Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Greatest possible being

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 8:31:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A greatest possible being, GPB is said to be that which nothing greater can be imagined. If your thinking of something as a GPB but you can think of something greater, then that is the GPB...........until you think of something greater.

I ask myself which is greater..........

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

It seems to me number 2 is greater. And since we know that baby cancer exists, the GPB does not exist.

Problems ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 1:59:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

You still mentioned benevolence ..
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:18:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?

An all-powerful being who is able to see far enough into the future to know that what hurts now will be of benefit in the future? It's just not possible to answer the question without some information on the reasoning behind the "powerful being's" action. Limiting the question to what you've asked limits the response to "A". I don't think any of us are monsters. :-/
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:21:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:18:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?

An all-powerful being who is able to see far enough into the future to know that what hurts now will be of benefit in the future? It's just not possible to answer the question without some information on the reasoning behind the "powerful being's" action. Limiting the question to what you've asked limits the response to "A". I don't think any of us are monsters. :-/

What's the greater................

1) An all powerful all knowing being who can accomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

2) An all powerful all knowing being who can't acomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

Your answer please.......
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:31:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:21:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:18:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?

An all-powerful being who is able to see far enough into the future to know that what hurts now will be of benefit in the future? It's just not possible to answer the question without some information on the reasoning behind the "powerful being's" action. Limiting the question to what you've asked limits the response to "A". I don't think any of us are monsters. :-/

What's the greater................

1) An all powerful all knowing being who can accomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

2) An all powerful all knowing being who can't acomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

Your answer please.......

That's easy. All costs and benefits being the same, #1 would be the greater.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:41:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:31:21 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:21:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:18:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?

An all-powerful being who is able to see far enough into the future to know that what hurts now will be of benefit in the future? It's just not possible to answer the question without some information on the reasoning behind the "powerful being's" action. Limiting the question to what you've asked limits the response to "A". I don't think any of us are monsters. :-/

What's the greater................

1) An all powerful all knowing being who can accomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

2) An all powerful all knowing being who can't acomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

Your answer please.......

That's easy. All costs and benefits being the same, #1 would be the greater.

Yes, yes it would.

Now what's more plausibly true...............

That their exists an all powerful all knowing being who allows baby cancer since it can't achieve some benefit without the existence of baby cancer.

Or

No such entity exists, and the claim that said entity has to allow baby cancer to achieve some benefit it just a bullsh*t rationalization.

What say you ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:50:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??

You really have no idea how suffering has produced people who are hideous.

Works both ways medic, now what.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:56:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:41:09 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:31:21 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:21:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:18:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?

An all-powerful being who is able to see far enough into the future to know that what hurts now will be of benefit in the future? It's just not possible to answer the question without some information on the reasoning behind the "powerful being's" action. Limiting the question to what you've asked limits the response to "A". I don't think any of us are monsters. :-/

What's the greater................

1) An all powerful all knowing being who can accomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

2) An all powerful all knowing being who can't acomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

Your answer please.......

That's easy. All costs and benefits being the same, #1 would be the greater.

Yes, yes it would.

Now what's more plausibly true...............

That their exists an all powerful all knowing being who allows baby cancer since it can't achieve some benefit without the existence of baby cancer.

Or

No such entity exists, and the claim that said entity has to allow baby cancer to achieve some benefit it just a bullsh*t rationalization.

What say you ?

Again, that's a leading question. Following them would be like following bread-crumbs into a trap. What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere, and so lets events take their own course? Even in a courtroom it's not allowed to ask leading questions.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:50:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??

You really have no idea how suffering has produced people who are hideous.

Works both ways medic, now what.

No actually some of the best, most admirable traits that human beings can possess are shown most often, and sometimes only, during times of stress and suffering. How would we even recognize those traits as good, if they were never needed??

How would we recognize good, if there were no evil?? Why would we even need good, if there were no evil??
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:03:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:56:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:41:09 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:31:21 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:21:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:18:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 3:59:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 1:11:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:09:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 12:02:19 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

in what way is that good, I just see it very subjective..

It's not a question of "good" it's a question of "greater". This is about greatest possible being.

How can we ever know what ultimate consequences might arise from any such situation? While it's hard to imagine any good coming from the death or suffering of a baby, none of us can predict all the scenarios it may be part of. Just saying...

This isn't about reconciling some state of the world with the existence of a God. Well Golly maybe an all powerful God allows/doesn't do such and such cause of unknown consequences to us.

I am merely using the same type of reasoning that I have seen others use when comparing alternatives of what is and isn't a greatest possible being.

So.................

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

What do you say is the greatest possible being when comparing these two options ?

An all-powerful being who is able to see far enough into the future to know that what hurts now will be of benefit in the future? It's just not possible to answer the question without some information on the reasoning behind the "powerful being's" action. Limiting the question to what you've asked limits the response to "A". I don't think any of us are monsters. :-/

What's the greater................

1) An all powerful all knowing being who can accomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

2) An all powerful all knowing being who can't acomplish a benefit without allowing baby cancer

Your answer please.......

That's easy. All costs and benefits being the same, #1 would be the greater.

Yes, yes it would.

Now what's more plausibly true...............

That their exists an all powerful all knowing being who allows baby cancer since it can't achieve some benefit without the existence of baby cancer.

Or

No such entity exists, and the claim that said entity has to allow baby cancer to achieve some benefit it just a bullsh*t rationalization.

What say you ?

Again, that's a leading question. Following them would be like following bread-crumbs into a trap. What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere, and so lets events take their own course? Even in a courtroom it's not allowed to ask leading questions.

Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:07:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:01:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:50:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??

You really have no idea how suffering has produced people who are hideous.

Works both ways medic, now what.

No actually some of the best, most admirable traits that human beings can possess are shown most often, and sometimes only, during times of stress and suffering. How would we even recognize those traits as good, if they were never needed??

How would we recognize good, if there were no evil?? Why would we even need good, if there were no evil??

So we need baby cancer do we ? The good that comes from baby cancer justifies it's existence ? is that is what you are saying medic ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:13:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?

lol . . . Of course, if no such being exists then he/she cannot "know" whether non-interference is a "bullsh*t" rationalization. Your question here seems quite clear, my friend. You are asking if it is logical whether a god exists or not?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:07:46 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:01:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:50:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??

You really have no idea how suffering has produced people who are hideous.

Works both ways medic, now what.

No actually some of the best, most admirable traits that human beings can possess are shown most often, and sometimes only, during times of stress and suffering. How would we even recognize those traits as good, if they were never needed??

How would we recognize good, if there were no evil?? Why would we even need good, if there were no evil??

So we need baby cancer do we ? The good that comes from baby cancer justifies it's existence ? is that is what you are saying medic ?

I'm speaking of evil and suffering in general terms, not specifically about baby cancer.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:19:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:13:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?

lol . . . Of course, if no such being exists then he/she cannot "know" whether non-interference is a "bullsh*t" rationalization. Your question here seems quite clear, my friend. You are asking if it is logical whether a god exists or not?

You mis-read 2).

The bullsh*t rationalization refers to the person who believes or is trying to get others to believe in 1).

Maybe if I change it a bit it will be more obvious........

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of an all powerful, all knowing entity and baby cancer.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:20:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:16:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:07:46 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:01:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:50:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??

You really have no idea how suffering has produced people who are hideous.

Works both ways medic, now what.

No actually some of the best, most admirable traits that human beings can possess are shown most often, and sometimes only, during times of stress and suffering. How would we even recognize those traits as good, if they were never needed??

How would we recognize good, if there were no evil?? Why would we even need good, if there were no evil??

So we need baby cancer do we ? The good that comes from baby cancer justifies it's existence ? is that is what you are saying medic ?

I'm speaking of evil and suffering in general terms, not specifically about baby cancer.

Cool.

I AM speaking about baby cancer.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:26:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:19:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:13:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?

lol . . . Of course, if no such being exists then he/she cannot "know" whether non-interference is a "bullsh*t" rationalization. Your question here seems quite clear, my friend. You are asking if it is logical whether a god exists or not?

You mis-read 2).

The bullsh*t rationalization refers to the person who believes or is trying to get others to believe in 1).

Maybe if I change it a bit it will be more obvious........

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of an all powerful, all knowing entity and baby cancer.

Ahhh . . . so you're saying it's just a wild stretch? In that case they would be wrong. But in my experience people who find themselves backed into a corner will often do and say irrational things, and that applies to everyone.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:26:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:19:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:13:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?

lol . . . Of course, if no such being exists then he/she cannot "know" whether non-interference is a "bullsh*t" rationalization. Your question here seems quite clear, my friend. You are asking if it is logical whether a god exists or not?

You mis-read 2).

The bullsh*t rationalization refers to the person who believes or is trying to get others to believe in 1).

Maybe if I change it a bit it will be more obvious........

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of an all powerful, all knowing entity and baby cancer.

Ahhh . . . so you're saying it's just a wild stretch? In that case they would be wrong. But in my experience people who find themselves backed into a corner will often do and say irrational things, and that applies to everyone.

We know we live in a world with baby cancer, so concerning baby cancer and the existence or not of an all powerful, all knowing entity....

1) An all knowing, all powerful entity exists, and although it could eliminate/stop baby cancer from happening it chooses not too based on a judgement that it will produce a "good/benefit" that out ways the cost/suffering of baby cancer.

2) An all knowing, all powerful entity does NOT exist, and the claim that that such an entity exists and chooses to allow baby cancer in order to produce some good/benefit" it just a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of such an entity and the existence of baby cancer.

What do you say is the more rational view here ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 8:53:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:39:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:26:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:19:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:13:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?

lol . . . Of course, if no such being exists then he/she cannot "know" whether non-interference is a "bullsh*t" rationalization. Your question here seems quite clear, my friend. You are asking if it is logical whether a god exists or not?

You mis-read 2).

The bullsh*t rationalization refers to the person who believes or is trying to get others to believe in 1).

Maybe if I change it a bit it will be more obvious........

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of an all powerful, all knowing entity and baby cancer.

Ahhh . . . so you're saying it's just a wild stretch? In that case they would be wrong. But in my experience people who find themselves backed into a corner will often do and say irrational things, and that applies to everyone.

We know we live in a world with baby cancer, so concerning baby cancer and the existence or not of an all powerful, all knowing entity....

1) An all knowing, all powerful entity exists, and although it could eliminate/stop baby cancer from happening it chooses not too based on a judgement that it will produce a "good/benefit" that out ways the cost/suffering of baby cancer.

2) An all knowing, all powerful entity does NOT exist, and the claim that that such an entity exists and chooses to allow baby cancer in order to produce some good/benefit" it just a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of such an entity and the existence of baby cancer.

What do you say is the more rational view here ?

There are many such comparisons. Supposedly, God gave us free-will, but that would make his own omniscience impossible, since if we have the power to change our minds (and thus the future) then he cannot know the future. That's why God, if he exists, can never be described in scientific terms, or measured in scientific units. It would be just as easy to believe that he does exist, but is not omnipotent. That perhaps the choice to be good or bad is a choice that each sentient being must make for themselves. I'm not trying to hijack your thread, I'm just trying to point-out that it's much more complicated than simple yes-and-no questions. :)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 9:00:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:20:07 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:16:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:07:46 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:01:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:50:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:45:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/23/2013 11:35:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
In what way is it greater ?!

benevolency

The decreasing and or elimination of suffering of conscious creatures.

You really have no idea what kind of hideous, narcissistic, self-centered maniacs such a world would produce, do you??

You really have no idea how suffering has produced people who are hideous.

Works both ways medic, now what.

No actually some of the best, most admirable traits that human beings can possess are shown most often, and sometimes only, during times of stress and suffering. How would we even recognize those traits as good, if they were never needed??

How would we recognize good, if there were no evil?? Why would we even need good, if there were no evil??

So we need baby cancer do we ? The good that comes from baby cancer justifies it's existence ? is that is what you are saying medic ?

I'm speaking of evil and suffering in general terms, not specifically about baby cancer.

Cool.

I AM speaking about baby cancer.

Fair enough, I'll bow out then.

I think arguments involving this subjective opinion about a "Greatest Possible Being" are just an exercise in futility. Who's God are you trying to disprove anyway?? I doubt that many people worship your idea of a GPB. I don't mean that to be rude, it's just that this kind of argumentation doesn't really have much relevance to any God that is claimed to exist.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 9:01:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 8:53:00 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:39:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:26:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:19:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2013 8:13:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yes let's play the what if game. Firstly your what if....

1) " What if the "all-powerful being" simply knows that it's best not to interfere,"

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization

What's more plausible true ?

lol . . . Of course, if no such being exists then he/she cannot "know" whether non-interference is a "bullsh*t" rationalization. Your question here seems quite clear, my friend. You are asking if it is logical whether a god exists or not?

You mis-read 2).

The bullsh*t rationalization refers to the person who believes or is trying to get others to believe in 1).

Maybe if I change it a bit it will be more obvious........

2) What if no such entity exists and the simply knows it's best not to interfere is a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of an all powerful, all knowing entity and baby cancer.

Ahhh . . . so you're saying it's just a wild stretch? In that case they would be wrong. But in my experience people who find themselves backed into a corner will often do and say irrational things, and that applies to everyone.

We know we live in a world with baby cancer, so concerning baby cancer and the existence or not of an all powerful, all knowing entity....

1) An all knowing, all powerful entity exists, and although it could eliminate/stop baby cancer from happening it chooses not too based on a judgement that it will produce a "good/benefit" that out ways the cost/suffering of baby cancer.

2) An all knowing, all powerful entity does NOT exist, and the claim that that such an entity exists and chooses to allow baby cancer in order to produce some good/benefit" it just a bullsh*t rationalization to reconcile the belief of the existence of such an entity and the existence of baby cancer.

What do you say is the more rational view here ?

There are many such comparisons. Supposedly, God gave us free-will, but that would make his own omniscience impossible, since if we have the power to change our minds (and thus the future) then he cannot know the future. That's why God, if he exists, can never be described in scientific terms, or measured in scientific units. It would be just as easy to believe that he does exist, but is not omnipotent. That perhaps the choice to be good or bad is a choice that each sentient being must make for themselves. I'm not trying to hijack your thread, I'm just trying to point-out that it's much more complicated than simple yes-and-no questions. :)

Nah your just avoiding it.

Just throwing in more what if, and maybe this, and perhaps that, doesn't help. I can still take what ever you throw at me and you will be still left with two and only two options concerning an all powerful, all knowing entity and baby cancer......

1) The entity exists and chooses to allow baby cancer because (xyz)

2) The entity does not exist and (xyz) is a bullsh*t rationlisation to reconcile the belief in such and entity and baby cancer

It's one or the other, it exists and chooses to allow.......or it doesn't exist, and choosing to allow is a bullsh*t rationlisation.

If you had to make a guess..............? :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 9:09:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 9:00:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think arguments involving this subjective opinion about a "Greatest Possible Being" are just an exercise in futility. Who's God are you trying to disprove anyway?? I doubt that many people worship your idea of a GPB. I don't mean that to be rude, it's just that this kind of argumentation doesn't really have much relevance to any God that is claimed to exist.

People use the GPB like, well it's greater to exist than to not exist. It's greater to know than to not know, etc etc

And since people love to equate GPB to THEIR God, well yes, the argument disproves their God.

Remember I am just using the same reasoning they use. They started it. The problem is as I see it they don't follow it all the way through.

"Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived","

Yes, let us conceive.....
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AndersonHunter
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 9:10:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 8:31:08 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
A greatest possible being, GPB is said to be that which nothing greater can be imagined. If your thinking of something as a GPB but you can think of something greater, then that is the GPB...........until you think of something greater.

I ask myself which is greater..........

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

It seems to me number 2 is greater. And since we know that baby cancer exists, the GPB does not exist.

Problems ?

I understand why you are posing this example and, in principle, I agree with you. The problem with the GPB argument, whether proposed by a theist or examined by an atheist, is that the concept of the GBP itself is completely subjective as to each individual's morality, preference and belief system. Even if you take two people with identical views of goodness and morality, they would ultimately imagine the GPB through a prism defined by their own experiences and expectations.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 9:14:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 9:10:16 PM, AndersonHunter wrote:
At 10/23/2013 8:31:08 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
A greatest possible being, GPB is said to be that which nothing greater can be imagined. If your thinking of something as a GPB but you can think of something greater, then that is the GPB...........until you think of something greater.

I ask myself which is greater..........

1) An all powerful being that allow baby cancer to exist

2) An all powerful being that doesn't allow baby cancer to exist

It seems to me number 2 is greater. And since we know that baby cancer exists, the GPB does not exist.

Problems ?

I understand why you are posing this example and, in principle, I agree with you. The problem with the GPB argument, whether proposed by a theist or examined by an atheist, is that the concept of the GBP itself is completely subjective as to each individual's morality, preference and belief system. Even if you take two people with identical views of goodness and morality, they would ultimately imagine the GPB through a prism defined by their own experiences and expectations.


Sure, but like I said before. I am just using the same type of reasoning that they use. They pick what is greater between two competing possibly as do I.

"In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm defined God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived""

LIke I said, I am just following their lead. I followed, and kept going where they dare not go, this is what I came up with.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12