn't actually appear to be all that great at what he does, lol.

How do you contextualize number 2 and number 5 in the case of egypts firstborn?  Seems like a lack of love might have lead to a bunch of negative outcomes that night.  Failing at ones own self serving standard is the queen bee of own goaling.  OFC, I'd suggest that everything above are your standards..not the standards of what does or doesn't constitute the greatest of great fairies.  Great fairy might not act in accordance with what you need or want it to be...but it's probably doing exactly what it needs or wants to do.

(September 28, 2018 at 10:47 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 10:09 am)Khemikal Wrote: Then god isn't the greatest possible being at all.  He's an examplar of a limited series of limited sets.  Great at what he does, shit at what he doesn't.  I'll note again that he doesn't actually appear to be all that great at what he does, lol.

How do you contextualize number 2 and number 5 in the case of egypts firstborn?  Seems like a lack of love might have lead to a bunch of negative outcomes that night.  Failing at ones own self serving standard is the queen bee of own goaling.  OFC, I'd suggest that everything above are your standards..not the standards of what does or doesn't constitute the greatest of great fairies.  Great fairy might not act in accordance with what you need or want it to be...but it's probably doing exactly what it needs or wants to do.

First, I added a line to the syllogism in the original post while you were writing this. 

Second, you are saying what makes someone great is what they do. That is not true. Only potential is required. The more potential the greater the being. If God exists, he existed timelessly causally prior to creation of the universe. You cannot say that God's properties were not great during this state.

(September 28, 2018 at 10:37 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote: There only has to be a greatest WITHIN the property for this to make sense. Your unconnected pairs do nothing to undermine the concept. 

Bravery: does not apply to God.
Compassion: the greatest amount of compassion possible
Honesty: the highest possible standard
Respect: does not apply to God. 

Each property has within itself the concept of what is greater. There is no external standard that has to be dreamed up. It is already there. There is no "maximal for *all* virtues." Just string the greatest possible attributes together--and then you have God.

OK, so you are picking and choosing virtues that can or cannot be used. How do you choose? Why do bravery and respect not apply to God? They *are* virtues, are they not?

And once again, even if each virtue you choose has a maximum, there is no reason to think they all have the *same* maximum. In fact, having a common maximum on unrelated orders is very, very rare.

So, again, why do you think that there is a *common* maximum for all these virtues?

(September 28, 2018 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote: Compassion: the greatest amount of compassion possible

(September 28, 2018 at 11:12 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 10:37 am)polymath257 Wrote: OK, so you are picking and choosing virtues that can or cannot be used. How do you choose? Why do bravery and respect not apply to God? They *are* virtues, are they not?

And once again, even if each virtue you choose has a maximum, there is no reason to think they all have the *same* maximum. In fact, having a common maximum on unrelated orders is very, very rare.

So, again, why do you think that there is a *common* maximum for all these virtues?

Why use the word 'virtues'. That is a moral term and the wrong word because it only applies to a very small list of moral subcategories. We are talking about properties of a person. Is that your problem all along? 
To be brave requires one to act in spite of fear. Do you really think God fears anything? Respect requires admiration. Do you think God admires anyone? I think you imagine a thousand moral terms and can't make sense of them all. Don't.

(September 28, 2018 at 11:00 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party?