The Black Vault

DIss0n80r wrote:

khanster wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:This is a good example of why it's a waste of time to try to reason with people who hold strong irrational beliefs.

Like your particular irrational belief that square circles can exist ...OK...

I don't believe in square circles. Nor do I disbelieve in the possibility of non-euclidean mathematical objects which might appear as such to us.

But that is an attempted red herring on your part to attempt to distract from the debate you are losing in THIS thread. Do you have anything other than irrelevancies in your bag of tricks?

I recall arguing with you where you implied square circles are not impossible ..or did you say that limited human reasoning just could not say whether square circles existed or not? I do recall at1with0 trying to argue for the existence of square circles, yes...

But, whatever the case, I see you have reverted to your old tactics of wordplay and going off topic.

So please stay on topic.

This thread is about the existence of intelligent design but humphreys appears to wish to turn it into an endless debate about the non-existence of the Christian god due to his own unresolved psychological issues about losing faith. He probably grew up in a religious environment and now proudly proclaims independence of religious dogma.

I am going to quit arguing for the ontological argument due to the lack of comprehension by one side of this debate, it could be me or it could be you.

khanster wrote:I am defining greatness in the sense of "maximal greatness" being an all inclusive property.

This makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying, but that does not sound like a definition at all to me.

khanster wrote:Greatness does not need to be exhaustively defined to exact detail with all the infinite nuances elaborated.

Some define maximal greatness as being the property of having maximal excellence in every possible world.

How can the ontological argument be taken seriously when it rests on such a flimsy, vague definition?

It's not that you're not defining it to a great degree, it doesn't sound like you're defining it at all.

khanster wrote:Maximal excellence entails omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and moral perfection.

Your argument is that omnipotence is incompatible with God restricting his own actions to that which is morally perfect. You say that this creates a contradiction. correct me if I am wrong

He is not restricting his own actions though, he is completely unable to perform unjust actions - that is clearly a limitation, and a maximally great being must have no limitations. It's not that he chooses not to do bad, it's that he's completely powerless to due to his good nature.

khanster wrote:I say that there is no contradiction. Omnipotence and moral perfection are compatible due to the existence of free will of the non-great beings within the created world/universe.

Those non-great beings are also God. God is the totality of all that exists, you say, and that encompasses evil. This is another contradiction in that a perfectly good being cannot be the totality of an existence that includes evil.

If God is the totality of all existence, when a human being performs an evil act, is it not accurate to say that in some sense God committed the act also? We are a part of God, no?

khanster wrote:This thread is about the existence of intelligent design but humphreys appears to wish to turn it into an endless debate about the non-existence of the Christian god due to his own unresolved psychological issues about losing faith. He probably grew up in a religious environment and now proudly proclaims independence of religious dogma.

You couldn't be more wrong on all counts. I am arguing against the God of the ontological argument, not the Christian God, and I was brought up by atheist parents in a relaxed atmosphere.

I went to a religious primary school because it was local, but I have pretty fond memories of the school.

I am going to quit arguing for the ontological argument due to the lack of comprehension by one side of this debate, it could be me or it could be you.

Oh it's most definitely you.

Khanster, I get the feeling you're regurgitating arguments from another site or article about the ontological argument somewhere, and as soon as someone goes off the beaten track and makes an argument you haven't seen on that site, you're completely lost.

That seems to be what has happened here.

You have reverted to your tactic of accusing others of trolling and going off-topic while you yourself are doing it, Khan.

Are you going to debate THIS topic or are you going to continue talking about other threads while condemning me for staying on-topic??

humphreys wrote:

khanster wrote:I am defining greatness in the sense of "maximal greatness" being an all inclusive property.

This makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying, but that does not sound like a definition at all to me.

God is all inclusive in the sense of being a universal set.

humphreys wrote:He is not restricting his own actions though, he is completely unable to perform unjust actions - that is clearly a limitation, and maximally great being must have no limitations. It's not that he chooses not to do bad, it's that he's completely powerless to due to his good nature.

God creates the rules and does not break his own rules. That does not imply that god is completely unable, only that God created the rules in the first place and self restricts his actions as a matter of choice. God creates ALL that exists via a cognitive and intelligent process.

humphreys wrote:

khanster wrote:I say that there is no contradiction. Omnipotence and moral perfection are compatible due to the existence of free will of the non-great beings within the created world/universe.

Those non-great beings are also God. God is the totality of all that exists, you say, and that encompasses evil. This is another contradiction in that a perfectly good being cannot be the totality of an existence that includes evil.

The non-great beings are free will agents but are not the totality.

humphreys wrote:If God is the totality of all existence, when a human being performs an evil act, is it not accurate to say that in some sense God committed the act also? We are a part of God, no?

God did not commit the act when the human has free will.

humphreys wrote:Khanster, I get the feeling you're regurgitating arguments from another site or article about the ontological argument somewhere, and as soon as someone goes off the beaten track and makes an argument you haven't seen on that site, you're completely lost.

That seems to be what has happened here.

Mostly I am arguing from memory and my own theories.

DIss0n80r wrote:You have reverted to your tactic of accusing others of trolling and going off-topic while you yourself are doing it, Khan.

Are you going to debate THIS topic or are you going to continue talking about other threads while condemning me for staying on-topic??

You have reverted to your tactic of accusing others that they have reverted. Come up with some new original trolling please

If God is the totality of all that exists, then that includes ALL that exists. You can't even stick to your own definition of God.

khanster wrote:God creates the rules and does not break his own rules. That does not imply that god is completely unable, only that God created the rules in the first place and self restricts his actions as a matter of choice. God creates ALL that exists via a cognitive and intelligent process.

Again, it's not that he chooses not to commit unjust acts, he literally cannot.

If a perfectly just being commits an unjust act, he is not perfectly just. He isn't imposing the rules on himself, they are imposed on him by necessity.

Remember my see-saw analogy. When one property increases in value, another decreases by necessity, not choice. This is because the traits are logically incompatible, they cannot both be maximally great.

Yes, we're going over the same ground repeatedly, so maybe we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

khanster wrote:The non-great beings are free will agents but are not the totality.

Are we, or are we not, a part of God? If God is the totality of all existence, it stands to reason we are a part of God, no?

khanster wrote:God did not commit the act when the human has free will.

See above. The human makes the choice, but being part of God, by extension, part of God makes the choice. Appealing to free-will will not save you here, as the human's will being part of God, is encompassed by God's will.

If God is the totality of all existence, then that encompasses all evil, and all evil actions on the part of any agent that exists.