FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-18-2003, 11:44 AM   #151
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Could you define what you mean by "existence"? Just for clarification.
Mageth is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 11:45 AM   #152
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: On the edge
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xian
- ad-hominem post ignored. acceptable to the forum, not acceptable for me to respond to.
xian, if you aren't going to respond to a post, then could you please not bother quoting it to tell us that you are ignoring it. It makes the thread very frustrating to read and is really just a waste of bandwidth/server space.
tribalbeeyatch is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 11:46 AM   #153
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hawkingfan
xian,

You still have not shown why or how the attributes of god = the attributes of the GPB. You do not realize that it is subjective. You can claim that god is moral, infinite, etc., but who says that those are the same qualities that the GPB has? What if our idea of the GPB is someone who could not create evil or let it exist? This would exclude god from being the GPB.
i fall back on what I said earlier. We have subjective ideas of what is the "greatest" but that does not mean there is not an objective "greatest". You might say "my definition of good" is greatest....and another might say "my definition of good" is greatest...but there may still be a definition of good that is greater than both of those. Just because one has not conceived such a definition does not necessitate that it does not exist. Objective existence is not contingent upon a subjective defintion. The GPB, if it exists, will be immune to what a quadrillion subjective humans think his attributes should be defined as.

Logic can give us a few of those attributes, but cannot give us them in fine detail like we want. And just because logic alone cannot spell out every detail of every attribute of the GPB, does not necessitate therefore that there cannot be a GPB.
xian is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 11:49 AM   #154
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
xian, if you aren't going to respond to a post, then could you please not bother quoting it to tell us that you are ignoring it. It makes the thread very frustrating to read and is really just a waste of bandwidth/server space.
i want to sepcifically state I'm ignoring it otherwise ppl might think i'm dodging it. however, I will cut back on the quoting.

and to those concerned about server space:

if your post contains any belittling remarks, or subtle insults, attacks, accusations, theist bashing, etc....you will be wasting server space because i will ignore it.
xian is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 11:55 AM   #155
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xian
i [sic] want to sepcifically[sic] state I'm ignoring it [sic] otherwise ppl [sic] might think i'm [sic] dodging it.
We don't need you to tell us which refutations you are ignoring or dodging, xian; they are quite obvious.

Rick
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 11:56 AM   #156
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
i fall back on what I said earlier. We have subjective ideas of what is the "greatest" but that does not mean there is not an objective "greatest". You might say "my definition of good" is greatest....and another might say "my definition of good" is greatest...but there may still be a definition of good that is greater than both of those. Just because one has not conceived such a definition does not necessitate that it does not exist.
May I point out that the fact that one has not concieved of such does not nessecitate that it does exist either.

Quote:
Logic can give us a few of those attributes, but cannot give us them in fine detail like we want. And just because logic alone cannot spell out every detail of every attribute of the GPB, does not necessitate therefore that there cannot be a GPB.
Logic can tell us that a GPB would be perfect in every concievable way, and therefore would not be satisfied with imperfection in His creations. Thus, if a GPB were to create a universe, it would be the greatest possible universe. Now, given that this is most certainly NOT the greatest possible universe, I therefore conclude that the GPB DNE.
Jinto is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 12:03 PM   #157
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jinto
Logic can tell us that a GPB would be perfect in every concievable way, and therefore would not be satisfied with imperfection in His creations. Thus, if a GPB were to create a universe, it would be the greatest possible universe. Now, given that this is most certainly NOT the greatest possible universe, I therefore conclude that the GPB DNE.
A perfect being would be indifferent to personal satisfaction...
Soma is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 12:08 PM   #158
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xian
his posts are certainly not in violation of the forum rules, which I have read. I am not asking any moderation governing them and apologize if such remarks for me implied that.

Noted.
Quote:
His posts are fully acceptable to the forum...they are not, however, acceptable to me.
Very well. I only ask that, henceforth, you refrain from devoting an entire post to airing your disapprovals. Thanks,

~Philosoft, EoG mod
Philosoft is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 12:10 PM   #159
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
We don't need you to tell us which refutations you are ignoring or dodging, xian; they are quite obvious.

Rick

likewise, people do not need to hurl ad-hominem remarks at me because I won't respond; that too should be quite obvious.

and no, despite your valliant attempt to get me to capitalise properly, i wont do it. i type fast, about 65wpm, and have RSI in my hands from years of typing. and because this forum is informal, i will not be pressing my shift key very often, nor double checking for spelling errors beyond what i obviously see before i click submit.
xian is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 12:11 PM   #160
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft

Noted.

Very well. I only ask that, henceforth, you refrain from devoting an entire post to airing your disapprovals. Thanks,

~Philosoft, EoG mod [/B]

as you wish. i will no longer do this.
xian is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.