(November 7, 2013 at 3:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I don't have much problems with the OP.

"Some atheists make bad arguments?"

Quite.

Yeah, there was this atheist by the name of Vinny who used to make a bunch of really shitty arguments. It was embarrassing. I wonder what ever happened to him?

(November 9, 2013 at 3:08 am)apophenia Wrote: Yeah, there was this atheist by the name of Vinny who used to make a bunch of really shitty arguments. It was embarrassing. I wonder what ever happened to him?

Is he an atheist, though? Trolling can be a religion, when it's clung to as persistently and virulently as Vin clings to it.

(November 9, 2013 at 3:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: Trolling can be a religion, when it's clung to as persistently and virulently as Vin clings to it.

In that case I know a couple of people who can be the troll pope.

I think the general problem with things like Maximally Great Beings is that what is 'great' is essentially subjective. If one's idea of what an MGB is contains the attribute of omnibenevolence, it would seem that an ontological argument could establish the existence of an MGB with that property inversed to be omnimalevolence. And it doesn't seem you could claim the benevolent one is inherently greater than the malevolent one, because then you're special pleading from your own set of values from what I can tell.

(November 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Could you explain how or why you think the MGB concept engages in special pleading?

Not the maximally great concept specifically, but this entire argument: "Everything requires a cause, except for this set of things that I, by definitional fiat, have set aside as not requiring a cause."

It also invalidates the first premise, since what you're really saying is that, except for those things that don't require a cause, everything requires a cause. It's a nothing statement.

Quote:I also think you're wrong about your use of "infinite concept"- I don't think mathematics has anything to do with it, so thinking in terms of an upper limit misses the point.

Also, "My MGB is the same as yours, except he can kill yours" seems to contain a contradiction. If a being can be killed, I assume it cannot be a MGB. So I think you don't understand the concept well enough. I hate to cite this guy, but I like his sweater:

As for the rest, well, I'm not thinking in terms of mathematics, just in terms of the fact that qualitative determinations can always be one upped, in this case. You're right in saying that a being that can be killed isn't maximally great, but the counterargument to that is that a being that can do the impossible and kill an immortal being is much greater than that being, and that's why the first entity is not maximally great.

That's the issue: the moment we begin speculating on the MGB, we can make it greater and greater just by adding on more of what we've determined to be great in the first place. A being one inch taller, a little wiser, etc etc. If an actual MGB appeared before us, we could immediately think of things to improve it, merely by now having the initial being as a jumping off point.

Your video brings to light a broader point, too, which is that conceptual isn't the same as physical, and you can't just think a being into existence by believing that existence is necessitated by the properties you've imagined. "I think this thing needs to exist in order to fulfill the properties I've imagined it having, and therefore it does," isn't an incredibly potent argument. All you can honestly say is that you think such a being could exist because of your imagination.

(November 12, 2013 at 10:33 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I think the general problem with things like Maximally Great Beings is that what is 'great' is essentially subjective. If one's idea of what an MGB is contains the attribute of omnibenevolence, it would seem that an ontological argument could establish the existence of an MGB with that property inversed to be omnimalevolence. And it doesn't seem you could claim the benevolent one is inherently greater than the malevolent one, because then you're special pleading from your own set of values from what I can tell.

That was my response. Only I use the word anthropomorphism, because I think it's a human-centric notion of greatness.

But what if you make a substitution, replacing the word "great", which refers to a subjective concept, with something else? Like "taerg", where taerg represents nothing antropocentric or subjective, but only a set of properties (like omnipotence, omniscience, etc)?

That seems to escape the subjectivity, right?

(November 12, 2013 at 10:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Could you explain how or why you think the MGB concept engages in special pleading?

Not the maximally great concept specifically, but this entire argument: "Everything requires a cause, except for this set of things that I, by definitional fiat, have set aside as not requiring a cause."

It also invalidates the first premise, since what you're really saying is that, except for those things that don't require a cause, everything requires a cause. It's a nothing statement.

Quote:I also think you're wrong about your use of "infinite concept"- I don't think mathematics has anything to do with it, so thinking in terms of an upper limit misses the point.

Also, "My MGB is the same as yours, except he can kill yours" seems to contain a contradiction. If a being can be killed, I assume it cannot be a MGB. So I think you don't understand the concept well enough. I hate to cite this guy, but I like his sweater:

As for the rest, well, I'm not thinking in terms of mathematics, just in terms of the fact that qualitative determinations can always be one upped, in this case. You're right in saying that a being that can be killed isn't maximally great, but the counterargument to that is that a being that can do the impossible and kill an immortal being is much greater than that being, and that's why the first entity is not maximally great.

That's the issue: the moment we begin speculating on the MGB, we can make it greater and greater just by adding on more of what we've determined to be great in the first place. A being one inch taller, a little wiser, etc etc. If an actual MGB appeared before us, we could immediately think of things to improve it, merely by now having the initial being as a jumping off point.

Your video brings to light a broader point, too, which is that conceptual isn't the same as physical, and you can't just think a being into existence by believing that existence is necessitated by the properties you've imagined. "I think this thing needs to exist in order to fulfill the properties I've imagined it having, and therefore it does," isn't an incredibly potent argument. All you can honestly say is that you think such a being could exist because of your imagination.

This assumes that the definition of God is just made up by people. To be fair, this is true, but if you start off by affirming such a position, you're begging the question against theism to begin with, aren't you?

We can use the MGB to prove god doesn't exist.

If an MGB is the greatest entity that can be conceived then I present to you Eric the god eating aardvark.

If your god exists then by your definition Eric also exists since being capable of eating gods he is greater than your god.

If Eric exists then your god has been eaten by him and he therefore does not exist.

And that about wraps it up for god as he disappears in a puff of logic