Greatest possible being?
The following argument is valid.
1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater possible beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.
This argument is not intended as a proof for the nonexistence of God; rather, it is intended to challenge theists (particularly Christians) to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?
1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater possible beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.
This argument is not intended as a proof for the nonexistence of God; rather, it is intended to challenge theists (particularly Christians) to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?
20 comments:
«"(Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater beings without limit)."»
Don't you mean "there are greater possible beings without limit"?
Yes.
"rather, it is intended to challenge theists (particularly Christians) to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is *preferable* to the view that "beings can be greater without limit.""
It's not that it's 'preferable'; rather, if you're talking about a being that is not the greatest possible being, you're not talking about god. In other words, it's a question of definition.
"In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is *less rational* than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?"
Again, it's not a question of rationality, but of definition. You cannot define god in such a way that allows for the possibility of a greater possible being. If you do, you're simply not talking about god.
I think that the traditional notion can be defended on at least two grounds: first, god's 'great-making properties' are not, given their definitions, such that they could be surpassed. For example, god is omniscient, and omniscience is defined as the state of having no false beliefs, and of knowing all true propositions. It's clear that omniscience is a great making property that cannot be surpassed; so, if god's other properties can be defined in this way (and I think they can), then the notion of a better possible being than god is untenable.
I would also refer you to Aquinas's development of god's nature and attributes in SCG book one. God is pure actuality, there cannot be two purely actual beings (by the identity of indiscernibles), and you cannot surpass pure actuality.
So, it seems to me as if (1) can easily be defended -- on traditional grounds -- and that your alternative is untenable.
Eric,
I realize the whole matter is simply a matter of definition. But the question is: why should *your* definition of be adopted? More precisely, why should the notion of "the greatest possible being" be preferred to the notion of "greater-beings-without limit?"
you wrote:
--------
You cannot define god in such a way that allows for the possibility of a greater possible being. If you do, you're simply not talking about god.
----------
Right. But *you* wish to define God in such a way that precludes the possibility of greater possible beings without limit. On what grounds?
You wrote:
--------
For example, god is omniscient, and omniscience is defined as the state of having no false beliefs, and of knowing all true propositions. It's clear that omniscience is a great making property that cannot be surpassed; so, if god's other properties can be defined in this way (and I think they can), then the notion of a better possible being than god is untenable.
---------------
The above view assumes that there is an actual infinite number of true propositions. But what if there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of propositions? If so, then can be no such being who knows *all* true propositions.
Moreover, even if there were, the definition of omniscience is not fully encapsulated by having perfect propositional knowledge. In regards to nonpropositional knowledge, why do you assume there can be a limit that can't possibly be surpassed?
"I realize the whole matter is simply a matter of definition. But the question is: why should *your* definition of be adopted?"
First, it's not 'my' definition. It's the definition associated with a long tradition in classical theism.
Second, I would again refer you to book one of SCG. A rigorous defense and elucidation of god's nature and attributes is worked out there in tremendous detail.
I've often found that many 'former Christians' -- and many current ones! -- are not aware of any of this. When a person speaks about our conception of god as if it's arbitrary, it's a sure sign that he hasn't even studied theology at the 101 level -- which makes you wonder why he thinks he has a right (epistemically) to an opinion on the matter in the first place!
Eric wrote:
---------
First, it's not 'my' definition. It's the definition associated with a long tradition in classical theism.
-----------
I'll rephrase my question: why should the definition you adhere to be adopted?
---------
Second, I would again refer you to book one of SCG. A rigorous defense and elucidation of god's nature and attributes is worked out there in tremendous detail.
I've often found that many 'former Christians' -- and many current ones! -- are not aware of any of this. When a person speaks about our conception of god as if it's arbitrary, it's a sure sign that he hasn't even studied theology at the 101 level -- which makes you wonder why he thinks he has a right (epistemically) to an opinion on the matter in the first place!
--------------
Do you know of a specific argument against the notion of "greater beings without limit?"
Eric - I think Spencer realizes that yours is the standard definition, however his question is not really "is this the correct definition?", but rather, "Is the 'standard' definition actually coherent?" If in fact there can be an infinite regress of "greater possible beings", then it's incoherent to define "God" as "the greatest possible being" because such a being cannot possibly exist.
The argument Spencer's making doesn't lie in any specific attribute, but rather the entire set taken as a whole, so arguing that "this one" or "that one" precludes transcendence somewhat misses the point.
For example, suppose I accepted your use of "omniscient" as representing a particular characteristic not vulnerable to infinite regress. I could still reference numerous others. Moreover, I could also point out how "knowing everything" limits God in particularly personal ways (like being able to experience surprise or new experiences, both fundamental elements of personality) that in turn might reduce the possibility that God is in fact the "greatest possible being".
Omniscience is very likely the weakest point of Spencer's argument, simply because a very clear, non-regressive standard exists: everything. The case is much less clear for other attributes like omnipotence or omnibenevolence, where the standard is much less clear.
I think the best response would be to demonstrate *in principle* why an infinite regress of "greater possible beings" cannot exist.
«"I would also refer you to Aquinas's development of god's nature and attributes in SCG book one. God is pure actuality, there cannot be two purely actual beings (by the identity of indiscernibles), and you cannot surpass pure actuality."»
Aquinas is guilty of a lot of fallacious argument. His "pure actuality" is nothing more than handwaving, and his "identity of indiscernibles" sounds suspiciously like he's aware that he's faking it. "You cannot surpass pure actuality" -- and Aquinas knew this how?
"The following argument is valid."
How do you know this? What makes it valid?
"1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived."
By who? Define "God." What do you mean by it?
"2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God."
Define "If". What do you mean by it? Define "being." What do you mean by it? Define "conceived". What do you mean by it?
"3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater possible beings without limit)."
How do you know? Please show it. Which "notion"? What do you mean by "best"?
"4. Therefore, there is no such being as God."
How do you know this?
This still all smells to me like trying to hijack an infinite regress.
I can state that there exists a biggest possible number in a vain attempt to halt a regress, but it is obvious that no such number actually exists... even in 'pure actuality'!!
Aquinas has one merit, in that he writes in nice Q&A style so that it is fairly easy to see the banana skins.
Eric's example of omniscience also falls down when you look carefully at the set of all true propositions and the paradoxes associated with such sets.
I think language can easily ensnare us and I usually try to go back to mathematical logic. Thanks for the post.
That's just like saying that infinity does not exist. (Sorry, man). You may prove, based on a similar resoning, that it's not a number, properly speaking (just like God is not a 'being' properly speaking), but I don't think that such a reasoning proves anyone's (or anything's) non-existence.
The really neat thing about the notion of a god is that it can change (evolve) over time.
The OT god is almost human and thinks a whole lot like the barbaric people who believed in him. The earlier god wasn't omnipresent and had to send angels to check out the story about Sodom that he had heard to see if the story was true or not.
The later god still hadn't gained the ability to read people's minds yet but has to test people's faith to see if they will remain faithful or not.
People can give all kinds of attributes to gods and make up all kinds of rewards in the afterlife for being faithful and they will be safe in doing it. After all, no one is going to come back from the dead to prove them wrong.
The perfect con-game for the charletons of the world and there's a lot of money to be made from the gullible masses.
It backfires sometimes though. When the religious conman retains his own identity and isn't fooled by his own congame he will eventually be found out.
The perfect religious conman allows himself to believe his own congame and that way he can never be found out - not even by himself.
Our minds are a wonderful tool and we can force ourselves to believe anything we want to believe. The only way to protect ourselves from self-delusion is to allow facts and evidence to rule our reason.
A person needs to watch out for whatever lie he might tell to others, he may come to believe it himself.
That's the reason for two people who have been together for a lifetime and end up having different memories of it.
Point #3 doesn't follow, you are only accerting that "there are greater possible beings without limit", rather than it being an established fact.
I can conceive of a more loving and just being than the biblical God.
Presto! Hell is eliminated.
Cute! But why would you want to eliminate Hell? Those who do not want to reside with God would be forced to.
@Owlmirror 5:45 pm
If I recall correctly, the "identity of indiscernibles" and the "indiscernibility of identicals" are two basic axioms in the logic of identity.
Aquinas may have misused them, but I believe they're fairly mundane and uncontroversially accepted universally by logicians.
>>>Cute! But why would you want to eliminate Hell? Those who do not want to reside with God would be forced to.
I guess I'm not a fan of Anne Frank being tortured forever.
Mark,
"Forced" into eternal happiness? Come to think of it, that would suck! I guess that makes Hell okay.
You make the assumption that people who aren't Christians know that the Christian God exists, but just don't like It, and therefore wouldn't like Heaven.
But unfortunately for you, no one would rationally choose eternal pain. I'm wondering what sort of excuses you can make up this time.
Or God could just eliminate them and they could have no Heaven or Hell. No pain, and God doesn't have to go to all the trouble to forgive them!
But of course that wouldn't be threatening enough to get others to convert.
>>>> I guess I'm not a fan of Anne Frank being tortured forever.
Who said anything about torture? Your thinking of the cartoon depiction of Hell. I agree that Hell does not sound like a fun place to be. What do you propose doing with those people who do not want to be with God, forever? Wouldn't he forcing himself upon someone, with the level of intimacy described in the Bible, be tantamount to rape?
Post a Comment