Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Honest Atheist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    If you are asking me to consider the possibility of a "maximally great being," and then you define a "maximally great being" as one which is "omniscient," "omnipotent," and "morally perfect," then you should not complain when I ask for definitions of these terms. I have heard omniscience and omnipotence defined in numerous different ways, some of which are entirely incoherent. As for "morally perfect," I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, at all.
    Maybe these could be considered to start, much derived from Wikipedia definitions:
    Inherent omniscience: able know anything that one chooses to know.

    Conditional omnipotence: able to do anything that one chooses to do in accord with his own nature: if he's honest he's not able to lie, if he's eternal he's not able to kill himself, if he's non-paradoxical he's not able to create a rock he can't lift, etc.

    Omnibenevolence: always doing what's best for one's self and everyone else, even if it doesn't seem so from the immediate perspective of others.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      No, I'm suggesting that because there is no integer greater than any other integer, it may not be coherent to speak of a being greater than any other with respect to an attribute or quality; ie that there may not be a 'maximum' of that quality, or, if you like, that 'perfection' with regards to that quality does not exist.
      I'm not sure if this is helpful, but from my readings, when philosophers and theologians talk about God's omniscience, they often mean that God has maximal knowledge, or complete knowledge. That is, he knows all that there can be known. When God is said to be omnipotent, what they mean is that his power is such that he can actualize any possible state of affairs.

      So, my understanding of "maximally great" is something like "completely great", or (very) roughly "whatever greatness there is to have, God has it, there can be no conceivably greater". Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds a lot like MM's reply to you, so maybe I'm not much help after all.
      Last edited by Adrift; 10-30-2014, 03:43 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Your over stating my use of 'sort of.' Read the poem.
        Your poem doesn't answer my questions. If I'm overstating, it's because I'm misunderstanding.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          Your poem doesn't answer my questions. If I'm overstating, it's because I'm misunderstanding.
          The poem was not intended to answer questions.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            I'm not sure if this is helpful, but from my readings, when philosophers and theologians talk about God's omniscience, they often mean that God has maximal knowledge, or complete knowledge. That is, he knows all that there can be known. When God is said to be omnipotent, what they mean is that his power is such that he can actualize any possible state of affairs.
            It may be true that it is coherent to speak of a maximum of some qualities, but Plantinga's argument is implictly talking about all [excellent?] qualities or properties.

            So, my understanding of "maximally great" is something like "completely great", or (very) roughly "whatever greatness there is to have, God has it, there can be no conceivably greater". Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds a lot like MM's reply to you, so maybe I'm not much help after all.
            Indeed. Why should there be a maximum in the first place? A twist on this question would be, of course: why should there be a maximum number of qualities?

            Plantinga's argument therefore makes two implicit assumptions:
            1) For every [excellent] property there exists a maximum
            2) There exists a maximum number of properties

            Without justification of these two assumptions, the argument can hardly be considered complete.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              It may be true that it is coherent to speak of a maximum of some qualities, but Plantinga's argument is implictly talking about all [excellent?] qualities or properties.


              Indeed. Why should there be a maximum in the first place? A twist on this question would be, of course: why should there be a maximum number of qualities?

              Plantinga's argument therefore makes two implicit assumptions:
              1) For every [excellent] property there exists a maximum
              2) There exists a maximum number of properties

              Without justification of these two assumptions, the argument can hardly be considered complete.
              I think you're really over-thinking the word "maximal" here. The ontological argument is using the word "maximal" to simply mean that the degree of greatness this being has is nowhere excelled. I don't know, maybe the problem is that you're assuming that the defender of this argument starts off with the preconceived notion that this sort of being already exists, but as I understand it, all this argument is doing is posing is a bit of a thought experiment. Is it possible to conceive a being who is maximally great, that is, a being who's greatness cannot be surpassed? Well, of course. Is this conception coherent? Yes. Is it coherent to conceive of a being who is greater than one who's greatness cannot be surpassed? No. How can a being be greater than a maximally great being? What does that even mean?

              In my mind the word "maximal" is more of a placeholder word rather than something that describes definite quantities. Again, using the example of omniscience, omniscience means maximal knowledge. Can one coherently conceive of a being with maximal knowledge, that is, a being that knows all that there can be known? Sure. Is it coherent to conceive a being who knows more than a being who knows all that can be known? What would that look like? How would that be possible?

              I'm not really sure where you're deriving your point 2. Where do you see Plantinga saying that there exists a maximum number of properties?

              By the way, I'm no expert on all this. I could be completely off base with everything I wrote. I'm just trying to boil down what I remember. I'd suggest picking up one of Plantinga's works, or any good work on the Ontological Argument if you want a better breakdown than you can get in a few paragraphs on a webforum.
              Last edited by Adrift; 10-31-2014, 08:14 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift
                By the way, I'm no expert on all this. I could be completely off base with everything I wrote.
                Indeed. You don't even grasp what I'm trying to communicate.

                I'm not really sure where you're deriving your point 2. Where do you see Plantinga saying that there exists a maximum number of properties?
                I have drafted a response to this question, but it's not going to be useful if you don't even understand what I'm trying to get at.

                Is it meaningful to speak of the greatest integer, an integer which cannot be surpassed by any other integer in value?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Indeed. You don't even grasp what I'm trying to communicate.


                  I have drafted a response to this question, but it's not going to be useful if you don't even understand what I'm trying to get at.
                  Fair enough then. I'll disengage.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    No, I'm suggesting that because there is no integer greater than any other integer, it may not be coherent to speak of a being greater than any other with respect to an attribute or quality; ie that there may not be a 'maximum' of that quality, or, if you like, that 'perfection' with regards to that quality does not exist.
                    I see what you're getting at. I assume that "maximally great" in this case simply means the greatest of all things that exist. In other words, God is not maximally great according to some external standard. Rather, he is the standard.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      I see what you're getting at. I assume that "maximally great" in this case simply means the greatest of all things that exist. In other words, God is not maximally great according to some external standard. Rather, he is the standard.
                      Yeah, I don't really feel I missed Papikra's point. If we're talking about a maximally great being's omniscience, then we're talking about this maximally great being's ability to know all there is to know. Its absurd to imagine that there is a being who's knowledge surpasses one who's knowledge encapsulates all that there can be known. If we're talking about a maximally great being's omnipotence, we're talking about this maximally great being's ability to actualize any possible state of affairs. Its absurd to talk of a being who can surpass a being who's omnipotence can actualize any possible state of affairs. When we talk of a being who is maximally moral, we're referring to a necessary being who (probably poorly defined) is all sustaining and true to his complete nature. It is absurd to to talk of a being who can out surpass one's own sustaining values and duties.

                      [For the record, I think the 3rd property is the hardest to define, but that's a whole nother discussion]

                      In my opinion, the ontological argument starts off as more of a mind exercise, rather than direct evidence for God. Its wrong footed to get hung up on quantities of "maximal" (at least at the beginning of the argument, and/or whether or not these maximal abilities are intrinsic). As far as great making abilities are concerned there probably are intrinsic maximums; There must be a limit (regardless of whether that limit is extrinsic or intrinsic), however, that's not really the point of the Ontological Argument. First we want to know, is it coherent to conceive of a being who holds at least these 3 maximal abilities? If so, it seems to me that we can move on to William Criag's characterization of Plantinga's version of the argument:

                      1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

                      2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

                      3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

                      4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

                      5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

                      6) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

                      Now, for me personally, this is still a thought experiment. It seems intuitively true to me, and its helpful to know that some of our greatest minds accept these proposition, and have accepted them, to varying degrees, for centuries, but all in all, I wouldn't consider it a bam boom out of the park argument for God's existence. For me its mostly just something to mull over.

                      All that said though, I still don't see anything in Plantinga's version of the argument that says anything about a maximally great being having a maximum number of properties. Plantinga seems to define only 3 major properties.

                      Anyways, my 2 cents.
                      Last edited by Adrift; 11-01-2014, 08:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I see what you're getting at. I assume that "maximally great" in this case simply means the greatest of all things that exist. In other words, God is not maximally great according to some external standard. Rather, he is the standard.
                        This would seem a fairly problematic definition of maximally great to utilize in the Ontological Argument. The OA is attempting to prove that God exists. In order to do so, it needs to posit that a maximally great being exists. However, in order to judge whether a maximally great being exists, we have to judge it by the standard set by the very thing that we are attempting to prove. We have to assume the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.
                        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          This would seem a fairly problematic definition of maximally great to utilize in the Ontological Argument. The OA is attempting to prove that God exists. In order to do so, it needs to posit that a maximally great being exists. However, in order to judge whether a maximally great being exists, we have to judge it by the standard set by the very thing that we are attempting to prove. We have to assume the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.
                          I really have no issue imagining a maximally great being. What I have a problem with are the maximally presumptuous people who claim to speak for said being.

                          NORM
                          When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            The poem was not intended to answer questions.
                            If I misunderstood your statement, it did not nothing to clear up my misunderstanding, either.

                            If you don't want to answer my questions, you could just say so. I'd rather be ignored than distracted.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              Is it meaningful to speak of the greatest integer, an integer which cannot be surpassed by any other integer in value?
                              The meaning of "greatest integer" is obvious. It just happens to be inconsistent with what we ordinarily mean by "integer."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                No, we're not talking about arguments and evidence. Positing that it's possible that God exists is not an argument, it's a premise.
                                Exactly! An assumed premise that cannot be shown to be true. And without an actual true premise you cannot be sure that your conclusion is true without begging the question.

                                A description of God is not an argument, it's a definition. Before we can even start exploiring the arguments and evidence for God, a person must be at least open to the idea that a maximally great being could exist. For an atheist to actively reject even that basic premise and then claim that he merely has a passive lack of belief is intellectually dishonest.
                                The problem is that when you accept the notion of a maximally great being possibly existing and thus derive the possibility that therefore God could exist you need to bridge the gap between the possibility of God existing and the actuality of God existing - in short, make an unwarranted leap-of-faith.

                                But this also works in reverse: If you accept the definition of God as a modally necessary being, and believe that it’s possible that such a God might not exist, then you can make the leap-of-faith to the strongest form of positive atheism.

                                In short, such arguments achieve very little.

                                This is why I say that you can't have an honest conversation with someone who won't be honest about what they really believe
                                So you being "honest" entails a belief in God is based upon the philosophical assumption of a “maximal being”? I see!

                                As for your question about Hebrews, perhaps you're familiar with the concept of divine revelation. Or am I giving you undue credit for your intelligence?
                                …as opposed to gullibility, I presume.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 11-01-2014, 05:06 AM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                144 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X