Epicurus' riddle

[Town Heretic]

It's not my fault that the bible describes its God as a petulant child intent on violent revenge and torturing people that don't lie about his actions being "good" when they are clearly the most disgusting actions ever written.

I understand that you're upset, but what you're doing there isn't rational and won't, can't really amount to much. People who feel their way through it the way you're doing will doubtless congratulate you on a penetrating vision. People of faith will, hopefully, shrug and consider that maybe this particular discourse just isn't profitable as it stands.

Biblegod is far from a perfect being in that he continually changes his mind and motives and enjoys killing and destruction. I mean, what two year old can't think of a better solution than drowning every man, woman, child, and kitten in the world? What a stupid God.

Sorry, but that's just...sophomoric in almost every sense, encumbered by the problems I spoke to prior and supra. Good luck with it, but I'm not really interested in engaging polemic. So, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Town Heretic]

There are many problems from the use of words which are symbolic expressions based on experiences.

All words are symbolic and every word relies, to one degree or another, on experience. But Anselm's description is a fairly straight forward answer to the question.

If we are using the word "being" then this carries the experience which it is based upon.

A being in the literal sense of having existence. We don't have to and in fact can't encompass Anselm's God.

Your own comment creates a contradiction since Anselm is describing a being which we can conceive of thus understand while you are express view which is beyond our understanding thus not conceivable.

Or you misapprehend, which I would argue is the case here. Anselm's definition tells us that we can't encompass God, but that isn't to say we can't understand what we mean by saying that. Or, you can understand there is a great world of math, even if you only know how to add using fingers and toes.

 

[Shad]

All words are symbolic and every word relies, to one degree or another, on experience. But Anselm's description is a fairly straight forward answer to the question.

Yes but the meaning of these words relies on experience. Anselm's description fails since it use the word being which is not applicable to any being but that which it is attempting to define as a being. However being is still based upon our experience of actual things which are considered beings which have specific attributes. Look up the greatest possible Island argument which refuted Anselm centuries ago.

A being in the literal sense of having existence. We don't have to and in fact can't encompass Anselm's God.

Existence is not a predicate of being.

Or you misapprehend, which I would argue is the case here. Anselm's definition tells us that we can't encompass God, but that isn't to say we can't understand what we mean by saying that. Or, you can understand there is a great world of math, even if you only know how to add using fingers and toes.

Same issue with vocabulary mentioned before. Words are use to describe a being which is not applicable to world experiences. Anselm's argument is used for first year philosophy students as an exercise in demonstrating the ability of students to find logical errors. It has no merit in philosophy and hasn't in centuries. Being, maximally, etc are merely claims of ontology based solely on definition rather than experience of. Conceiving of something does not make this idea coherent, true nor something that actually exists especially when additional contradictory views of common theology like the 3 omni's are introduced into the mix

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes but the meaning of these words relies on experience.

No more or less than any other.

Anselm's description fails since it use the word being which is not applicable to any being but that which it is attempting to define as a being. However being is still based upon our experience of actual things which are considered beings which have specific attributes. Look up the greatest possible Island argument which refuted Anselm centuries ago.

You mean attempted to, but I'm not arguing Anselm's argument for God's existence, only noting that when I speak of God I am speaking of that definition to which Anselm's argument attaches.

Existence is not a predicate of being.

I've read Kant and the rejections that followed him as they follow...anyone really, given time and the academic drive to publish. But, again, I'm not rearguing Anselm's part, only noting a working definition in answer to an inquiry on what I meant by God. Whether or not the existence of the being to whom a number of predicates are attributed can be made in pure and unassailable terms is a separate question.

I've long suspected the matter is necessarily a subjective one, that empiricism isn't equipped to tackle the question, more, that anyone asking for proof of the existence of God is incapable of offering the standard by which the question could be objectively settled.

 

[viole]

It's an interesting definition, but Anselm in using greater implies perfection. I don't think of the devil as the most imperfect being, or perfectly imperfect, if you would. You could define him as a being in perfect opposition to God.

Anselm uses the attribute of existence to show that a conceivable perfect being must exist, because if He did not, He would not be perfect. The attribute of existence is. for Anselm, a positive trait that goes in the same direction of perfection, so to speak.

But, if we take this at face value, then the devil, if he is in perfect opposition to God, does not exist. Because if he existed, he would share a common positive attribute (in the direction of perfection) with God, namely the attribute of existence. Making him, thereby, not in perfect opposition to God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Town Heretic]

Anselm uses the attribute of existence to show that a conceivable perfect being must exist, because if He did not, He would not be perfect. The attribute of existence is. for Anselm, a positive trait that goes in the same direction of perfection, so to speak.

And in doing that he makes one assumption that is the actual problem with his advance, the assertion that existence is superior to non-being. It's a valuation that can't be said to be objectively true.

But, if we take this at face value, then the devil, if he is in perfect opposition to God, does not exist. Because if he existed, he would share a common positive attribute (in the direction of perfection) with God, namely the attribute of existence. Making him, thereby, not in perfect opposition to God.

It's an interesting point that mostly serves to suggest the term shouldn't be applied to imperfect acts or any other being, which upon reflection I'd be inclined to concede. Or you could say that the usage implies an absolute, not actual perfection except in that sense and that an absolute isn't a positive attribute except it serves the good.

 

[viole]

And in doing that he makes one assumption that is the actual problem with his advance, the assertion that existence is superior to non-being. It's a valuation that can't be said to be objectively true.


It's an interesting point that mostly serves to suggest the term shouldn't be applied to imperfect acts or any other being, which upon reflection I'd be inclined to concede. Or you could say that the usage implies an absolute, not actual perfection except in that sense and that an absolute isn't a positive attribute except it serves the good.

Yes, because if it were a positive attribute, without any moral strings attached, then it would be preferable for the devil to exist, rather than to not exist.

But is it true? Isn't that really better if the devil exists?

And if it isn't, better for the devil to exist, how can perfection create something that could be outperformed by creating the same, without one of its elements?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

You mean attempted to, but I'm not arguing Anselm's argument for God's existence, only noting that when I speak of God I am speaking of that definition to which Anselm's argument attaches.

Your definition is solely a premise from the reformulation of the argument based on parts of Monologion, Proslogion and ever other work created by him about God. Yet you never mentioned the characteristics Anselm actually lists which is the very ontological commitment I was talking about which is that of the Christian God which are covered in chapter 6

I've read Kant and the rejections that followed him as they follow...anyone really, given time and the academic drive to publish. But, again, I'm not rearguing Anselm's part, only noting a working definition in answer to an inquiry on what I meant by God. Whether or not the existence of the being to whom a number of predicates are attributed can be made in pure and unassailable terms is a separate question.

See above, you are using a part of the reformulated argument while omitting the actual definitions provided by Anselm within his work. Also be keeping the definition solely that of what "one" can conceive of yet there is a more comprehension definition within the same work in chapter 6

I've long suspected the matter is necessarily a subjective one, that empiricism isn't equipped to tackle the question, more, that anyone asking for proof of the existence of God is incapable of offering the standard by which the question could be objectively settled.

Empiricism is facing a challenge in a number of fields namely physics such as string theory. In a similar manner many metaphysical claims use enough empirical data to create a model than attempt to create a reality based on proof by logic, proof by abstract models, etc.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, because if it were a positive attribute, without any moral strings attached, then it would be preferable for the devil to exist, rather than to not exist.

But is it true? Isn't that really better if the devil exists?

And if it isn't, better for the devil to exist, how can perfection create something that could be outperformed by creating the same, without one of its elements?

I think it can be argued that it is only better, or good, for God to exist. And then the complications begin. If God is perfect then how can He introduce the imperfect from His nature? Or, does the creation of the imperfect itself argue against the perfection of God, assuming the foundation. I don't believe it does, but it's a curious line of inquiry.

 

[Town Heretic]

Your definition is solely a premise from the reformulation of the argument based on parts of Monologion, Proslogion and ever other work created by him about God. Yet you never mentioned the characteristics Anselm actually lists which is the very ontological commitment I was talking about which is that of the Christian God which are covered in chapter 6

That's very complicated, but my response isn't. Again, I'm not arguing Anselm's part. I'm saying that irrespective of Anselm's argument, his definition of God so far as I've advanced it remains a solid enough response to the inquiry, "What do you mean by God?" Well, provided that's what you mean by God, which in my case, at least as a larger sketch, seems about right.

Empiricism is facing a challenge in a number of fields namely physics such as string theory. In a similar manner many metaphysical claims use enough empirical data to create a model than attempt to create a reality based on proof by logic, proof by abstract models, etc.

I think approaching the question of God via Empiricism is a bit like cooking spaghetti in a colander. It's simply not suited.

 

[rusra02]

God pronounced the results very good? Can you imagine a perfect being doing something that is not very good?

I don't know you, but if I were aware to be perfect I would not need to check upon the quality of my work and acknowledge (to myself) that is very good.

Ciao

- viole

I think when God made that statement, he was acknowledging that the earth met his standard for perfection. Also, Jehovah used his first-born Son in bringing the rest of creation into existence. (Colossians 1:15,16) I believe as the master worker with his Father, Jesus carried out God's requirements perfectly.

 

[Shad]

That's very complicated, but my response isn't. Again, I'm not arguing Anselm's part. I'm saying that irrespective of Anselm's argument, his definition of God so far as I've advanced it remains a solid enough response to the inquiry, "What do you mean by God?" Well, provided that's what you mean by God, which in my case, at least as a larger sketch, seems about right.

As I said it is a horrible definition since it is subjective and describes nothing. It would be like says "Barg" is the greatest conceivable fruit. When asked how it tastes or looks I just reply with it is the greatest taste you can conceive of. Also the fact is Anselm had a detailed definition in the same work makes you definition even more useless. Again it is a useless definition which theist use in order to avoid provides detailed definition which can be refuted just as was shown with the Island refutation

I think approaching the question of God via Empiricism is a bit like cooking spaghetti in a colander. It's simply not suited.

Yes. However many religions rely upon it when it comes to scripture.

 

[Town Heretic]

As I said it is a horrible definition since it is subjective and describes nothing.

Yeah, I don't agree. I think it approaches the subject as well as you can in an attempt to fit the infinite into boxes.

It would be like says "Barg" is the greatest conceivable fruit.

It would be true if you understood fruit to have many particular qualities.

When asked how it tastes or looks I just reply with it is the greatest taste you can conceive of.

But who'd do that? I'd say God is perfect in understandable qualities, virtues. We can't comprehend that perfection, but we can understand the idea by scale.

Also the fact is Anselm had a detailed definition in the same work makes you definition even more useless.

A thing can't be more of a thing that it isn't. You seem invested in my not defining God in terms you can criticize.

Again it is a useless definition which theist use in order to avoid

Are you under the impression that if you repeat it enough it will rise to the level of argument? Avoid what? Peculiar charge.

provides detailed definition which can be refuted just as was shown with the Island refutation

Sorry, but no. But feel free to attempt it, instead of declaring it. Or are you avoiding something?

Yes. However many religions rely upon it when it comes to scripture.

How so?

 

[Shad]

Yeah, I don't agree. I think it approaches the subject as well as you can in an attempt to fit the infinite into boxes.

Which is the very problem I am talking about. You are attempting to define something which you can not define.

It would be true if you understood fruit to have many particular qualities.

Qualities which different people like or dislike. Hence the problem in which one person favors certain qualities over other qualities.

But who'd do that? I'd say God is perfect in understandable qualities, virtues. We can't comprehend that perfection, but we can understand the idea by scale.

Perfection is an abstract concept with no experience of it within reality. Virtues are not descriptors but judgements which you need to evaluate. Merely claim a virtue without evaluation is useless

A thing can't be more of a thing that it isn't. You seem invested in my not defining God in terms you can criticize.

No I am criticizing the flawed definition based assign virtues as characteristics and subjectivity

Are you under the impression that if you repeat it enough it will rise to the level of argument? Avoid what? Peculiar charge.

Likewise calling a virtue part of the description of God does not make it a description

Sorry, but no. But feel free to attempt it, instead of declaring it. Or are you avoiding something?

Not declaring anything since Anselm did it in chapter 6 and 14 (not sure about 14 will have to look again). I am merely pointing out the island with a non-definition with the Island refutation.

How so?

Many consider scripture a form of evidence for their God since these provide ideas such as morality, commandments, etc.

 

[sojourner]

I don't believe in personal gods.

I don't, either.

We don't have enough information to be talking about free will.

That's your opinion. Mine is that we do have enough information.

Define God, then.

God can't be defined. God can be described.

 

[sojourner]

Fine.

As you pointed out in your previous post, we cannot criticize such a being. We tend to criticize gods defined in ways that allow the typical person to find fault with abhorrent, childish behavior. If a proposed God has no negative attributes, there's nothing to criticize. If you happen to be talking about biblegod, well, he's a despicable idiot that deserves the lake of fire he created.

That's how some in the bible describe God -- and they do so from a particular point of view, and with particular theological aims in mind. Others describe God differently. So, it's really the descriptions, themselves, which you have problems with, and not God.

 

[sojourner]

It's not my fault that the bible describes its God as a petulant child intent on violent revenge and torturing people that don't lie about his actions being "good" when they are clearly the most disgusting actions ever written.

It is, however, your fault that you misunderstand the descriptions, and use these partial and very particular descriptions as universal and absolute descriptions.

 

[serp777]

It's not really much of a riddle or argument though. It's a series of unsupported assumptions about God. None of it necessarily follows.

If you're going to say God and by that mean a being whose capacity and expression are sufficient to create the order and mechanism of our reality, then presuming to judge him from a broken, imperfect corner is a bit...presumptuous.

No its a series of conditional logic based on common assumptions of God. It covers several possible assumptions about God and addresses them all. The idea is to show how several ideas of God cannot logically be held at the same time--for instance that God is all good and all powerful.

 

[prometheus11]

I understand that you're upset, but what you're doing there isn't rational and won't, can't really amount to much. People who feel their way through it the way you're doing will doubtless congratulate you on a penetrating vision. People of faith will, hopefully, shrug and consider that maybe this particular discourse just isn't profitable as it stands.


Sorry, but that's just...sophomoric in almost every sense, encumbered by the problems I spoke to prior and supra. Good luck with it, but I'm not really interested in engaging polemic. So, I'll leave you to it.

I gave your post a thumbs up because I was so impressed that you were so impressed with mere pejorative labels that you somehow found impressive.

When someone merely labels your ideas with pejorative terminology and assumptions of motives, are you impressed with their assessment like I am, here, with yours?

 

[Town Heretic]

I gave your post a thumbs up because I was so impressed that you were so impressed with mere pejorative labels that you somehow found impressive.

When someone merely labels your ideas with pejorative terminology and assumptions of motives, are you impressed with their assessment like I am, here, with yours?

Oh, sorry, I thought you said something...I mean, I knew it was mathematically possible.