The Greatest Conceivable Being

[greylorn]

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.

M.O.M.
Did I even mention “numbers” in my post, or imply the importance of quantity, or use the word “greatest” except in the GCB context, which was not mine?

Perhaps you intended this argument for someone else.
Best regards, anyway, and may you find your intended recipient.

 

[crowonsnow]

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

What think you?

I think that’s what the ancients had in mind. Beings that were like themselves only far more powerful. Because our knowledge has increased since those times we don’t think there’s a god inside a volcano, or one in the sky hurling bolts of lightning, or having a game of bowling.

The god my friends talk about has left the universe completely! Imagine that! It exists “outside” of space and time and isn’t bound by anything. It’s “beyond” science.

Clearly, as our knowledge has gained our gods have receded, and understandably so.

 

[frankblahnik]

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.

Good post.

When you say “the ground of numbers” do you mean like “the author of the laws of mathematics”?

Or with physics it could be said “the author of the laws of physics”.

Another description is “the creator of time and space”.

Take away the “laws” and the “time” and the “space” and what do you have? …simply being.

God is…

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

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?

Then I would have to find another argument for God’s existance to show how atheism is foolish. I would have to abandon my argument and either find or discover another one.

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? ?

Well, then I would have to define what I mean by the term God. God is infinte, eternal, and unchangable in his being, wisdom, power, goodness, justice, holiness, and truth.

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.

If we show that God exists, then atheists do not have an excuse to not believe in God. If it is shown that God does not exist, then theists do not have an reason to believe in God.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi All,

Been away. Because I am a BOVLB and have precious little time to play (Year End Madness has set in big time), I can’t address all of your posts. But I haff dese thots:

So what if X, the first object for comparison, is All That Exists or The Whole of Reality (however you conceive it)? The only other objects that X can be compared with will then be X itself or some part of X. What seems to me to be obvious is that any comparison of X to any part thereof, Y, must end up concluding X > Y.

But Ateista sed: “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.”

I disagree.

No matter the criterion (attribute in view + some value judgment as to what manifestation of the attribute is good), the whole will always be greater than the part, this for the reason that whole contains the part plus something more. And also, because X is the Whole of Reality or All Being, any fragment of the Whole owes its existence to the Whole. The Whole has to be greater, always.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Dear Edna:

When one understands what “infinite” actually means, one discovers that the usual confusions permit us to incorrectly jump back and forth between actual infinity and potential infinity. An actual infinity cannot exist in the physical realm, due to the fact that you can always add at least one more whatever. Thus, in quantum mathematics, a possible infinity is a potential one. At any point, albeit with great difficulty currently, the particles in the universe can be counted. This number is a finite number.

So, WHAT OTHER FORM OF UNIVERSE COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED?

The universe we know will eventually expire, according to science up to this point. How many more constellations, galaxies and fast-spinning stars must become “black holes” before they’re all gone? Further, it is logical to assume that heat, a form of energy, dissipates into the cold of space, becoming, for all current intents and purposes, unrecoverable and useless.

I was not in Viet Nam; I never saw it, thus, I don’t believe it exists, or ever existed. I believe the Viet Nam War was generated/created by people in government who were trying to tax us more. After all, it’s just the “words of people” and we know how uncertain eyewitness testimony can be - even if it is from soldiers claiming to have been there.

On the other hand, the Church has: (1) writings covering almost a thousand years, gathered from almost five hundred mostly disconnected people, speaking several different languages and varying dialects, reporting pretty consistently on the historicity of Jesus and the events surrounding His death and reincarnation, compiled, over time, into a book called The Bible; (2) ancient scrolls found fairly recently that lend more than just verisimilitude to a number of the biblical reports; (3) the Words of Jesus, as reported by those present during His life; (4) words and drawings dating back almost 4,500 years before His birth foretelling His birth and death; (5) the fact that Jesus put Himself through the events of the Passion, an utterly absurd thing to do if done for nothing; (6) almost 2,000 years of persistence and history beyond the prophecies; (7) philosophers, theologians and scientists who are and were considered by many to be many of the most intelligent men on earth; (8) priests who have been instrumental in scientific development of such things as the Big Bang Theory; (9) mystics, who perhaps have “peered” into the supernatural; (10) five proofs from Thomas Aquinas; (11) one proof from Anselm; (12) 80% - 90% of the world as adherants to a believe in the supernatural, or, at least something beyond the “self”; (13) proof that the universe is finite; (14) certain miracles that cannot be explained away; please add more and/or correct as you honestly deem necessary.

Yet, none of the above is enough.

God bless all,

JD

 

[ateista]

Hi All,

Been away. Because I am a BOVLB and have precious little time to play (Year End Madness has set in big time), I can’t address all of your posts. But I haff dese thots:

So what if X, the first object for comparison, is All That Exists or The Whole of Reality (however you conceive it)? The only other objects that X can be compared with will then be X itself or some part of X. What seems to me to be obvious is that any comparison of X to any part thereof, Y, must end up concluding X > Y.

But Ateista sed: “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.”

I disagree.

No matter the criterion (attribute in view + some value judgment as to what manifestation of the attribute is good), the whole will always be greater than the part, this for the reason that whole contains the part plus something more. And also, because X is the Whole of Reality or All Being, any fragment of the Whole owes its existence to the Whole. The Whole has to be greater, always.

How would you define “greater” in the example I gave: “each tile of the floor is square, yet the the whole floor is an oblong”? The concept of “greatness” cannot be sensibly defined for these attributes. That is why I said that the concept of “greatness” is too vague to be meaningful.

 

[greylorn]

I think that’s what the ancients had in mind. Beings that were like themselves only far more powerful. Because our knowledge has increased since those times we don’t think there’s a god inside a volcano, or one in the sky hurling bolts of lightning, or having a game of bowling.

The god my friends talk about has left the universe completely! Imagine that! It exists “outside” of space and time and isn’t bound by anything. It’s “beyond” science.

Clearly, as our knowledge has gained our gods have receded, and understandably so.

Crow,

By Functionally Conceivable Being, I did not mean to imply an entity like ourselves. We need oxygen, water, and food to survive on a fairly comfortable planet which supplies these things. The FCB had to exist before comfortable planets and complex, organized life forms with brains and bodies. The FCB did not have DNA. Wouldn’t have done him much good in a universe without proteins.

It is an insult to the FCB to compare him to us. That’s like comparing us to small rocks.

Your friends have been seduced by the current pseudo-religion of the day, but the roots of their opinions lie in the teachings of the Church which declare God to be a spirit, e.g. an entity not of this world.

This is an ancient teaching devised by men about 2000 years ago who knew as much about physics as your cat. It should have been corrected in light of modern science, but Galileo was nearly tortured to death for suggesting such an idea. This has had a persistent dampening effect upon the introduction of science into religious thinking.

If there is a creator of this universe, He, She, or It is as much a part of the universe as you are. (Incidentally, at the level of soul, how do you fit into the scheme of things?)

Have you considered exchanging your pseudo-intellectual friends for a set of painted and decorated fence posts?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Crow,

I sed: If the GCB is thought of as a being in process, then we can see how this makes sense. The GCB keeps exceeding itself from one divine moment to the next. The GCB keeps getting greater, IOW.

I suppose there’s too much of a logical positivist in me to accept that. The statement begs the question.

My definition of a logical positivist is someone who believes in the Verifiability Principle of Meaning, which states that only merely empirical and merely rational propositions are meaningful. The meaningfulness of a merely empirical prop is established by the possibility of finding factual evidence that can prove the statement T or F. The meaningfulness of a merely rational propostion is established by conceptual or logical definition. IOW, truth is “necessary” if the proposition follows the given (arbitrary) definition.

Zat you? Or is there lurking within you, as with DameEdna, an inner Metaphysician?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Crow sed furder:

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.

Charles Hartshorne agrees that there are problems with the classical Greek notion of perfection. It doesn’t seems to make any sense when applied to concrete objects like an electron, rock or island. It is only meaningful, if at all, when applied to deity, but even with respect to deity classical perfection runs into problems, as we’ve already noted.

Anselm hit on the idea of defining perfection in terms of unsurpassable greatness. He himself didn’t think through the implications of this definition for classical perfection, but Hartshorne has. Hartshorne reasons that, in order to get around the quantity/quality dilemma, the GCB must be able to exceed itself. It seems this requires that the GCB be a being in process.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

and furder:

If we allow ourselves to invent attributes such as divinity, I think we begin down the path of make believe, which for me is something inconceivable because I don’t have the foggiest of what it would or could be. How does one supersize nature?

But please continue. I find the discussion quite interesting.

Regarding going down the path of make believe, let’s don’t do that then. Let’s think concretely in terms of the Universe. We know it exists. Let’s say that it is the greatest thing we can conceive of, given our materialist assumptions. Well, then, that is the GCB. That is God for us. From a Christian POV, that is a highly impoverished idea of God, but you have joined the ranks of theists. You accept the notion of a GCB. (By implication, you are no longer a logical positivist). At this stage, we are what I call pantheists.

But is that all there is? Where do Christians and other theists get off “supersizing” the universe. Where do they find this Transcendent Reality? Only by personal, subjective experience, tradition, faith and such?

Actually further metaphysical inquiry leads, convincingly I think, to panentheism at a minimum.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Greylorn,

you sed:

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.

To be sure I disagree with the last sentence. Which objections to the meaningfulness of the GCB have I not conclusively and utterly demolished?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi JDaniel,

You sed:

When one understands what “infinite” actually means, one discovers that the usual confusions permit us to incorrectly jump back and forth between actual infinity and potential infinity. An actual infinity cannot exist in the physical realm, due to the fact that you can always add at least one more whatever.

This is true. Something which is actual is fully determined and finite. Therefore, an “actual infinity” don’t make no sense.

 

[JDaniel]

Crow sed furder:

Charles Hartshorne agrees that there are problems with the classical Greek notion of perfection. It doesn’t seems to make any sense when applied to concrete objects like an electron, rock or island. It is only meaningful, if at all, when applied to deity, but even with respect to deity classical perfection runs into problems, as we’ve already noted.

Anselm hit on the idea of defining perfection in terms of unsurpassable greatness. He himself didn’t think through the implications of this definition for classical perfection, but Hartshorne has. Hartshorne reasons that, in order to get around the quantity/quality dilemma, the GCB must be able to exceed itself. It seems this requires that the GCB be a being in process.

Hello, Frank:

To me, the idea of perfection is not all that difficult. I noticed that several people (name removed by moderator)utting on this thread misunderstood what are the determinates of that being that “perfection” can stick to.

By suggesting that God is “in process” we are saying that God is not immutable. One of God’s attributes is His immutability, thus He cannot be “in process”.

If one considers God with only His compatible attributes, one discovers that what we do not actually have is attributes in conflict with one another.

God does not need the attribute of “size”, for example. It is unnecessary to try to say that God possesses the attributes of largest and smallest; of full spectrum chromatic and achromatic; of hot and cold, etc. These “attributes” are accidental and extrinsic to His being - as they would be with any “being”.

We only need to conceive of Him through those determinates that are of His nature, i.e., those that are substantial and intrinsic to His being. Such determinates are in the same genus as our human determinates, but, are at the level of being the “most”.

His attributes, therefore, are: omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence, omni-presence, infinititude, immutability, self-existence, sovereignty, holiness, faithfulness, self-sufficiency, all-just, all-merciful, eternal, all-good, all-gracious, all-wise, and trinity. None of these are in conflict with another. To my knowledge these are the attributes revealed to us through the scriptures. These are all that are necessary of a GCB.

That John has red hair and a ruddy complexion are accidental and extrinsic determinates of John. They do not tell us of John’s essence. John would be John even if he changed the color of his hair, or, had laser scraping of his facial skin.

God bless,
JD

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi JD,

By suggesting that God is “in process” we are saying that God is not immutable. One of God’s attributes is His immutability, thus He cannot be “in process”.

What is meant by the divine immutability? To be sure it means that He is unchanging in his abstract attributes. He never ceases to be omnipotent, for example. But does it mean that he is absolutely unchanging? Is that a logical possibility, even for God?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Can an absolutely unchanging God act? Affect His creation? Be affected by it?

 

[gavanhe]

Not being a philosophist or any other learned name you could conceive off, I do believe that occasionally we attempt to make sense of illogicality such as making a square circle . Hence this discussion of GCB or LCB as interesting as it is can only lead to an illogical conclusion, besides we are constrained by our own boundaries (the universe) and our humanity.
Our Lord is not bounded in any sense other than that provided for by illogicality.
Gerry

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD,

What is meant by the divine immutability?

That He is the same God today that he was “x” years ago and will be “x” years from now.

To be sure it means that He is unchanging in his abstract attributes. He never ceases to be omnipotent, for example.

But, immutability IS one of his abstract attributes.

But does it mean that he is absolutely unchanging? Is that a logical possibility, even for God?

Answers: I think so; I don’t know.

If He was mutable, what might the impetuses for change be? Would He be “required” to change because of “forces”?

If infinity is always “now”, for God, what would get Him to want to change?

Change is connected to time and (local) motion. What need would God have for time or motion?

God bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

Not being a philosophist or any other learned name you could conceive off, I do believe that occasionally we attempt to make sense of illogicality such as making a square circle . Hence this discussion of GCB or LCB as interesting as it is can only lead to an illogical conclusion, besides we are constrained by our own boundaries (the universe) and our humanity.
Our Lord is not bounded in any sense other than that provided for by illogicality.
Gerry

But, the man who brought us the GCB concept was sainted (St. Anselm). And St. Thomas Aquinas includes it as his fourth proof of God’s existence. . .

Do you think we mortals can reason things about God from His revelations? On the other hand, is “logic” a relevant form of reason with regard to our Lord?

(I started another thread concerning the GCB, as an earlier thread was shut down due to too much bad communication. I hope that philosophers can resume without the bad-intentioned communications. You see, I don’t believe I’m a philosopher either )

God bless,
JD

 

[Mijoy2]

Wouldn’t the GDB be the one who could answer all the questions and objections posed in this thread?