Dr Rick

First of all, you are not a lone thiest posting on the IIDB; lots of thiests do, and some of them make rational arguments.

Secondly, it was your argument and the arrogance you displayed that was bashed.

What has been demonstrated to you on this thread is that all proposed deities, whether you refer to them as Yahwehs, GPBs. or IPUs, have in common equally illogical arguments for their existence. That Christians argue for a particular kind of god does not make their reasoning any more persuasive or rational.

Now you're trying to argue physics with some posters that are very well-versed on the subject, though to what end or purpose is unclear.

Rick

Mageth

Do you assume that gravity exists in the Andromeda galaxy?

Well, I've seen evidence that indicates the effects of gravity in the Andromeda galaxy, so I don't have to "assume" that gravity exists. The evidence indicates that it does.

The most recent evidence I viewed was used as evidence in support of the theory that supermassive black holes exist at the centers of galaxies - a detectalbe sharp rise in the rotation velocity of stars or gas clouds as you get closer to the center of a galaxy (in theory caused by the presence of a supermassive black hole). Andromeda, I believe, was the first galaxy in which such a detectable sharp rise in the rotation velocity was detected.

BTW, the above also illustrates why I don't have to "assume" that there are supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies. There's detectable evidence of them.

xian

if a GPB exists, it must be alone. First of all if there were two, then the greatest possible being would be a logical fallacy since neither is greater. This can also be logically proven with the concept of power. Two beings with unlimited power could not logically exist. They would be limited by each other.

I do not see how one GPB could not exist. Do you have a logical argument that demonstrates that the existence of a GPB is impossible?

the only good argument I saw (and I might have missed some things amid the xian bashing) was that the term "greatest" is subjective. But I responded to that by saying that there can still be an objective implication of the term that a finite, limited human being is unaware of.

well this is a fine argument that keeps the identification of the GPB a mystery to all but the GPB. In that manner, you have convinced me. It however does not necessitate that the GPB cannot exist (at least I cannot see that to be the case)


P.s: Mageth, its great to hear you bring up supermassive blackholes. please post your comments in the SCIENCE forum i created a new thread there, thx.

Jobar

xian, your objections to quantum acausality are arguments from incredulity. If you wish to actually learn something of physics, the underlying philosophical implications of Bell's Theorem, and the counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics, I suggest that you read up on it first. Your comments indicate to those of us who do know a bit about it that you do not. It's a difficult subject, and a discussion board is not the proper medium nor is EoG the proper forum for teaching the subject in depth. I suggest that you go to Science&Skepticism if you want to continue talking about causality.

Also, you might want to try starting a new thread and concentrating on one of your other three objections to atheism mentioned in your OP; I think we have rather squeezed all the juice out of this one.

Mageth

well this is a fine argument that keeps the identification of the GPB a mystery to all but the GPB. In that manner, you have convinced me. It however does not necessitate that the GPB cannot exist (at least I cannot see that to be the case)

But I also claim that the GPB could not itself know/demonstrate to itself that it's the GPB. Can you illustrate how it could? At nost it could assume that it was the GPB.

I also claim that if something cannot be demonstrated to exist, it cannot exist. One can demonstrate that a being exists, that the being has amazing powers, that the being may be the GPB, but one can never demonstrate that it is the GPB. Thus, the GPB can never be claimed to exist. Since we can't demonstrate that any particular being is the GPB, there is always the possibility that there is another being that is greater.

I'll grant, a being may be the GPB, but that's a bit of a sticky wicket because it, or we, could never know that it was the GPB. At most the being could be called a "candidate GPB" or "potential GPB". Thus, the GPB cannot be said to exist in reality.

Mageth

P.s: Mageth, its great to hear you bring up supermassive blackholes. please post your comments in the SCIENCE forum i created a new thread there, thx.

I may not get to that thread. Feel free to copy/paste my comments there (with due credit) if you wish.

xian

if the GPB is ignorant of its own position as the GPB, then it is not truly the greatest possible being. It would not be all-knowing. As far as existence being contingent upon demonstration- what exactly do you mean by demonstration? Does this mean that a homosapien must be able to observe it with one of the six senses?

Gary Welsh

It's true that the Judeo-Christian God is not identical to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There are differences. One was constructed thousands of years ago, cobbled together out of different religions and traditions: Zoroastrianism, the Prometheus Myth, Orpheism, etc. The other was constructed much more recently, by flippant atheists. One is intended to be revered and worshipped. The other is intentionally fanciful. But there are similarities between them as well. Both are invisible and undetectable, and inherently mysterious in their capabilities and plans.

BadBadBad

Xian,

People keep coming back to several key things. That you need to answer:

Does the concept of GPB necessitate it's actual existence? The authors of the Bible propose the concept of JCG. You have proposed the concept of GPB. Both have to actually exist to be defined as GPB. Perhaps man is actually GPB, or perhaps a lion, or perhaps an ant. I think as a christian, you're asserting that JCG=GPB=exists. I'm asserting that JCG != exists. I assert that IPU=GPB=exists. You're trying to argue this is an invalid argument, but you're asserting that JCG=GPB=God= IPU to do it. Unfortunately, you have to prove conclusively that JCG=GPB=God=exists, and you haven't even gotten started.

Does JCG = GPB? You've asserted that it is. However, arguments have been presented to show that even your attributes for JCG are contradictory. Plus, your list of attributes is a little short. The attributes for JCG must include at least all of the descriptions in the Bible. This has to include implicit attributes like a perfect god creates an imperfect Bible and imperfect mankind. If the attributes as described in the Bible are contradictory, the JCG can not exist. If so, JCG != GPB.

You've got a lot of work to do to propose a complete list of attributes for JCG, prove that they're all in fact true, prove that it's a complete list, prove the attributes are not contradictory, prove that JCG exists and then you have the same job to do for the GPB. Then you have to match up the attributes and prove the equation. Without that proof, you haven't proved that JCG = GPB, and you haven't proved that another proposed god, including IPU, is or is not GPB. You have to prove that JCG = GPB or IPU arguments stand as equally valid as arguments for JCG.

What is GPB? You've proposed a list of attributes, but you haven't proved it. What is greatest? What is possible? What is being? Each piece has been asked over and over, and you haven't answered with satisfactory proof. Is omniscience possible? I assert that it is not, and you haven't proved that it is. If it's impossible, a conceived "being" with omniscience couldn't be the GPB since omniscience is not possible. You've stated that existence is a key criteria for GPB. You keep saying that an IPU is not an IPU it's God. That presupposes that JCG=GPB, which you haven't proved. It also presupposes a definition of GPB which you haven't proved.

I think the number of issues you've been challenged with goes on, but I'd appreciate if you could at least address my challenge that you have to conclusively prove your list of attributes, existence, and equality.

Mageth

if the GPB is ignorant of its own position as the GPB, then it is not truly the greatest possible being.

You're seem to be talking about the concept of the GPB here, and perhaps adding to its definition that it would know it was the GPB. That's getting a bit circular, is it not? It's the GPB because it knows it's the GPB?

It would not be all-knowing.

True. But how exactcly could the GPB know that it was indeed the GPB? More particularly, how could it demonstrate to itself that it was indeed the GPB? I claim, at best, that it could only assume, never prove to itself, that it was indeed the GPB. Indeed, this applies to omniscience in general; the GPB could not prove to itself, or to others, that it knew everything. (can you propose a mechanism for it to do so, other than just defining it as so?) Thus, your definition of the GPB cannot exist in reality! (indeed, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the definition itself).

As far as existence being contingent upon demonstration- what exactly do you mean by demonstration? Does this mean that a homosapien must be able to observe it with one of the six senses?

No, you're missing the point. A particular being may be the GPB, i.e. the GPB may exist in reality, indeed, you or I may be the GPB, but it cannot be demonstrated, even by itself to itself, that any particular being is the GPB; thus, nothing can exist which we demonstrably, with absolute confidence, can label as the GPB. Any such being could realistically only be labeled as a "possible GPB." Since it can't be proved that any particular being is the GPB, there's always the possibility that another being exists that is "greater". Thus, a being we could label the GPB cannot exist in reality.