Attributes, Probability and the God Index

[FallentoReason]

Here's a challenge for anyone that believes in God:

A value can be assigned to each of the attributes from 0 to 1, where 0 means that the being doesn't posses the attribute at all and 1 means that the being is omni[attribute]. This being then possesses an attribute I will call the "god index" which can be obtained by multiplying together each of the values. Since our scale is continuous, there are an infinite number of possible beings ranging from a god index of 0 to 1. Since there are an infinite number, the probability of any one of them existing approaches zero.

Any counter-arguments I could sink my teeth in?

[Violet]

I'm a net 0.99... and I feel positively mediocre. Methinks your worldview is entirely too limited by logic to understand.

[Darkstar]

Wouldn't this assume that all indexes from zero to one were equally likely? It would seem obvious that more beings lower on the scale would exist, but I'm not sure how one would calculate these probabilities (or if it is even possible to do so).

[Violet]

Wouldn't this assume that all indexes from zero to one were equally likely? It would seem obvious that more beings lower on the scale would exist, but I'm not sure how one would calculate these probabilities (or if it is even possible to do so).

This perception is that of lower beings, who are the playthings of the higher beings, who probably don't know many of the even higher beings.

Just think: if logic itself is a construct... and only applicable here... why can't there be an infinite number of beyond maximal-power beings?

[FallentoReason]

Wouldn't this assume that all indexes from zero to one were equally likely?

Yes.

It would seem obvious that more beings lower on the scale would exist, but I'm not sure how one would calculate these probabilities (or if it is even possible to do so).

If we somehow managed to narrow it down and say only being from .25 to .5 would be the most possible, we still have an infinite amount.

The theist can only say that a certain mix of attributes is the necessary amount for this [so called] necessary being. That's a different topic altogether, but it ends with the theist trying to explain why God arbitrarily has those values and not others and why they were the necessary values and not others if nothing exterior to God motivated God to have needed those exact values and not others in the first place.

---

Wouldn't this assume that all indexes from zero to one were equally likely? It would seem obvious that more beings lower on the scale would exist, but I'm not sure how one would calculate these probabilities (or if it is even possible to do so).

This perception is that of lower beings, who are the playthings of the higher beings, who probably don't know many of the even higher beings.

Just think: if logic itself is a construct... and only applicable here... why can't there be an infinite number of beyond maximal-power beings?

Ah, the ontological argument.. sort of.

The fallacy with that is that a concept in our head is different to an object in the real world. I can think of a stapler, but that concept in my head isn't an actual stapler (because that would hurt!). Therefore these all-powerful beings that we can imagine to exist are just concepts and in no way does that entail they actually exist.

[Baalzebutt]

Would this not also apply to people? I mean, if I rated all of my attributes, I would have some score but if there are an infinite possibilities my chance of existing approaches 0.

Yet, here I am.

[FallentoReason]

Would this not also apply to people? I mean, if I rated all of my attributes, I would have some score but if there are an infinite possibilities my chance of existing approaches 0.

Yet, here I am.

Your attributes are the consequence of your environment. You couldn't have been any other way but the way you are now. God is "environment-less" therefore as far as I can see there's an equal chance of every combination being the combination God possesses.

[Darkstar]

Wait...was this argument meant to expose the flaws in the fine tuning "too unlikely to happen" argument?

[Violet]

This perception is that of lower beings, who are the playthings of the higher beings, who probably don't know many of the even higher beings.

Just think: if logic itself is a construct... and only applicable here... why can't there be an infinite number of beyond maximal-power beings?

Ah, the ontological argument.. sort of.

The fallacy with that is that a concept in our head is different to an object in the real world. I can think of a stapler, but that concept in my head isn't an actual stapler (because that would hurt!). Therefore these all-powerful beings that we can imagine to exist are just concepts and in no way does that entail they actually exist.

No... it's the argument that logic itself is invalid. An omnipotent being doesn't necessarily have to be bound by logic.... but you have a bunch of nonsense there.

The pain itself could easily be illusory. If you are capable of using your mind to create pleasure in yourself... you are also capable of using your mind to hurt you. Even your perception of pain and pleasure *itself* is all in your head. Everything might as well 'be just a concept'... but I would ask you this: how does is conceptual existence not 'actual' existence? Sounds like a NTS to me... maybe that'll talk to you better than cluing you in, you logic-impaired zealot.

A concept in your head is all that objects in 'the real world' are. Observe a worm... a pitiful, nonsapient being: how would they perceive the very real television in front of them? Go further, and say it was reduced in size such as to be proportional to humankind's televisions... the experience is totally different. But both experiences are real.

Observe the pitiful human, a sapient being... but it has neither been to space, nor does it appear to have the capacity to escape logic's rule. Existence is. Organization of existence into separate 'things' is the barest of observations that you do not observe the whole.

---

Would this not also apply to people? I mean, if I rated all of my attributes, I would have some score but if there are an infinite possibilities my chance of existing approaches 0.

Yet, here I am.

Then clearly, you're not a 0 in every category.

Congratulations on existing as a non-nothing substance!

---

Wait...was this argument meant to expose the flaws in the fine tuning "too unlikely to happen" argument?

Too unlikely to happen is flawed because regardless of likelihood: it can still happen.

Too unlikely to happen to be practical on the other hand... well, that's a measured bet

[FallentoReason]

Wait...was this argument meant to expose the flaws in the fine tuning "too unlikely to happen" argument?

This argument was my response to John V's view that God isn't omni x3 according to the Bible, because my argument on non-belief (different thread) requires that God is at least omnipotent and omnibenevolent.