Jinto

The Judeo-Christian God is the greatest possible being? Funny, I would have thought that a GPB would be above such things as creating a place of eternal torment for his failed creations, as opposed to simply disposing of them. No, strike that - a GPB would be above having failed creations in the first place.

With regards to this comment by Soma, I posit that the ONLY thing a GPB would care about is personal satisfaction. After all, He would be the only one qualified to make perfect judgements about his own actions.

Soma

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fishbulb
I said that God was omnipotent, but I never said God is the only omnipotent being in existence. So, I'm not really saying that to be omnipotent means to be God.

"Possible" is understood and need not be elucidated upon.

However, in light of you demanding I enumerate the various possible powers of God, I demand that you throw away the silly rock paradox and provide an actual, real-life example of where God's omnipotence would be threatened. An infinite force pushing against an infinite mass is beyond our abilities to quantify, so we cannot know whether or not God can create an unliftable rock. Provide an actual scenario where God's omnipotence would be challenged.

Defend your assertions. Until you demonstrate that what you say is valid, the cosmological argument stands as sound.

The causality principle is an axiom. Reject it if you wish, the argument will remain true objectively.

An effect requires a cause. An effect cannot manifest itself. An infinite regression of causation is impossible, thus we require at least one uncaused first cause.

Good, you understand my argument perfectly!

xian

i see where you are getting at.

the concept of the GPB utilizes logic to arrive at some of its attributes.

existence > nonexistence
moral > immoral
just > unjust
gracious > ingracious
sane > insane
infinite > finite
eternal > temporal
unlimited > limited
independent > dependent
logical > illogical

are these subjective? I say no. I believe that all of those equations above are objective.

Now, I understand that there may be people here who are not willing to grant the premise "moral > immoral"

But I am not going to argue this.

It is my belief that atheists are moral people, and that they like anyone else do believe that moral > immoral and would shun the idea of being labeled as immoral.

i recognize that there might be a few atheists out there who might actually think immoral could be > than moral or that illogic > logic.

however, I believe that such a postulation is wrong. I am not going to argue it either. How do you argue with someone who says "illogic > logic?"

you cannot. therefore I wont.

The GPB assumes those equations above.

Clutch

xian,

In haste: good on you for responding. No, you just agreed with me. You just gave the problem of evidential special pleading. The problem is precisely "How do you know YOUR God and not another?". How you know just is the evidential question.
The usage you gave, again, is the one I have identified as the essential point of IPU examples. You agree; but did not realize that this point is an evidential one.
The internet is a big place, and I said "typically", not "exclusively". The IPU is typically used to point out special pleading because that's what it is rationally suited to demonstrate. You recognized this too -- albeit without recognizing that you recognized it.

Jinto

So, you accept that there might be multiple omnipotent beings?

NEWS FLASH! Scientists have recently discovered an entirely new class of event which does not require a cause! Tentatively termed "spontaneous events" these events are neither eternal nor caused, but simply happen all on their own. As such, one of these events could happen at any time without warning. In fact, one could be happening right now!

Events known to fall into this class currently include: radioactive decay of a single atom, vacuum fluctuations (sp?), and quantum tunneling. It has also been speculated that the Big Bang explosion might also fall into this class, with significant implications for theistic beliefs across the board. We will have more on this as it comes in. Back to you, Bob.

In that case, one has to wonder whether this "good" is concurrent with humanity's best interests, and if it might therefore be a bad thing to worship this "good."

xian

granted that point regarding "how one knows" = evidential argument. I give you that point, as you have well argued.

In the case of saying "how do you know YOUR god".....in that case evidence would be forthcoming.

My point is not to make an evidential argument, but to show the logical differences between the GPB and the IPU and that the GPB stands logically alone, amongst all possible deities. My point is not to say why the GPB over other deities, but to simply show the uniqueness and superiority of the GPB as the one single greatest deity of which no potential IPU or leprechaun can compare to.

when talking about possible deities (like the IPU), we need definitions for those deities. Not arguing for evidence for any of them, I am merely arguing that in ascribing definitions to various deities, the GPB stands alone and above all else.

furthermore, that the GPB has some logical attributes that we can know about. (this does not mean the GPB exists, it only means that we can know some of his attributes)

Jinto

Of course the greatest possible being is greater than, say, an IPU. That's true by definition. However, what Christian apologists generally fail to establish is:

1) The Christian God is the GPB
2) The GPB exists
3) The Christian God exists.
4) The evidence for either of these entities is more plentiful than the evidence for invisible pink unicorns.

xian

your post is well received. of course christian apolgists will fail to PROVE the GPB exists. i think very little in this universe can be proven.


as you accurately state, I have not given any evidence to show #1, 2, 3

but 4 i can discount here and now.

an invisible pink unicorn is a logical fallacy. You cannot possibly have "invisible pink" that actually exists. therefore IPU is a self-refuting proposed deity that cannot possibly exist.

Hawkingfan

I say these are subjective. They are subjective because they vary from culture to culture and person to person.

But not as far as moral > immoral. Everyone agrees on that. But what is moral and what is immoral? For example, homosexuality. To you it is probably immoral. But not to me. To the Romans it was not immoral. You will probably base your decision on what the bible says. But to someone like me who does not agree with what the bible says and feels it is wrong, homosexuality and heterosexuality can equally be a characteristic of someone who is moral.

Dr Rick

Not if one defines the IPU as having all the attributes of the GPB.

How do you know that the IPU is not the GPB?

You cannot possibly have a Judeo-Christian omni-god that allows evil and suffering. The IPU is analagous to the J-C omnigod in that they both have apparent contradictions. If you claim that the J-C omnigod can be the GPB, you are arguing a contradiction.

The J-C omnigod is defined explicitly as a contradiction and so cannot exist, but the IPU is whatever we define it to be; it's only invisible and/or pink if we say it is. Fantasy beings have whatever properties we ascribe to them.