xian

this is my whole point. we disagree on the particulars of "moral" but on the concept we agree that moral > immoral.

person a: "my definition of moral is greater"

person b: "My definition of moral is greater"

but regardless of how a & b define moral, the GPB may be moral greater than both of those definitions . Just because one does not know the greatest possible permutation of an attribute (or even disagree on it) does not mean that such a permutation does not exist, even if it is not what we think it is. We may subjectively think the greatest possible permutation of moral is X, but in reality it is Y.

xian

the Judeo Christian God has apparent contradictions, the IPU has actual ones.

The definition of the GPB has no contradictions at all. And I believe the JCG = GPB. THe problem of evil argument is not a problem for me, and I'll talk about it in another thread

Hawkingfan

It is not a question of a definition being greater than another definition.
It always depends on what you will define as moral in order to know which side of the equation to place it on. If GPB is homosexual, he could not be god (since god defines it as immoral) but GPB would still be moral when looked upon by an atheist.

Dr Rick

A non-existent being cannot have actual anything. The contradictions of the IPU are no more real than the contradictions of the J-C omnigod.

Neither does the IPU if I define it that way. It's pink when it's not invisible, and invisible when its not pink, and it is the GPB either way

Now the IPU has no apparent contradictions, but the J-C omnigod still does. The purpose of the IPU argument is not to disprove the J-C omnigod, but to show that other make-believe deities with the same attributes are just as possible.

Irrelevent

The problem of evil is one that makes the J-C omnigod a logical contradiction; whether or not you have a "problem" with it is also irrelevant.

Rick

Soma

I admit to the possibility, yes.

The aforementioned events are caused.

Jinto

There are no actual contradictions when you look at the IPU in context, only apparent contardictions (and spelling mistakes).

Many aunicornists try to argue that something cannot be both invisible and pink at the same time. However, they are ignoring the fact that invisible has multiple definitions:

Clearly, we are referring to the third definition in this case, as otherwise we would have no way of knowing that She is pink. This is perfectly consistent, and we see that there are no contradictions in the nature of the unicorn.

Mageth

Logic will tell us some of the GPB's attributes, but certainly not in all of the details we would like, but most certainly enough of them to mutually exclude an infinite amount of other deities (including the IPU). I don't need to "know" everything about the GPB to believe in the GPB. This is an element of faith to believe that the GPB is there, and that some of the attributes that I subjectively do not understand, are still 'greatest' even though I lack intricate knowledge of such.

Of course, one can believe in the GPB. But neither you nor the GPB itself could ever demonstrate that any of its attributes are the "greatest", or that it was indeed the GPB.

I believed in the GPB long before I became a Christian. It was when analyzing the Christian God that I realized the definitions I already already believed about God "a priori" to my knowledge of the JCG, that there was a match.

You believed in the GPB or the concept of the GPB? Just curious.

And because something cannot be demonstrated to exist in "reality" does not necessitate that it does not exist.

Perhaps, but if one encounters an actual "god-being", and you or it can demonstrate that it exists, neither you nor it will be able to demonstrate that it is the GPB. So the most one can claim, even in this case, is that the god-being may be the GPB; one can never demonstrate that it is the GPB. Thus, the GPB cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality, as no being can ever demonstrate or prove even to itself that it is indeed the GPB.

Thus I still claim that the GPB can't exist in reality, as it can never be demonstrated to exist in reality, even if there was a being known to exist that is a potential candidate GPB.

Demonstration is necessary for the scientific method, but not for existence. there is not a logical problem with something existing supernaturally.

As I said, even if a supernatural being was demonstrated to exist, even if it claimed to be the GPB, it could not demonstrate that it was indeed the GPB, not even to itself (how would a being prove to itself that it is the GPB???). One might argue that any supernatural being claiming to be the GPB cannot be the GPB, because such a being would know that it could not know that it indeed was the GPB!

Jinto

No, they aren't, but if you insist on making that assertation, then what is the cause? (And please don't say goddidit).

Philosoft

I'd like to see you expound upon this, but I think Science & Skepticism would be the better forum. Would you discuss this if I opened a thread over there?

Mageth

The aforementioned events are caused.

Step up and explain the causes; your Nobel Prize is waiting!

(no offense - not an ad hom attack - etc. etc.)