Nothing greater than God can be conceived

[Dingbat]

Is it possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh?

If so, describe one change to Yahweh that would make him greater.

[Think]

One that actually exists.

[Brock]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:55:43 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

Is it possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh?

If so, describe one change to Yahweh that would make him greater.

"Nothing greater than God can be conceived" 

I affirm it to be interesting and profitable to consider ontological arguments:

"The Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments

Most of the arguments for God’s existence rely on at least one empirical premise. For example, the “fine-tuning” version of the design argument depends on empirical evidence of intelligent design; in particular, it turns on the empirical claim that, as a nomological matter, that is, as a matter of law, life could not have developed if certain fundamental properties of the universe were to have differed even slightly from what they are. Likewise, cosmological arguments depend on certain empirical claims about the explanation for the occurrence of empirical events.

In contrast, the ontological arguments are conceptual in roughly the following sense: just as the propositions constituting the concept of a bachelor imply that every bachelor is male, the propositions constituting the concept of God, according to the ontological argument, imply that God exists. There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being. Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God.

It is worth reflecting for a moment on what a remarkable (and beautiful!) undertaking this is. Normally, existential claims don’t follow from conceptual claims. If I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses exist, it is not enough just to reflect on the concepts. I need to go out into the world and conduct some sort of empirical investigation using my senses. Likewise, if I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses don’t exist, I must do the same. In general, positive and negative existential claims can be established only by empirical methods.

There is, however, one class of exceptions. We can prove certain negative existential claims merely by reflecting on the content of the concept. Thus, for example, we can determine that there are no square circles in the world without going out and looking under every rock to see whether there is a square circle there. We can do so merely by consulting the definition and seeing that it is self-contradictory. Thus, the very concepts imply that there exist no entities that are both square and circular.

The ontological argument, then, is unique among such arguments in that it purports to establish the real (as opposed to abstract) existence of some entity. Indeed, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is as much a contradiction to suppose that God doesn’t exist as it is to suppose that there are square circles or female bachelors. "

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

For my part, considering ontologically, I find a problem is that God is higher, more exalted, and nobler than all of my best conceptions about Him.  He's simply too wonderful, mighty, good, and holy than my best thought regarding Him can ever capture or represent. :)

Kind Regards!

[philosophy]

On Oct 5, 9:55 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh?
>
> If so, describe one change to Yahweh that would make him greater.

Get rid of its anthropomorphic basis.
Having said that, the Yahweh of the OT is such a murderous
clown that it would be hard to see it as relative to anything
good or worth emulating in any way.

[Rupert]

On Oct 5, 8:51 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:55:43 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh?
>
> > If so, describe one change to Yahweh that would make him greater.
>
> "Nothing greater than God can be conceived"
>
> I affirm it to be interesting and profitable to consider ontological
> arguments:
>

Which ontological argument, specifically?

[Brock Organ]

I'll wait for an objection before engaging here, if that's ok with you. :)

Regards!

[Rupert]

On 5 Okt., 14:44, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

You'll probably do it even if it's not ok with me.

[Think]

Thanks for confirming a source of your flights of fancy.

[Dingbat]

Thomas Aquinas later rejected the argument on the basis that humans
cannot know God's nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

>
> For my part, considering ontologically, I find a problem is that God is
> higher, more exalted, and nobler than all of my best conceptions about Him.
>  He's simply too wonderful, mighty, good, and holy than my best thought
> regarding Him can ever capture or represent. :)
>

That is when you're doing the considering. How about when one who
finds God a rotter does the considering? Would he, considering
ontologically, find a problem that God is more rotten than his worst
conceptions?
>
> Kind Regards!

[Dingbat]

If that's the way you perceive Yahweh, it should then be easy to
conceive something greater than Yahweh. For example, if Yahweh were to
not be murderous, wouldn't that make him greater?

[John Stockwell]

I don't agree. If Yahweh actually exists, then everybody is in much greater peril than a bunch of politicos claiming
that Yahweh told them to go slaughter a bunch of people.

[John Stockwell]

If nothing is greater than Yahweh, then we should believe in nothing.

[Think]

That may be true, John, but that doesn't mean that an existent god wouldn't be greater than a non-existent one. It might be a greater threat to humanity but it would still be greater.

[Think]

Or you could just put really big tits on it. 

[Think]

I like the way you think.

[Dingbat]

On Oct 5, 11:31 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If nothing is greater than Yahweh, then we should believe in nothing.
>

No; if Yahweh exists, we should believe in Yahweh's existence whether
or not he's greater than nothing.

[Eric Griswold, R.C.]

When one says: ""Nothing greater than God can be conceived" this seems to make it an anthropomorphic definition. One must then ask: conceived of by whom? Albert Einstein? The man on the street? Thomas Aquinas? Each will have a different natural limit as to the greatness of what he can conceive.  

 

So Person A can concieve of the greatest thing he possibly can, but then person B comes along with the ability to conceive something one step bigger, and person C comes along and so forth.

 

In that sense, yes, it is possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh. Somebody right now is conceiving a greater Yahweh than you are; and somebody else is conceiving a greater one yet; and on up the chain to the one single person in the world (or universe) with the biggest powers of conceiving things, and they are conceiving the greatest Yahweh of them all.

 

There is an old argument for the existence of God which says: There is one greatest possible thing of which we can conceive: therefore that thing must exist and be God. (condensed version). Suppose a new drug is invented which expands my powers of conception tenfold. Does God now become ten times greater?

 

--If no, then I can now concieve of something ten times greater than God, and the old argument fails.

--If yes, then God is logically dependent on my powers of conceiving things; in short He is an anthropomorphic conception; just "the biggest thing one can imagine."

[Observer]

Observer

In contrast the scientific community has proffered theories which
indicate , objective reality to be unfettered by purpose, intent, the
bounds of time( as experienced in our Hubble sphere) or even by the
limiting concepts of intelligence, (allowing for near infinite degrees
of freedom), within which and of which are extended all phenomena .

[quote]

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some
aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2]
Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been
corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to
test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge,
scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic
propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of
phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make
falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are
improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction
improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain
further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as
inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive
form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from
the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is
unproven or speculative.[5]

[\quote]

>
> It is worth reflecting for a moment on what a remarkable (and beautiful!)
> undertaking this is.

Observer
Such an undertaking sans, the formulation of scientific theory, (as
described in the above quote )is neither remarkable, nor beautiful as
it tends not to edification but are ,rather simply, wild ass
speculations and extrapolations made there from.

Normally, existential claims don’t follow from
> conceptual claims. If I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses
> exist, it is not enough just to reflect on the concepts. I need to go out
> into the world and conduct some sort of empirical investigation using my
> senses. Likewise, if I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses
> don’t exist, I must do the same. In general, positive and negative
> existential claims can be established only by empirical methods.
>
> There is, however, one class of exceptions. We can prove certain negative
> existential claims merely by reflecting on the content of the concept.
> Thus, for example, we can determine that there are no square circles in the
> world without going out and looking under every rock to see whether there
> is a square circle there. We can do so merely by consulting the definition
> and seeing that it is self-contradictory. Thus, the very concepts imply
> that there exist no entities that are both square and circular.
>
> The ontological argument, then, is unique among such arguments in that it
> purports to establish the real (as opposed to abstract) existence of some
> entity. Indeed, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is as much a
> contradiction to suppose that God doesn’t exist as it is to suppose that
> there are square circles or female bachelors. "

Observer

It is necessary to combine all the tools of human cognition,ever to
have been established as reliable, in order to examine objective
reality with any reasonable expectation of edification, lacking one
one might as well lack all.

Ontological arguments

[quote]

The first critic of the ontological argument was Anselm's
contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He used the analogy of a perfect
island, suggesting that the ontological could be used to prove the
existence of anything. This was the first of many parodies, all of
which attempted to show that it has absurd consequences. Thomas

Aquinas later rejected the argument on the basis that humans cannot

know God's nature. David Hume offered an empirical objection,
criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea
that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel Kant's critique was
based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a
predicate. He proposed that, as it adds nothing to the essence of a
being, existence is not a predicate (or perfection) and thus a
"supremely perfect" being can be conceived to not exist. Finally,
philosophers including C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a
maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are
incompatible with others, rendering "maximally great being"
incoherent.

Biologist Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, rejects the
argument as "infantile". Noting that he is "a scientist rather than a
philosopher", he writes: "The very idea that such grand conclusions
should follow from such logomachist trickery offends me
aesthetically." Also, he feels a "deep suspicion of any line of
reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding
in a single piece of data from the real world."[56]

[\quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Arguments

>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
>
> For my part, considering ontologically, I find a problem is that God is
> higher, more exalted, and nobler than all of my best conceptions about Him.
>  He's simply too wonderful, mighty, good, and holy than my best thought
> regarding Him can ever capture or represent. :)

Observer


You delve into the extremities of undisciplined, imagination and
ascribe, presumptuously, to the * fictive *subject matter thereof,
a , counterpart in actuality.

How very amusing.

Psychonomist

> Kind Regards!

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Eric Griswold, R.C. <er...@clevian.com> wrote:
> When one says: ""Nothing greater than God can be conceived" this seems to
> make it an anthropomorphic definition.

I think it is a legitimate point you bring up, and conclude it is
important to not simplistically equate God with our
relation/conception of him. But your invalidation does not dismiss
the existence of Jehovah, only the overly-simplistic equation of him
with our anthropomorphic conception.

To avoid that error is why I tried to be careful to NOT limit, bound
or define God to be simply my conception of him in my earlier post:

"For my part, considering ontologically, I find a problem is that God
is higher, more exalted, and nobler than all of my best conceptions
about Him. He's simply too wonderful, mighty, good, and holy than my
best thought regarding Him can ever capture or represent. :) "

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Observer <mayo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In contrast the scientific community has proffered theories which
> indicate , objective reality to be unfettered by purpose, intent, the
> bounds of time

More accurately, science concedes that it is not competent to
objectively measure purpose and intent, NOT that scientific
measurement positivistically establishes an absence of purpose/intent.
:)

Regards!

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Observer <mayo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> For my part, considering ontologically, I find a problem is that God is
>> higher, more exalted, and nobler than all of my best conceptions about Him.
>> He's simply too wonderful, mighty, good, and holy than my best thought
>> regarding Him can ever capture or represent. :)
>

> You delve into the extremities of undisciplined, imagination and
> ascribe, presumptuously, to the * fictive *subject matter thereof,
> a , counterpart in actuality.

Or just note that God is not limited by my conception of him! :)

Regards!

[Bob T.]

'

And I will continue to compare you to poultry excrement, whether that's OK with you or not ;-}

 

- Bob T 

Regards!

[Dingbat]

On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In contrast the scientific community has proffered theories which
> > indicate , objective reality to be unfettered by purpose, intent, the
> > bounds of time
>
> More accurately, science concedes that it is not competent to
> objectively measure purpose and intent,
>

Ah, so that's why the purpose and intent of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina
remain unmeasured!

[klytu]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 2:51:14 AM UTC-4, Brock wrote:

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:55:43 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

Is it possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh?

If so, describe one change to Yahweh that would make him greater.

"Nothing greater than God can be conceived" 

I affirm it to be interesting and profitable to consider ontological arguments:

"The Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments

Most of the arguments for God’s existence rely on at least one empirical premise. For example, the “fine-tuning” version of the design argument depends on empirical evidence of intelligent design; in particular, it turns on the empirical claim that, as a nomological matter, that is, as a matter of law, life could not have developed if certain fundamental properties of the universe were to have differed even slightly from what they are. Likewise, cosmological arguments depend on certain empirical claims about the explanation for the occurrence of empirical events.

In contrast, the ontological arguments are conceptual in roughly the following sense: just as the propositions constituting the concept of a bachelor imply that every bachelor is male, the propositions constituting the concept of God, according to the ontological argument, imply that God exists. There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being. Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God.

 

These, IMHO, are major problems with the ontological arguments:

 

 - neither "the concept of God" nor the "very definition of God" is objective and

 - it is not proved that just because someone "conceives of"  ("imagines" or "abstacts") something, it actually exists.

 

Examining the form of the argument where God is defined as "the greatest conceivable being", God appears to me to be subjective to each particular person. Unless everything that can be imagined or is logically possible is true (which I don't believe),  conceiving of something does not mean it is real.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, klytu <jazzy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> These, IMHO, are major problems with the ontological arguments:
>
> - neither "the concept of God" nor the "very definition of God" is
> objective and

Thanks for your response, klytu. For my part, perhaps I was thinking
similarly to you, but it struck me that it is not true that one can
adequately equate God with human conception or definition of him. As
I've noted previously, God is higher, nobler, better and more exalted
than humankind's very best conceptions regarding him.

> - it is not proved that just because someone "conceives of" ("imagines" or
> "abstacts") something, it actually exists.

But the question is whether or not an ontological argument actually so
argues. This is where examining the specific arguments one has made,
rather than a "summarization" is important. For example, consider the
classic ontological argument of Anselm[1]. Now, I don't mean to
simply take some one else's summarization of him, I mean, actually
read Anselm's work (or at least a translation of it) ... see if you
can find a justification for the objection you've offerred above. If
you can, I'd be interested in reading about it, but frankly, from my
reading Anselm offers up a narrative more complex than a simplistic
"ha ha! I've proved God exists because I have conceived of Him!!!!".

[1] for example: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.asp

> Examining the form of the argument where God is defined as "the greatest
> conceivable being", God appears to me to be subjective to each particular
> person. Unless everything that can be imagined or is logically possible is
> true (which I don't believe), conceiving of something does not mean it is
> real.

But the danger is in the definition. I, for one, find that equating
God with "the greatest conceivable being" to be a terrible blunder,
for God is greater than humankind's conception regarding him; and to
defeat or refute such a "greatest conceivable being" is to simply
refute a limited being.

Does Anselm, or others offering their own ontological argument, make
such an equation? I can see some evidence indicating that perhaps he
did, but I can also see other evidence indicating a more complex,
subtle position than that.

Regards!

[lawrey]

Ding Dong,

Ask a silly question and you know what follows:
The answer is a lemon.

The tetragrammaton (Hebrew: יהוה‎), means nothing that the
church can agree upon and the original name given to the
leading character of the Torah has long since been lost.
Not that it matters; it was a fictional character so to ask
a serious question of a fictional character and expect a
serious answer defies common sense in the first place.

The character itself was devised by Amenhotep IV or
Arkhenaton who invented the creator of all things by
promoting the the Egyptian sun-god Amun Ra, which at
that time was considered the most powerful of the imagined
god/s, he called it Aton. This is what was proposed by
Hosea for the god of the Torah, it being the only god/creator
and monotheistic deity in times of polytheism.

[Marc]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 1:55:43 AM UTC+2, Dingbat wrote:

Is it possible to conceive something greater than Yahweh?

If so, describe one change to Yahweh that would make him greater.

The Hindu Brahma is conceptually as high a thing that could exist, as formally it is an existence that contains all possibly existing things within it. Nothing could be seperate from Brahma and all things are contained within Brahma no matter what those things are. This, according to hinduism, is true for any God, gods, daemons, or whatever else you might think of - if it 'is' then it is a part of Brahma which is all.   

[klytu]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:21:08 PM UTC-4, Brock wrote:

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, klytu <jazzy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> These, IMHO, are major problems with the ontological arguments:
>
>  - neither "the concept of God" nor the "very definition of God" is
> objective and

Thanks for your response, klytu.  For my part, perhaps I was thinking
similarly to you, but it struck me that it is not true that one can
adequately equate God with human conception or definition of him.  As
I've noted previously, God is higher, nobler, better and more exalted
than humankind's very best conceptions regarding him.

>  - it is not proved that just because someone "conceives of"  ("imagines" or
> "abstacts") something, it actually exists.

But the question is whether or not an ontological argument actually so
argues.  This is where examining the specific arguments one has made,
rather than a "summarization" is important.  For example, consider the
classic ontological argument of Anselm[1].  Now, I don't mean to
simply take some one else's summarization of him, I mean, actually
read Anselm's work (or at least a translation of it) ... see if you
can find a justification for the objection you've offerred above.  If
you can, I'd be interested in reading about it, but frankly, from my
reading Anselm offers up a narrative more complex than a simplistic
"ha ha! I've proved God exists because I have conceived of Him!!!!".

[1] for example: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.asp

 

Thanks for the link. In addition to the text of Anselm's work, it also contains links to other historical information that is of interest to me - for example, the lives of the saints.

 

It had been a while since I read Anselm's arguments and giving it a fresh look I think you make some valid points. Anselm in fact claims that "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" which is different than "God is the greatest conceivable being".

 

As to my second point, Anselm actually agrees with me that to have a conception of something is different than that thing actually existing. He makes that clear here:

 

"For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but be does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, be both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it."

 

But then in these excerpts, which I think are the core of Anselm's argument, he conflates understanding  a concept with actual existence of that concept:

 

"Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater."

 

and

 

"... For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist;. and this being you are, O Lord, our God."

 

The phrase "cannot exist in the understanding alone" is to me where is he conflates understanding with existence: to me "exist in the understanding alone" is meaningless. To me, something that is understood but does not exist is imaginary; a thing or concept does not "exist in understanding". The way I  see it concepts are symbols/abstractions we employ in thought to make sense of the world around us. They represent commonalities we see among different objects and potential new ways we can organize reality. But to me, they do not have existence in and among themselves. Therefore, no thing that exists is "in the understanding alone".

 

The rest of Anselm's text appears to me to be a statement of his beliefs and reflections about the nature of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" . I find the text interesting and a window into the depth of the Anselm's thoughts. Taking together they can be viewed as a mixture of Idealist philosophy (the Good, the highest concept from which all others are derived) and anthropomorphism.

 

However interesting his beliefs are, I think Anselm's text falls far short of being any kind of logical argument or proof of the existence of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

[lawrey]

Klytu,

For all his fame at that time in his age We must today recognze
that whatever the ramifications of the ontological argument it does
not today nor did it in his day stand up. Anselm was noted chiefly
for his discussions of the proof of the existence of God. Which in
truth turned out to be no proof at all.

Augustine, who was a favourite author of Anselm, had interpreted
God as the supreme member in the scale of terms reaching to
infinity. But this left open the question of whether such a last term
was merely an idea or referred to a real being which corresponded
to it. Anselm, in his Proslogium, argued that the Being than whom
no greater can be thought must exist, by definition, for an unrealised
idea is not so great as a realised one.

This is called the ontological argument for the existence of God.
It was rightly criticised by Gaunilon, a monk contemporary with
Anselm, and has of course been criticised since, e.g., by
Thomas and Kant, for a definition, logically, has no "existential"
import.

This has been restated by later thinkers.In his theory of knowledge,
Anselm is called a realist; that is, he held that a general idea in
the
human mind, and which is as real as something individual.
Such an idea is not an impulse of the voice, not a mere name
which names nothing.

Anselm held that relation lays a basis for reason and that one must
accept the beliefs of the Church before one can undertake to
understand them . This of course puts orthodoxy prior to inquiry.
His essay On Truth, is the first consideration of this question,
pparently for centuries. The popular conviction that the Church
had the truth, evidently made the consideration of the question
eem unnecessary.

Given faith as a basis, Anselm assigned to pure reason an unlimited
power of demonstration, as in the ontological argument. All articles
of faith, once adopted, can be proven by logic alone.

Thus, he tried to make intelligible the notions of the Omniscience of
God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the freedom of the human will,
maintaining that freedom is not foreign to rational living.

Basically Faith before reason, or orthodoxy before inquiry.
We cannot tolerate such stupidity in this day and age.

On Oct 7, 2:30 pm, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:21:08 PM UTC-4, Brock wrote:
>

> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, klytu <jazzy...@hotmail.com <javascript:>>