(September 27, 2018 at 8:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(September 26, 2018 at 2:09 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I've been trying to get you to define your concepts well enough that an argument can be made. But, at this point, the concept of 'greater' is too vague to do anything else with: there are simply too many interpretations of that word that are mutually contradictory.
Unless you define the term, you cannot know there is a greatest.
So then, you switch from arguing against to pleading ignorance?
edit: Are you saying that their are interpretations, that are not contradictory, and incoherent? Wouldn't the principle of charity say that you should argue against those, rather than trying to make the argument irrational?
I am saying that I have yet to see a coherent argument being made that doesn't have basic flaws. Furthermore, by refusing to define the relationship 'greater', the whole position on the religious side boils down to hand waving.
So, yes, your refusal to make the required argument means we are ignorant of what you are specifically claiming. This is *your* job to make your argument, not mine. If you think there is a coherent way to assign 'greater' to all virtues simultaneously, please make that argument. If you then make a claim that there is a 'greatest' in that ordering, then make that argument. Both of these claims seem wildly unlikely, though.
But at this point, all you have done is mumble vague platitudes that are unlikely to be anywhere close to correct.
And yes, until you actually do the work, what we understand about orderings makes your claims dubious, at best. More specifically, it appears that many virtues are mutually at odds, making a consistent resolution of these issues doubtful.