Jobar

Brilliant, HRG!

xian, that argument states succintly something that I have said in the past- we cannot actually perceive any infinity. There is always more to see if infinity actually exists. There is always more to describe- infinitely more- if an infinite being exists. Our knowledge, indeed any potential knowledge, approaches zero.

You can say not a thing about the 'nature' of an infinite being, without the possibility (probability?) of being wrong. Including the statement that it exists.

Mageth

The being is so comprehensive of all possible things to know, he just knows there is nothing left to learn.

Then you're stuck with the circular definition that it's the GPB because it knows everything, and it knows everything because it's the GPB.

Here's another puzzle this brings up:

If the GPB is capable of learning, then this implies that at some point the being did not know everything (and thus could not be the GPB), but was busy about the task of learning all there is to know. Using again my simple set of [a, b, c], the being would learn a, then b, and then c. How would it know it had learned everything? Before it learned c, it logically could not know that c existed (or didn't exist). After it learned c, the same logic would still apply; it logically could not know if e (to differentiate from d) existed or didn't exist.

If you propose that the GPB always knew everything, then it would be incapable of learning. Would this not be a limitation on the GPB, that one might say makes it incapable of being the GPB?

But supposing the GPB "always knew everything." It would have to know what I know. One thing I know is that it logically could not know, could not prove, that a hypothetical particle of knowledge e doesn't exist. A being cannot know something (e.g. the state of existence) about something it doesn't know about. So the being could not know if it knew everything there is to know!

It's the "you can't prove a negative" problem. I can't prove an undefined particle e doesn't exist; neither could the "GPB". Give a definition to e (i.e. possess knowledge of the particle), and perhaps one could prove it doesn't exist.

Imagine encountering a being that claims to be the GPB, and thus to know everything. Ask it the question. "OK, prove that a hypothetical particle of knowledge e, which you don't know, doesn't exist." How would it answer? "e doesn't exist"? It can't prove that e doesn't exist, and thus cannot establish that it knows everything and is the GPB, either to us or to itself. It and we could at best only assume that it's the GPB.

because if the universe contained 3 particles....a b c....the being would know not only those 3 particles, but also know that there are no other particles to learn about.

This would imply, rather absurdly, that there was a particle of knowledge d, "there are no other particles to learn about", which it would "learn" after learning about [a, b, c]. Where would this knowledge come from? My argument above still applies; it logically could not know d existed or didn't exist before learning d. And after learning d, it would still "know" the same logic that it logically could not know or prove that particle e didn't exist. Perhaps puzzling over the conflicting particle d and the possible existence of particle e would *poof* the being into non-existence?

So, a being cannot know about, cannot make a claim about (e.g. the state of existence), something it doesn't know about. There is always the unknown "e" out there for the being to worry about.

Boro Nut

What on earth makes christians believe that their god is the GPB anyway? All you need to be able to do is create universes. Any old god can do that. That doesn't necessarily stop you having really bad breath or something.

Anyway, perhaps there is a limit on the greatness gods can attain given the constraints they have generated. Perhaps god is limited to only a maximum possible greatness of 75% efficiency, beyond which they disappear up their own arseholes. They would still be the greatest possible beings without actually being the full biffter, unlike the IPU.

God also fails the ID test. The IPU has a horn, 4 legs, and a tail, because it is a unicorn. It wouldn't be a unicorn without them. But no one can explain why god has a dick, or an appendix, or a coccyx, or body hair, etc. We can't even explain why he has a nose for that matter. Presumably god's nose would be the best nose ever, able to detect even the sound of blue, yet he only likes the smell of burnt food. Strange.

Boro Nut

RevDahlia

<delurk>

hello, everyone!

i'm a beginner at this. may be misunderstanding the discussion completely. but from what i understand, the IPU argument puts forth the possiblity that IF the judeo-christian god (or zeus, or vishnu, or what have you) exists, THEN it is equally likely, given the nature of deity as posited by humans, that the IPU exists.

the definition of the GPB seems singularly irrelevant to the IPU argument. unless one seeks to show that the JCG (or zeus, or vishnu, or what have you) IS the GPB, and definitely exists, and therefore, given that the GPB's existence denies the possibility of other GPBs (an argument i personally do not buy,) the IPU as GPB cannot exist. (forgive tortured grammar, please...)

i was also going to mention that the creator of the universe need not be infinitely powerful and certainly need not be perfect, but boro nut beat me to it.

Jobar

Greetings, RevDahlia, and welcome.

IF a GPB exists, and IF there is at most one, THEN it is no more likely that it is Jehovah than it is the IPU, or Shiva, or any other god known or unknown. Determining the nature of the GPB is an entirely separate problem from determining whether one actually exists. The IPU illustrates the 'nature of the GPB' problem, but does not directly address the 'existence of the GPB' problem.

This thread has clarified this distinction wonderfully well for me; for that reason, I am actually grateful to xtian for starting it!

xian

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jobar
Greetings, RevDahlia, and welcome.

IF a GPB exists, and IF there is at most one, THEN it is no more likely that it is Jehovah than it is the IPU, or Shiva, or any other god known or unknown. [QUOTE]

how sad that after all I've said, you would say this again. Didn't we already say that the GPB has certain logical attributes (such as infinite, perfection, eternal, omnisicent, etc)?


this would rule out Shiva, IPU, and a host of other potential deities.

Why are you again returning to this GPB = IPU fallacy?


so, lets rephrase what you said, this time accurate:

IF a GPB exists, then there can ONLY be one, and by definition it would stand alone- lest it not be the greatest possible being.

Dr Rick

Didn't we already say that GPBs have certain logical attributes (such as infinite, perfection, eternal, omnisicent, etc) that could be met by any number of possible incarnations?

This would include Shiva, IPU, and a host of other potential deities.

So, lets rephrase what you said, this time accurate[ly]:

IF GPBs exist, then they can be any number of potential beings, and by definition they might or might not stand alone- lest they not be the greatest possible beings.

Rick

xian

the term "GPBs" violates the law of noncontradiction.

therefore, your whole postulation is invalid.

If Shiva has the attributes of the GBP, you no longer have Shiva, but you have the GPB.

Giving the GPB a "name" is simply assigning characters to the summation of the attributes.

I dont care what "characters" you assign to the GPB- whether its IPU, or Shiva, or Fred......it is all the same exact being.

thus the massive red-herring deception. Atheists talk about IPU, Shiva, Ra, ect as if we are talking about seperately defined distinct possible beings....its all a deception.

if we are talking about the GPB, then no matter what sequence of ASCII characters you label it....we are talking about the same...exact thing.

you can call the statue of liberty anything you want. call it the green leprechaun. but so long as it is defined as the statue of liberty...well, thats exactly what it is.

xian

oops, almost forgot to correct Rick.


sorry, there Rick. My bad.

So, lets rephrase what Rick said, this time acqurret

IF the GPB exists, it will have certain necessary logical infinite and perfect attributes that excludes any and all other possible definition for the GPB. And because the GPB's attributes are infinite, it must by definition stand alone. no matter what ASCII characters you assign to the GPB for a name, the attributes and identity of the GPB will remain objectively constant. An ASCII sequence of characters naming the GPB has no bearing whatsoever on the identity of the GPB, which is impervious and immutable to any implied limitations of an ASCII label.

Darkblade

I've had lots of fun reading this thread, probably in part due to my not visiting the forums here in a while. Hehehe...sorry to waste everyone's time.