xian

if you define the IPU as a being having the attributes of the GPB, then what you have is simply the GPB.

Call it an IPU all you want, but it is the GPB.

In the same way, if we defined a proposed human we call "Jack" with all the attributes of G.W. Bush, then "Jack" would simply be G.W. Bush.

Kvalhion

As was mentioned before, 'greatest possible' is subjective to the person attempting to define what is the 'greatest possible'. There is no objective reference to make such a definition.

All you have done in five pages of posts is show that to you, the way you define the 'greatest possible being' is not equal to how another would define their 'greatest possible being'.

So what? You have no criteria in which to argue your definition is any more appropriate than any other.

To postulate there can be "only one" doesn't make sense, because there cannot be only one definition formed out of subjective terms.

Majestyk

Yep. Amazing the amount of complexity and finesse we can contrive in an argument concerning the nature of a fantasy.

xian

but this, my good friend, is simply untrue.

take the attribute of power, for example. Power is not a subjective determination. The most powerful being possible is simply that. And it is an objective declaration. Regardless of what any finite, limited human being thinks, something with great objective power will be greater than something with no power.


When I say "GPB" I am referring to a being of which no other being could possibly be superior to. This is not open to subjectivity, unless you are going to argue against logic itself.

Logic > Illogic.

you cannot argue this. Because in order to argue this, you need to use logic. Hence, it is a self-evident truth.

Dr Rick

Finally, xian has made a valid assertion.

The problem isn't that xian is being ignored, far from it; the problem is that xian doesn't even appear to be trying to understand why fallacies don't make a good argument. He/she expressed tremendous arrogance and considerable ignorance in the OP (opening post), and the former is preventing us from correcting the latter.

Rick

xian

though i agree there was some arrogance in the OP (thanks for clarifying that), there was most certainly no ignorance.

this attempt to bully/intimidate does not work, however.

fallacies never make a good argument, which is why i wanted to highlight the IPU fallacy.

Clutch

Clutch: "Why should it matter whether the IPU is the (or a) GPB? The question is whether there could be more than one supernatural being, and whether the apologetics for one such would be any better than the apologetics for another."

xian: "it matters because logically there can be only one GPB."

Oh, for pete's sake. Read!! The question is whether there could be more than one supernatural being, and whether the apologetics for one such would be any better than the apologetics for another.

Clutch: "That's what IPU examples are typically used to show: the evidential "arguments" for Yahweh are no better than arguments that could be given for an IPU."

xian: "I am not making an evidential argument. What part of this is not clear?"

It's perfectly clear, and is what I have been pointing out all along. IPU examples are typically used to destroy, by counterexample, the claim of evidential support for some brand of theism. You are saying nothing about evidential argument, preferring to recite banalities about definition (along with sophomoric falsehoods about logic, infinity and philosophy).

Hence -- for what? the fifth time? -- you are not saying anything of relevance to IPU examples.If you mean that you can't even be shamed into learning something about the things you're spouting, then there's no need to say it. I'm convinced.

xian

Oops, I was just starting to think about my reply to you and then I read
when people decide to belittle me, i will ignore them.
your post was an emotion-driven ad-hominem attack. as such, I will ignore it. talk to me without the emotions and/or belittling remarks, and I will respond.

Kvalhion

Power, in regards to what is imaginable to the human mind is indeed subjective. The supernatural is defined to have capabilities due to our own ignorance in understanding the way the universe works. For example, gods of the past were so powerful, they hurled lightning bolts at the ground.

Furthermore, morally subjective terms like 'good', 'just', 'merciful' and others are up to the person to define, as it depends largely upon your perspective and life experience.

All you are doing is trying to establish a definition of a greatest possible being in your own mind. It does nothing for the rest us, nor does it have any more validity than what any other person could come up with, including the IPU.

Your argument simply falls apart in claiming that when I say the IPU is good, that definition of good is exactly the definition of good you use to define your god. It is not, thus they are not equal.

Clutch

*Yawn*.

If you're just figuring out that people become a bit annoyed when you consistently combine o'erweening arrogance with abject ignorance, then I'm afraid that you've a lot more "belittling" ahead of you.

When you know nothing about X, confidently spouting nonsense about X at people who might even be experts in X, while smugly telling them how wrong they are, is apt to appear insulting.

Don't like it? Either learn something to back up your arrogance, or approach the topic with the openness that befits a complete novice. Most people here, myself included, would be happy to share their expertise, if you asked politely and gave the appearance of being educable.