The Greatest Conceivable Being

[FrankSchnabel]

The problem with this definition is that the word “surpass” is undefined. It does not solve the problem contained in the phrase: “of which no greater one can be imagined”, it just expresses the same condition in a different lingustic form. Neither one is meaningful.

X surpasses Y insofar as X is greater than Y. “Surpass” and “be greater than” are synonomous. And, yes, we are back to the meaning of “greater.”

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Atiesta, with reference to the meaning of greatness:

In ordinary conversation we have no problem with understanding “greater.” When it comes to numbers, 5 > 4. When it comes to comparing concrete objects and specific physical traits thereof, we also have no problem. We can appeal to objective measures and speak of A having a greater mass than B, for example.

We also, assuming inter-subject agreement on criteria, can make subjective value judgments about things. “This is work of art is greater or better than that one because…”

Making assessments of “greater than” works when we are describing and comparing two specific concrete objects and are addressing a particular attribute thereof.

But do we lose this ability when the object of our assessment is the whole of reality? No. We can still compare the whole of reality to its parts and to itself.

 

[ateista]

Hi Ateista,

I’m afraid I’m not caffeinated sufficiently or smart enuff to deal with this. Yer goin to haffta splain it to me.

I spose the number definition ends up being nonsensical because the descriptive length for any number has no correlation to the quantity signified by the number, since the length of the descriptive string will depend on the mathematical mode of expression chosen as well as on the arbitrary length of words in the English language.

No, it is quite simple. The description: “the smallest positive integer, that cannot be described by fewer than one hundred letters” does indeed contain fewer than 100 letters.

On the surface it looks like a perfectly valid, sensible description (just like the GCB looks like one) but a little bit of scratching the surface it becomes obvious that it describes an elaborate “null set”, or nothing.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Ateista,

(On whether the all-inclusive being includes all possible entities.) It includes all actual entities. Something which is possible but not yet actual may be included in the all-inclusive being in the future.

Certainly being all-inclusive means possessing all potentiality at any given moment, but what is possible or potential is not presently actual, not even for the GCB.

 

[ateista]

Atiesta, with reference to the meaning of greatness:

In ordinary conversation we have no problem with understanding “greater.” When it comes to numbers, 5 > 4. When it comes to comparing concrete objects and specific physical traits thereof, we also have no problem. We can appeal to objective measures and speak of A having a greater mass than B, for example.

We also, assuming inter-subject agreement on criteria, can make subjective value judgments about things. “This is work of art is greater or better than that one because…”

Making assessments of “greater than” works when we are describing and comparing two specific concrete objects and are addressing a particular attribute thereof.

Yes, I agree with you so far. If there is one attribute to compare, and the attribute pertains both to the whole and the part, and one can define a “greater than” relationship, then yes, the whole and part can be compared.

However, there are two problems.

One surfaces if we wish to compare objects and wish to make a value judgment based upon more than one attribute. This is the problem of multi-function programming (not computer programming, rather mathematical programming). In theory it is impossible to maximize two functions simultaneously over a certain area.

The other problem arises if we wish to compare two objects which have no common attribute to compare. In this case the whole process breaks down.

But do we lose this ability when the object of our assessment is the whole of reality? No. We can still compare the whole of reality to its parts and to itself.

Only if we use one single attribute and that particular attribute pertains to both the whole and the subset and one can sensibly define a “greater then” relationship - which is far from obvious.

A problematic example might be a tiled floor. Each tile has a “shape”, and the whole floor has a shape, too. How can one make a value judgment when comparing the tile and the floor based upon the shape (as an attribute)? Which one is “greater”, the square tiles or the oblong floor (with the sides roughly equalling the Golden ratio)?

 

[St_Gregory]

Well I admit that it is impossible to truely know what the GCB is (I prefer Greatest Logically Possible GLP) but that doesn’t mean we cannot find out some things about It.

For example do not know what xx is but I know that it is positive.
With God, I do not know what He Is, but I know that He exists since NECESSARY (cannot be invalid, that is, MUST be valid: subject to no conditions) existence is greater than Contingent (can be invalid, subject to outside conditions) existence.

 

[ateista]

Well I admit that it is impossible to truely know what the GCB is (I prefer Greatest Logically Possible GLP) but that doesn’t mean we cannot find out some things about It.

For example do not know what xx is but I know that it is positive.
With God, I do not know what He Is, but I know that He exists since NECESSARY (cannot be invalid, that is, MUST be valid: subject to no conditions) existence is greater than Contingent (can be invalid, subject to outside conditions) existence.

Not very imaginative. I can imagine a much greater or higher level of “existence”, one which is not confined to the boring binary type, which either exists or does not, but the infinitely richer type, which sometimes exists a little more, sometimes exists a little less.

Why should “existence” be either zero or one? It could be any real number in-between, too.

But wait, that is not all. We can imagine an even greater type of existence, which can volitionally switch between existing and not existing. Someone who is not “doomed” to exist, but can suspend his existence, and then return to it, at his own discretion.

Surely such an existence is greater than being confined to an infinitely boring, unchanging, static type.

You mean that this is nonsense? That someone who does not exist cannot make a decision to change his non-existence to existence? Well, that is a mystery, all right. But who are we, with our puny little intelligence who dare to question the impossible?

The real GOD, not the God imagined by the Christians, is not confined to existence at all. He can exist when he wants to, and cease to exist when he feels like it. He is not confined to a stasis, to an unchanging existence, rather he can change at his own volition. He can even change his own nature, become totally powerless, but can change back if that is his desire.

Of course, having just a little, insignificant intellect, I cannot really imagine the true measure of “greatness”. But I can know that the boring, unary (not even binary!) necessary existence of the Christian God does not even get close to the finish line in the godly competition for the “greatest conceivable being”-ness.



And yes, this was not meant as a mockery. I am dead serious.

 

[JDaniel]

How does what you’ve said mean anything really?

He is infinite(as is the universe), eternal(as is the universe), he is powerful(as is the universe), omnipotent and omnipresent…statements made about insurbassable being.

I am forced to ask you a question - as politely as I can: why, after all of the threads in this forum proving (by support) the contrary, do you persist in making the same unsupportable claims over and over again?

The universe is clearly NOT “inifinite”, nor is it “eternal”. It began 14 billion years ago and seems to be clearly disintegrating at its outer edges, by the implosions of galaxies into black holes. THIS CLEARLY indicates finiteness NOT infiniteness, non-eternality NOT eternality.

Besides, the Hubble telescope can view the outer edge of the universe. That alone defines it as finite.

Sooner or later, Edna, you have to stop making statements that are supportless. Remember, Frank made you an honorary metaphysician!

If you need an explanation of what “infinite” means, let me know and I’m sure you will be delighted with the responses.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

I suppose there’s too much of a logical positivist in me to accept that. The statement begs the question. I also have a bias against the notion of perfection. Every electron is perfect as I understand perfection or else there is no perfection. But certainly every electron is also different from the next - consider location alone. So sameness is also myth.

It is interesting that you point to a particle that seems to require another, much smaller particle (one that comes and goes in and out of existence in, perhaps, fractions of a second) to help it remain in its/their shell. Not so “perfect” after all?

(There’s no proof that these smaller particles exist, but, science is positing them in almost the same way as it posits electrons.)

JD

 

[St_Gregory]

Not very imaginative. I can imagine a much greater or higher level of “existence”, one which is not confined to the boring binary type, which either exists or does not, but the infinitely richer type, which sometimes exists a little more, sometimes exists a little less.

But you can only imagine that as a idea, it cannot be thought of as a reality since it is given no meaning: you talk of an infinitely richer form of existence claiming that you can conceive of it, but you do not describe. How can something indescribable be classed as conceivable?

Why should “existence” be either zero or one? It could be any real number in-between, too.

That’s a flawed logic. The only real, actual and meaningful frequency or number is one: “1” means, number value.
0 is simply a lack of 1, and 2 is a simpler way of expressing (1+1), and 4 is simply a simpler way of expressing (1+1)(1+1) etc etc.
If an object is instantiated (like I claim God to be) then it is 1, if two of the same object is instantiated then it is (1+1) [or “2” to be quicker]; if it is an object in reverse it is -(1) if it is not instancitaed it is 0.
So God is either a 1 or a 0, real or not — a binary idea of existence.

I feel that, for the idea of God, God as necessary, pure actuality, is greater than contingent - thus God must be a reality.

But wait, that is not all. We can imagine an even greater type of existence, which can volitionally switch between existing and not existing. Someone who is not “doomed” to exist, but can suspend his existence, and then return to it, at his own discretion.

Surely such an existence is greater than being confined to an infinitely boring, unchanging, static type.

No because this being would have to have contingent existence which is less great than necessary.
If you mean that even this idea of existence still being necessary then it is a meaningless idea and therefore cannot fit into the category of “Greatest Logically Possible GLP” or GCB.

 

[richardwy]

Anyway, Ateista was raising objections to the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) and essentially claiming that the concept is logically impossible.

This is kind of important to the ontological argument and theism in general because, if the idea of the GCB is nonsense, then it has conclusively been proven that divine existence is logically impossible.

I hope God knows about this. Sounds like things are shaky.

 

[greylorn]

There is another way to consider this issue— the engineer’s perspective. Engineers do their best to keep physicists honest, and their skills can be applied to philosophy and religion.

An engineer would get down to root issues, like, why do we care about whether or not their is a God? Suppose it happens that we don’t believe in Big Bang theory (which is a shaky idea) and prefer to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, e.g. God.

For this we do not require a GCB (Greatest Conceivable Being). All we require is a being capable of creating the physical universe. Such a being does not need to be the GCB, whatever that might mean. He (more likely It) only needs to be capable of creating the physical universe.

Consider how many religious problems this simple idea solves. To begin with, we can drop all the specious arguments in this thread and cut to something which looks like a real chase. Contributors to this thread have made it clear that the GCB cannot be defined. (A mathematician might declare such a definition “unbounded”, or,then, he might not. It doesn’t matter.)

But a Creator sufficiently capable of producing our universe is well within the bounds of definability. Unlike the early theologians who defined the Creator in the context of complete ignorance about any law of physics or understanding of biology, we can define Creator with a much better sense of the abilities required to put a universe together.

Perhaps what we should be looking for is not a GCB, but an FCB, a Functionally Conceivable Being.

What think you?

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

greylorn: Contributors to this thread have made it clear that the GCB cannot be defined. (A mathematician might declare such a definition “unbounded”, or,then, he might not. It doesn’t matter.)

Zero the Hero: Well I guess I will add my mathematician’s outlook, since I see the problem on a theoretical level, rather than a practical problem to be solved, although I am not a professonal mathematician.

God can be defined as a necessiary being. If this definition is negated, then you end up with the proposition that it is possible that there could be no being. But I see this as inconceivable because the idea of nothing is something. Thus, God exists.

 

[greylorn]

Zero,

You missed my point. This thread is full of abstract, non-testable considerations about the God concept. You’ve added another.

I’m looking for someone with practical insight who might want to discuss the issue at a slightly less abstract level.

Thank you nonetheless.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

Zero,

You missed my point. This thread is full of abstract, non-testable considerations about the God concept. You’ve added another.

I’m looking for someone with practical insight who might want to discuss the issue at a slightly less abstract level.

Thank you nonetheless.

Yes, but I thought my proof was less abstract that Anselm’s Ontological Argument. And you could test my proof using modal logic.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Zero,

You missed my point. This thread is full of abstract, non-testable considerations about the God concept. You’ve added another.

I’m looking for someone with practical insight who might want to discuss the issue at a slightly less abstract level.

Thank you nonetheless.

Sorry to butt in but id like to say my piece.

First of all you cannot logically define the greatest according to numbers. Because there is always a number that is greater, and so, numbers like physical reality, can only serve as a finite incomplete metaphor for greatness. As in, we come to some understanding of the greatest being by measuring one thing against another. Physical reality is analogous to but not the same as the Greatest. It merely reflects Greatness. The mistake that’s being made on this thread is that the Greatest Being is being compared to the Universe. The Greatest Being is not a Number. It is the ground upon which numbers begin. The greatest being has no numbers, has no parts; and so cannot be caused or fail to exist. That is what makes it the greatest. It is the ground of all being. When we measure up one performance against another and then say that one of them was the greatest, we are merely using analogy. In other words we are not really talking about the Greatest. The Greatest cannot be measured in terms of numbers. The qualities of the Universe serve only to emphasise the greatness of God.

To say that the Universe is the Greatest is like saying that there is such a thing as an “actually infinite number”. But you cannot form an actual infinite by adding one to another. And so there is no such thing as an actually infinite number; it is illogical to describe it as a number; for you will always reach a number that is finite. There is no number that can be said to be infinite. But there is such a thing as an infinite that transcends numbers; as in, it is the ground of numbers. It is the greatest.

Once one understands that the Universe is a work of art that is given its quality and quantity; one will understand that God need not contain the Universe in order to be the Greatest.

So when Saint Anslem said God is that which nothing greater can be thought of; Saint Anslem was saying in affect that God is greater then the Universe; so far as the universe is a chain of being; a chain of numbers. The OA is an effective arguement against various Pantheistic philosophies, but has very little power unless you believe in some kind of God or agree the greatness is a meaningfull concept.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Anything that is in the Universe is only greater “relative” to something else, and is not by itself the “Greatest”.

 

[greylorn]

Yes, but I thought my proof was less abstract that Anselm’s Ontological Argument. And you could test my proof using modal logic.

Hero/Zero

It is a real test to find a way to get someone who is determined to think on the ineffable plane of the spiritual to come to earth. I shall invite you down to the level of the same practicality which our Creator used when inventing biological cells, using your style of arguments rather than mine.

First, note that to answer your last question on your terms I would have to look up “anselm’s Ontological Argument.” I am willing to do so if it proves useful.

Secondly I must note that although I make my living using logic, often Boolean and mathematical, I would have to investigate “modal logic” before using it to prove or disprove anything. Spare me this effort please, if possible. And if not, alas…

An engineer by trade, I value practicality. So before I study Anselm and modal logic, would you kindly use plain old ordinary English to answer me this:

Suppose that I find both your proof and Anselm’s argument to be false? How will this change your beliefs, and how will that change in beliefs change your life and those who you teach?

Or, suppose that I find yours and Anselm’s proofs to be absolutely correct. In the absence of a definition of God which can be translated into real actions and motivations (which we do not seem to have), what difference will it make to you?

In effect, I’ve inviting you to explain why the proof or disproof of a poorly defined, abstract entity can make any difference to either of us.

 

[Dameedna]

I am forced to ask you a question - as politely as I can: why, after all of the threads in this forum proving (by support) the contrary, do you persist in making the same unsupportable claims over and over again?

I never said my claims were “supported”. I’m sure you’ve heard many ideas repeated on the internet before so not sure why you have an issue with me repeating what I’m saying, when different people respond in different threads.

The universe is clearly NOT “inifinite”, nor is it “eternal”. It began 14 billion years ago and seems to be clearly disintegrating at its outer edges, by the implosions of galaxies into black holes. THIS CLEARLY indicates finiteness NOT infiniteness, non-eternality NOT eternality.

All that we can do, is hypothesis at this point. There is no reason, when claiming something can infinitely exist, that it cannot be the universe" IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER", rather than a creator. It is as possible as any other idea that you can come up with especially in light of a belief that something "can’ actualy exist forever.

The GCB could be an infinite universe in one form or another, and there are theories in physics that head in this direction. So what we have, is a whole lot of theories, and unsubstantiated claims,from Gods that incarnate on our planet, to String theory and a Theory of everything.

You don’t have to accept this of course but highlighting the possibility shouldn’t cause so much anghst.

 

[Dameedna]

The OA is an effective arguement against various Pantheistic philosophies, but has very little power unless you believe in some kind of God or agree the greatness is a meaningfull concept.

I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head.

As an argument, it seems to simply verify something for a believer, and is meaningless to a non-believer because GCB could be anything at all.

So when it’s used as “proof” for a God, it really isn’t one at all since it won’t Prove anything to a non-believer(unlike a scientific experiement etc ) nor change their mind.