philechat

What I see here is only a rather twisted rehash of Descartes' ontological argument. The problem with Descartes' arguments comes from his assumption that perfection entails existence, therefore a perfect being, i.e. God, must exist. Spinoza uses the same argument for God only to find him indistinguishable from existence itself (thus Pantheism).

But Perfection itself is a value term, which is where Descartes' argument break down. We cannot define perfection except by negatives, leading to a whole horde of contradictory attributes--a perfect blackness could not be the same as a perfect whiteness, nor a perfect triangle with a perfect circle.

xian

allright, i will stay and respond to you, Eggplant.

THE point is really just to pass time. i post probably for a similar reason most ppl do. just to have fun and engage other ppl.

I am not saying there is only one God. Nothing I said is an argument for the existence of God. My argument states that there can only be one GPB. Now the GPB might not exist at all. Nothing I said is an argument for God. What I am saying is basically this:


The GPB may exist.
If the GPB exists, then it will have certain logical attributes.
Those attributes preclude it from being an IPU, or any other number of infinite possible gods.
If the GPB exists, then it must exist alone
If you assign the attributes of the GPB to an IPU, what you end up with is no longer an IPU, but you end up with the GPB.

This is the same as assinging to a person the attributes of a brick. What you end up with is no longer a human being, but simply a brick.

Wyz_sub10

I don't think it's unwarranted. I'm not making a personal assumption about you. I am making an assumption with regards to your arguments. If you infer anything beyond that, there is not much I can do about it.

It seemed apparent to me that you did realize that fact, since you appeared to have shifted your argument. Perhaps I was mistaken.

You could have addressed that point. It's your choice to respond as you like, of course.

It is clear that you do not know what an ad hominem attack is.

Your inferences, your problem. I said no such thing. If you choice to believe otherwise, again, there is nothing I can do about that.

You do not know what an ad hominem attack is. That much is clear. You *do* however seem to enjoy making the very generalizations you accuse me of making.

You didn't address the first answer you receive. Obvsiously you skipped over it. Your reasons are your own, just don't tell me it was because I "attacked" you.

Your impressions of my moderating are your own to form as you like. If you have a formal complain, please take it up with an Administrator.

Yes, you've said as much. But I never told you why you were not responding. I only noted that you were not. It was your comment that initiated the response.

I did no such thing.

Okay.

By all means.

xian

after eggplant's desire to engage in sincere dialogue with me, i realized departing the thread on account of one fruitless exchange was premature on my part. probably a better route is simply not to respond to your arguments. I know what ad-hominem is and you not only put words in my mouth, but you accused me twice of things that were not true, all of which were unwarranted. When I sense that you have a genuine desire to engage in dialogue, and when I sense that you have let go of your accusatory attitude towards me (namely that if I dont respond to an argument does not equivocate that I am dodging it), then I might respond to you. Until then, your responses to me will be summarily ignored.

NumberTenOx

I think that is debatable. Many cosmologists think the universe is infinite in scope. I can't get my mind around that, but it may be true.

But, let's say that you're correct and the universe is finite. Is infinite power over a finite universe really "infinite"? Let's say God has the power to do "anything he wants" in the finite universe. "Anything he wants" is a finite set, when applied to a finite universe. His power is finite, because the universe is finite.

An example: let's say I want to arrange the numbers from 1 to 100 "anyway I want". There are a finite number of ways to do this. Even though conceptually, my power to rearrange a given set of numbers is "infinite", it really isn't because I can only do a finite number of arrangements.

Again, you can rebut this by saying "anything he wants" includes making as much new universe as he wants. But unless he makes an infinite amount of new universe, his power will always be in reality finite.

I have two responses to this. First, I can conceive of multiple universes, and I can conceive of each universe having an associated "god" that is infinite in that universe, even infinite in the "timeless, spaceless" place associated with that universe. These gods don't know about each other or interact in any way. But they are infinite, all-powerful, etc.

Second, on a personal level, do I have free will? Would the GPB be greater if I was a part of it? This is an argument about the meaning of infinity again. Does infinite mean everywhere, all the time? And if so, that means right here, right now, God is exerting his power over me, which means I have no free will, God is doing this typing. Otherwise, he's not the GPB because he would be greater if I were part of him.

That wasn't that lucid but there is a nugget there: If infinite means everywhere, then I have no free will. If it doesn't mean that, then my actions could be part of another GPB.

Finally, I read that Xian is leaving this thread. A pity. Boards like this are a brutal place, you always leave yourself open to massive attack, or worse - getting ignored. But it's the Xian's that make this board interesting, otherwise we'd all just be doing intellectual masturbation (maybe we are anyway...).

Wyz_sub10

I'll remove myself from the exchange if it gives you such discomfort. But I do not accept your accusation of an ad hom attack. I will, however, apologize for misrepresenting your position and putting words in your mouth.

Please continue your dialogue with others.

xian

"Again, you can rebut this by saying "anything he wants" includes making as much new universe as he wants. But unless he makes an infinite amount of new universe, his power will always be in reality finite. "
d

a fine argument. I had not heard it so well put before. I look forward to future discussions with you.

I make a delineation between infinite potential and infinite expression. Your argument clearly shows that if the GPB exists, then it has not demonstrated infinite power. BUt this is not to equate that the GPB does not have infinite ability.

Plus consider the concept that infinite means without limits.

Since the natural universe is all there is naturally, having complete power over the natural universe would be fully limitless, hence fit the definition of infinite from a natural perspective.

In addition, to the GPB having limitless power over the natural universe, must also have limitless power over the "supernatural" universe. Having "limitless" power over both realms would fully fit the definition of infinite. Defining infinite in any other way strips it of its meaning.

Let me put it in reverse. Lets assume God does not exist. Lets assume the natural universe is simply all there is and is finite.

Therefore, a being with limitless power over this finite universe would equate to infinite power.


"First, I can conceive of multiple universes, and I can conceive of each universe having an associated "god" that is infinite in that universe, even infinite in the "timeless, spaceless" place associated with that universe. These gods don't know about each other or interact in any way. But they are infinite, all-powerful, etc. "

You are correct that they are infinite according to their own universe(s). But not according to each other. This brings up a fascinating definition for infinite as a relative proposition.

You are very intelligent, NumberTenOx. You are raising some very thought provoking points.

Now, I can take your scenario and conceive of a greater being. A being that is aware of all those universii and gods, and has power over them all. SO i would respond by saying your scenario indeed does not have the GPB. Though all beings in your scenario are infinite relative to their universii, they are not infinite relative to each other, hence they have a logical limitation.

The GPB must not have a logical limitation.

Jobar

xian, Wyz prefaced the remarks which you objected to so as to make it clear that he was expressing his own opinion of your tactics. He has committed no ad hom fallacies. Your proper response would be to either ignore him (as is your right) or to ask him to re-state the arguments he felt you needed to address. Your actual response- accusing *him* of ad homs- only makes it seem more like you are dodging questions.

Wyz was addressing you as a poster, not as a moderator. All us mods try to make it clear when we are 'wearing our mod hats' and thus requiring or suggesting some action as officials of this board.

If you have complaints about any action taken *by* a mod acting *as* a mod, take it to our Bugs & Complaints forum. But IMO in this case you, not he, are at fault.

I have stated several times that theists here are certainly not expected to answer every single question they are asked- but if one question is repeated politely several times, and is ignored, then the mods and other posters *will* call you on it.

Dr Rick

There is no reason that a GPB couldn't be an IPU; their is no logical necessity that the characteristics of a GPB must preclude it from being an IPU and, if the GPB couldn't choose to be an IPU, it couldn't be a GPB.

When you insist the the attributes of the GPB preclude it from being an IPU, what you end up with is no longer a GPB.

Your argument isn't a logical one; you've erected a strawman built upon sematics.

The IPU argument is that whatever attributes you ascribe to a supernatural deity could be ascribed to an IPU; you can't claim that a non-existent supernatural being can't be an IPU because a non-existent IPU can be whatever supernatural being you define it as.

Rick

CannibalCorpseLC

because they want to "save" you before it's too late. they are acting as messengers of god. but basically if u think about it, god is just using them, to run his errands sorta.

think about this, god is omniscient is he not? let's define omniscient for a minute. it means all knowing. so then that means that god obviously knows that atheists have been able to prove, or at least give very valid points to his non-existence. god must see that his message is not getting across to many people. he must see that preachers, door-to-door bible salesman, ect. are not working. there's just way too much evidence (or lack thereof) to not believe. so what do you all think god can do about this, to truly show us that he is real, and he loves us, yadda yadda? this question can be answered with another one of his alleged attributes: omnipotence

god is supposedly all powerful. he supposedly created the universe and the planet earth in 7 days!!!! u mean to tell me he can't spare 5 fucking minutes to appear in front of me and prove me wrong???? if there is a god, then he's just plain lazy.