Please Help to Refute and an Argument Against God!

[ClemtheCatholic]

From online:

*There are many different ways in which people define god. If you would allow me to enter a definition (I believe you will agree with it): God is a being of which there is none greater. There is no greater being than god.

Here we enter the argument:

• God is the greatest being in existence. No greater could be thought of.
• Greatness includes virtue.
• Therefore god is the most virtuous being in existence.
• For a being to be called virtuous, it must be able to feel pain and suffering.
• God, then, cannot be the greatest being in existence if he feels pain and suffering because a greater being (one that cannot feel pain and suffering) could be thought of.
• Therefore God cannot exist or else he is not god.

To simplify it: If god exists he should be more virtuous than any other being in the universe. Virtue requires attributes like being able to feel pain or fear – attributes that god does not have. We must come to one of three conclusions then:

1. God does not exist
2. God exists but he is not the most virtuous being in existence
3. God is the most virtuous being in existence but he does not require attributes like fear or pain

In the first two cases, the god traditionally believed in (certainly so by the three dominant religions in the world). In the third case, we see a small correlation with the argument from evil. The theist response to the argument from evil is usually that things like suffering and destruction exist because we would not be able to develop virtues.

Many theists concede that evil is bad but that the development of virtues is worth the evil suffered. These same theists believe that their god is “perfect” but, by their own definition, their god is incapable of developing virtues.

Perhaps we possess good attributes that god does not. But that would mean that we would be superior to god in some way.
Perhaps these virtues are not very good after all. But then that would undermine the argument that these very virtues are so wonderful they make evil worthwhile.
Or perhaps god does have these virtues but then isn’t perfect and isn’t worth worshiping.

It becomes evident that the god traditionally believed by theists cannot exist. If god is perfect then he cannot be virtuous. If he is virtuous then he cannot be perfect. One attribute must give in to the other and if theists keep insisting on ascribing both to god then god is logically impossible.*

I hope somebody can help me out here!

Thanks so much.

ClemtheCatholic

 

[ngill09]

Putting the argument in the following way:

P1 God is the greatest being in existence. No greater could be thought of.
P2: Greatness includes virtue.
P3: Therefore god is the most virtuous being in existence.
P4: For a being to be called virtuous, it must be able to feel pain and suffering.
P5: God, then, cannot be the greatest being in existence if he feels pain and suffering because a greater being (one that cannot feel pain and suffering) could be thought of.
C: Therefore God cannot exist or else he is not god.

P5 is incoherent due to the definition of “Greatness” given in P2, and the definition of “virtuous” in P4. The “greater being” in P5 is defined as not being able to feel pain and suffering, but in order to be great, the being must be called virtuous, which includes the ability to feel pain and suffering.

The following argument is in the same form as the original, and the fallacy is shown clearly.

P1: X has property A
P2: A implies B
P3: Therefore X has Property B
P4: B implies C
P5: Therefore X has property C, but that means X cannot have property A. ???

Where:
X = God
A = Maximal Greatness
B = Virtuousness
C = Ability to feel pain and suffering.

If A implies B and B implies C, then if X has A then X has C. If maximal greatness implies virtuousness and virtuousness implies the ability to feel pain and suffering, then a maximally great being must be able to feel pain and suffering.

 

[tonyrey]

Putting the argument in the following way:

P1 God is the greatest being in existence. No greater could be thought of.
P2: Greatness includes virtue.
P3: Therefore god is the most virtuous being in existence.
P4: For a being to be called virtuous, it must be able to feel pain and suffering.
P5: God, then, cannot be the greatest being in existence if he feels pain and suffering because a greater being (one that cannot feel pain and suffering) could be thought of.
C: Therefore God cannot exist or else he is not god.

P5 is incoherent due to the definition of “Greatness” given in P2, and the definition of “virtuous” in P3. The “greater being” in P5 is defined as not being able to feel pain and suffering, but in order to be great, the being must include virtue, which includes the ability to feel pain and suffering.

P5 is false because a greater being cannot lack love and compassion.

 

[ngill09]

Addressing some of the additional material:

I would say that God does not have some of the characteristics we would call human virtues. For example, God, fearing nothing, could not be called courageous if courage is the virtue of acting in spite of fear. But I don’t think the “Greatness” ascribed to God is dependent on having these human virtues, which exist because of our imperfection.

Do you have a link to the original argument?

 

[MPat]

From online:

*There are many different ways in which people define god. If you would allow me to enter a definition (I believe you will agree with it): God is a being of which there is none greater. There is no greater being than god.

Here we enter the argument:

• God is the greatest being in existence. No greater could be thought of.
• Greatness includes virtue.
• Therefore god is the most virtuous being in existence.
• For a being to be called virtuous, it must be able to feel pain and suffering.
• God, then, cannot be the greatest being in existence if he feels pain and suffering because a greater being (one that cannot feel pain and suffering) could be thought of.
• Therefore God cannot exist or else he is not god.

To simplify it: If god exists he should be more virtuous than any other being in the universe. Virtue requires attributes like being able to feel pain or fear – attributes that god does not have. We must come to one of three conclusions then:

1. God does not exist
2. God exists but he is not the most virtuous being in existence
3. God is the most virtuous being in existence but he does not require attributes like fear or pain

In the first two cases, the god traditionally believed in (certainly so by the three dominant religions in the world). In the third case, we see a small correlation with the argument from evil. The theist response to the argument from evil is usually that things like suffering and destruction exist because we would not be able to develop virtues.

Many theists concede that evil is bad but that the development of virtues is worth the evil suffered. These same theists believe that their god is “perfect” but, by their own definition, their god is incapable of developing virtues.

Perhaps we possess good attributes that god does not. But that would mean that we would be superior to god in some way.
Perhaps these virtues are not very good after all. But then that would undermine the argument that these very virtues are so wonderful they make evil worthwhile.
Or perhaps god does have these virtues but then isn’t perfect and isn’t worth worshiping.

It becomes evident that the god traditionally believed by theists cannot exist. If god is perfect then he cannot be virtuous. If he is virtuous then he cannot be perfect. One attribute must give in to the other and if theists keep insisting on ascribing both to god then god is logically impossible.*

I hope somebody can help me out here!

Thanks so much.

ClemtheCatholic

“For a being to be called virtuous, it must be able to feel pain and suffering.” - first of all, what does “feel” mean here? It could mean “is able to suffer” or “is able to find out when others suffer”. In the second case the argument seems to fail completely, thus the first meaning can be assumed. But such assertion looks suspicious… Was an argument provided…?

In effect it was “These same theists believe that their god is “perfect” but, by their own definition, their god is incapable of developing virtues.”. But, well, it is simply true that God is “incapable of developing virtues”. He is a pure act. He is “incapable of developing” anything. He is “incapable” of changing. Also, he is already maximally virtuous. However, we are not pure acts, nor are we maximally virtuous. And, of course, the answer to the problem of evil that was cited talks about our virtues, not God’s.

 

[snarflemike]

Addressing some of the additional material:

I would say that God does not have some of the characteristics we would call human virtues. For example, God, fearing nothing, could not be called courageous if courage is the virtue of acting in spite of fear. But I don’t think the “Greatness” ascribed to God is dependent on having these human virtues, which exist because of our imperfection.

Quite right (disregarding God Incarnate for now). God is not like us, only more of the good stuff and none of the bad.

 

[Anthony_V]

Quite right (disregarding God Incarnate for now). God is not like us, only more of the good stuff and none of the bad.

The Incarnation and the life of Christ that followed was the ultimate display of God’s power. As to whether God is like us or not… that is difficult to answer. You will get differing opinions. Some insist that creation and God are in the same genus of to-be, albeit at different degrees (Scotus); some will insist that God has no genus, and therefore the question is irrelevant (Aquinas); and some will insist that man is like God, but asking whether God is like man apart from the mystery of the Incarnation is an invalid question for trying to anthropomorphize God (others ). St. Athanasius has an interesting take on it, but I don’t know it well enough to articulate it from merely being an intuition.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why can’t God’s “virtue” be of a completely higher order? The author of the argument commits a categorical fallacy measuring divinity by human attributes. By the author’s own logic, a statue cannot be “great” because he says greatness includes virtue, and a statue cannot have virtue. So does the statue not exist? If I read his logic correctly, he/she would have to argue a great statue cannot exist because it can’t experience pain. Categorical fallacy.

 

[empther]

Here we enter the argument:

• God is the greatest being in existence. No greater could be thought of.
• Greatness includes virtue.
• Therefore god is the most virtuous being in existence.
• For a being to be called virtuous, it must be able to feel pain and suffering.
• God, then, cannot be the greatest being in existence if he feels pain and suffering because a greater being (one that cannot feel pain and suffering) could be thought of.
• Therefore God cannot exist or else he is not god.

This is total nonsense.

It’s such a mess it’s a waste of time to discuss it. An individual should have more self-respect for the value of his time than to waste it on this nonsense.

Of course,
the argument ignores Aquinas’ proofs of God.
Why does it do this? What is the objective of the person who dreamed it up?

 

[bzkoss236]

I think it is a logical fallacy to say that the greatest being cannot experience pain and suffering. I think quite the opposite would be true. I don’t think you could be the greatest being without having experienced pain and suffering, or happiness, or any feeling.

Think of a rich man who is shunned for his stance on certain social issues because he has never had to experience what someone of much less wealth has to experience. How can a man like that be considered at all great?

If a rich man, who had chosen to put aside his riches for a while, to experience the hardships the less wealthy go through, has an opinion that is likely more favored because he has had those experiences, which I think would make him a greater man than the first.

Just my thought.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Here’s the faulty assertion:

• God, then, cannot be the greatest being in existence if he feels pain and suffering because a greater being (one that cannot feel pain and suffering) could be thought of.

Pain and suffering have nothing to do with “greatness”. Well, let’s define “greatness” first. Ask your atheist what “greatness” is.

Here is the Thomistic definition:

The greatest Being in the universe (i.e, “esse”, or God) must:

1. exist of Himself. That is, He must be caused not by anything but His own existence. Simply put, He is. (As Moses learned His name is, “I am who AM”. This also means He cannot cease to exist, as this would contradict His nature.
2. ergo be infinite, spanning ALL existence, unlimited by nature, of which even the universe is finite.
3. ergo be eternal, spanning ALL time, even before time began and after it will end.
4. ergo be omniscient.
5. ergo be omnipotent.

In none of this is a impossibility that such a Being can feel pain or suffering. It only means He cannot be overpowered or destroyed.

If possible, flick your finger against your friend in such a way that it will be mildly discomforting.

Ask him if it hurts or irritates him. He will say “Yes”. Ask him if it has changed him in at all. He will in all likelihood say “no, not really”.

I think that says it all. Just because pain is painful, or suffering is agonising, does not mean you are less powerful because you are in pain. It is an incontingent argument.

 

[PJD1987]

This entire argument makes no sense, and I think its been covered pretty thoroughly by others.

 

[Ion]

Here’s the faulty assertion:

Pain and suffering have nothing to do with “greatness”. Well, let’s define “greatness” first. Ask your atheist what “greatness” is.

Here is the Thomistic definition:

The greatest Being in the universe (i.e, “esse”, or God) must:

1. exist of Himself. That is, He must be caused not by anything but His own existence. Simply put, He is. (As Moses learned His name is, “I am who AM”. This also means He cannot cease to exist, as this would contradict His nature.
2. ergo be infinite, spanning ALL existence, unlimited by nature, of which even the universe is finite.
3. ergo be eternal, spanning ALL time, even before time began and after it will end.
4. ergo be omniscient.
5. ergo be omnipotent.

In none of this is a impossibility that such a Being can feel pain or suffering. It only means He cannot be overpowered or destroyed.

If possible, flick your finger against your friend in such a way that it will be mildly discomforting.

Ask him if it hurts or irritates him. He will say “Yes”. Ask him if it has changed him in at all. He will in all likelihood say “no, not really”.

I think that says it all. Just because pain is painful, or suffering is agonising, does not mean you are less powerful because you are in pain. It is an incontingent argument.

Indeed.
Some might consider “to feel good” the epitome of greatness, so they see the things diff.