Jack the Bodiless

xian:

You need to support two assertions:

1. The IPU is NOT the GPB

2. YHWH IS the GPB.

So far, your attempts to refute point 1 have been based on a single poster's decision that "immoral" is an IPU attribute. If I believed in a moral IPU, this refutation fails.

And point 2 is easily refuted from the Bible. Furthermore, if God doesn't actually exist, then he cannot be the GPB anyhow, because existence is a rather important attribute of any GPB candidate!

I can easily declare the IPU to be the GPB while not equating it with the J/C God, and I can do this WITHOUT limiting the IPU's "greatness". I merely need to state that the IPU doesn't condemn anyone to eternal damnation (or "separation from God"), does not believe in "original sin", did not produce any offspring that were subsequently tortured to death, and so forth.

YHWH is a feeble imitation of the IPU, with characteristics and flaws that the IPU does not have.

Mageth

I have a minor point about the definition of the GPB from the first post, and which Jack the Bodiless referred to above.

The GPB would not be moral or immoral, by the common definition of "moral"; it would be amoral.

In addition, how would a finite being determine that the GPB was indeed the GPB, and indeed infinitely powerful, existent, etc? Could the GPB prove its infinite existence or infinite power to finite beings? I think not. I assume one would have to take the GPB's word for it, but since one could also not determine if the GPB always told the truth or sometimes lied, there'd be no way to determine if it was telling the truth!

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.

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.

However, that xian's meanderings here are an extended way of completely missing the point seems to be one of the things that there's just not enough time to take seriously...

xian

moral > immoral is a self evident truth.

What is the meaning of “greater”? What is the meaning of “immoral?” What is the meaning of “Moral?” You strip all concepts of their meaning when you insert nitpicking semantical remarks like that.

If your atheism is founded upon conclusions that state:

“Who says evil > good?
Who says logic > illogic?
Who says just > unjust?”
Who says existence > nonexistence?


If you are going to ask these questions, then you and I have no discussion. If you really truly honestly believe that logic < illogic then dialogue with you is impossible, since you are simply refusing a common ground for debate. I will engage in debates with atheists that accept premises such as “existence > nonexistence”….but if you are going to call that premise into question, we have no discussion.

This is my opinion, of course I cannot prove it, though I believe it. It is unlikely that any atheist has come to conclude in atheism because he/she thought illogic might be greater than logic. I believe that you are just making argument, to serve no purpose, other than to argue with the “xian”.

I also believe, though I cannot prove, that most atheists are moral people. They are people who, like me, believe that moral > immoral. Atheists in here that are going to demand that I prove that moral > immoral are wasting their time.


[/QUOTE]

xian

it matters because of the attributes assigned to your proposed deity.

Take any object in the universe X

Assign it the attributes of planet earth

And it is no longer object X, but planet earth.


Calling God the IPU, when the IPU is assigned the attributes of the GPB is no longer an IPU. Once you define the IPU with the GPB attributes, all you have left is the GPB. Your original IPU is lost.

and it matters because logically there can be only one GPB.

"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."


I am not making an evidential argument. What part of this is not clear? I have stated this multiple times in this thread. I guess you missed all those times I stated it.

"However, that xian's meanderings here are an extended way of completely missing the point seems to be one of the things that there's just not enough time to take seriously... :-rolleyes: "

Well you can roll your eyes all you want. But I think it was you that missed the point. And if you don't want to take me seriously, by all means please ignore me. But intimidation tactics will have little effect on me.

Jack the Bodiless

Not so, because the IPU never lacked these additional attributes: they are a part of her definition. Nor has it been demonstrated that something else with these attributes actually exists.

The Biblical God, however, DID originally lack the "omnimax" attributes. Add those to the Biblical God, and you don't have the Biblical God anymore.

Jamie_L

I did not read this entire thread. If I'm repeating what someone said, forgive me.

It seems to me that the OP does not really address the issue it is claiming to debunk.

The OP makes the arguement that the Christian God has a specific definition that makes it distinctly different from other diety concepts. For the sake of arguement, I will assume that it does.

This does not, however, address the point to be debunked. The original point was that there is no more reason to believe in the actual existence of this God than in any other lesser or different God. The fact that this God, in concept, is somehow superior to other concepts does not make it more likely to be true.

The fact is that the Greatest Possible Being may not be the Greatest Existing Being. The difference between possible and likely lies in arguement and evidence, and the supposed GPB does not have more of either than other proposed supernatural entities.

Jamie

xian

we are not talking about a thing that begins with no attributes, and then attributes are applied. I am talking about defining a thing. Your proposed deity (IPU) is defined as a being that is eternal (since its attributes have always existed). If you define this IPU with the same attributes as the GPB, it is simply that- the GPB.

Hawkingfan

How do you know that you no longer have an IPU? You could just as easily say you no longer have God, but have an IPU by reversing the two terms in the above example.
How does this show that god exists?
How is this disagreeing with the reason why we bring this up in the first place? Aren't we showing that the two are equally stupid? Does this contradict the idea that belief in the IPU and god are both illogical?

xian

First of all, can someone define OP? I am unfamiliar with this term, but Jamie called me "the OP".


"This does not, however, address the point to be debunked. The original point was that there is no more reason to believe in the actual existence of this God than in any other lesser or different God. The fact that this God, in concept, is somehow superior to other concepts does not make it more likely to be true"


My original point is not an evidential argument for the existence of God. I am making no argument for God's existence whatsoever.