btw there is no god

[daddy1gringo]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

I read a fantasy series once where the gods did indeed require the "belief of the people" (not all-encompassing, but enough of them) or they would literally die off...don't remember what it was though. Hmmm...

That's the way it is in the made-for-tv movie Merlin with Sam Neil, and in the classic Ray Harryhausen flick Jason and the Argonauts.

[Dancing Mustard]

- We can conceive of God in our thoughts
- It is greater to be both in reality and in human thought, rather than only in human thought
- God is the greatest possible being
- Therefore, God exists both in reality and in human thought

and is not "easily falsifiable" or whatever BS sultan said earlier. Kindly indicate to me which premise is false.

1. Is that really the case? Sounds like a big fat assumption to me. Prove to me that it's better to exist in reality than to exist only as a concept.

2. This whole premise is a fallacy. It essentially puts the cart before the horse by saying that God exists and has characteristic X before the argument has deemed it to be so. In reality, all that you can say at that point is "I want God to exist, and I want him to have characteristic X, therefore..."

To say "I can imagine a thing with characteristic X, therefore that thing must be, because I imagined it to have the characteristics necessary to create itself" just doesn't fly... it's a circular argument that eats its own tail on every step of its journey.



Logically considered, all that the Ontological argument can really say is this:

- I can imagine a God
- I assume that it is better to exist in reality than only to exist in thought
- I would like to imagine that my imagined God would be the greatest thing ever
- Therefore my imagined God would exist in both thought and fact

[SultanOfSurreal]

- We can conceive of God in our thoughts
- It is greater to be both in reality and in human thought, rather than only in human thought
- God is the greatest possible being
- Therefore, God exists both in reality and in human thought

and is not "easily falsifiable" or whatever BS sultan said earlier. Kindly indicate to me which premise is false.

1. Is that really the case? Sounds like a big fat assumption to me. Prove to me that it's better to exist in reality than to exist only as a concept.

2. This whole premise is a fallacy. It essentially puts the cart before the horse by saying that God exists and has characteristic X before the argument has deemed it to be so. In reality, all that you can say at that point is "I want God to exist, and I want him to have characteristic X, therefore..."

To say "I can imagine a thing with characteristic X, therefore that thing must be, because I imagined it to have the characteristics necessary to create itself" just doesn't fly... it's a circular argument that eats its own tail on every step of its journey.



Logically considered, all that the Ontological argument can really say is this:

- I can imagine a God
- I assume that it is better to exist in reality than only to exist in thought
- I would like to imagine that my imagined God would be the greatest thing ever
- Therefore my imagined God would exist in both thought and fact

this exactly. also the ontological argument can be used to disprove god's existence just as easily.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7. God does not exist.

of course god's existence isn't actually disproved by this ridiculous logic pretzel, just as god isn't magicked into existence by the semantic trickery of the ontological argument proper, which conjures a supreme being out of literally nothing

[john9blue]

1. Is that really the case? Sounds like a big fat assumption to me. Prove to me that it's better to exist in reality than to exist only as a concept.

"Better" is the wrong word. It wouldn't be "better" if Godzilla existed in reality. It would be "greater" though, meaning that the entity that is Godzilla would be more than a concept.

2. This whole premise is a fallacy. It essentially puts the cart before the horse by saying that God exists and has characteristic X before the argument has deemed it to be so. In reality, all that you can say at that point is "I want God to exist, and I want him to have characteristic X, therefore..."

You don't need to prove that God is the greatest possible being. That's the definition of God. That's the being that we can conceive of. And this has nothing to do with "wanting", it's pure logic.

To say "I can imagine a thing with characteristic X, therefore that thing must be, because I imagined it to have the characteristics necessary to create itself" just doesn't fly... it's a circular argument that eats its own tail on every step of its journey.

Why? All premises seem to be correct.

Logically considered, all that the Ontological argument can really say is this:

- I can imagine a God
- I assume that it is better to exist in reality than only to exist in thought
- I would like to imagine that my imagined God would be the greatest thing ever
- Therefore my imagined God would exist in both thought and fact

Yep. And the fact that you peppered it with "imagine" (presumably to give it a fairy-tale bent) doesn't change it one bit.

[john9blue]

this exactly. also the ontological argument can be used to disprove god's existence just as easily.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7. God does not exist.

of course god's existence isn't actually disproved by this ridiculous logic pretzel, just as god isn't magicked into existence by the semantic trickery of the ontological argument proper, which conjures a supreme being out of literally nothing

Premises 2 and 3 are simply opinions. And even if they were true, I could add that "it's impossible to create something from nothing" which is true and would contradict your entire argument. The most formidable possible handicap would be existing as the bare essence of existence, not nothing.

I am hung up on the ontological argument and I don't know whether to believe it or not. I have other reasons to believe in God. It's a fascinating argument nonetheless.

[Dancing Mustard]

"Better" is the wrong word. It wouldn't be "better" if Godzilla existed in reality. It would be "greater" though, meaning that the entity that is Godzilla would be more than a concept.

Sorry, no deal.

This game of dancing semantics is fun and all, but the point still stands. Why would it be 'greater' to exist than not exist? Says who? Prove it to me with all the 'logic' that you claim this theory employs.

This whole circus of a theory revolves around the assertion of your personal opinion, and unfortunately I'm afraid that I'm going to need more than just a little hand-waving before I blithely accept the bald presumption that backbones your entire argument.

You don't need to prove that God is the greatest possible being. That's the definition of God.

Again, no deal.

One could happily define 'hyper-mustard' as the greatest condiment possible. That would be the 'definition' of hyper-mustard. That would not however cause pots of it to magically appear across the nation.

All the semantics in the world won't change that. The fact is that simply coming up with the concept of the 'greatest possible being' doesn't cause that concept to manifest. You can dress the notion up with any words you like (including 'definition), but the point still stands. Having an idea (or creating a definition for a concept) doesn't cause the imagined entity to come into being, no matter how capable of self-creation you imagine it to be.

this has nothing to do with "wanting", it's pure logic.

Once more, no deal.

This has everything to do with wanting and nothing to do with logic.

As pointed out above, the whole argument revolves around wanting to conceive of an entity with a certain set of characteristics, then willing it into existence based upon the characteristics that you've imagined it to have.

There's literally nothing logical about it... and if there was, then the same being could be instantaneously proved not to exist by precisely the same 'logical' process (see: Sultan's post).

To say "I can imagine a thing with characteristic X, therefore that thing must be, because I imagined it to have the characteristics necessary to create itself" just doesn't fly... it's a circular argument that eats its own tail on every step of its journey.

Why? All premises seem to be correct.

Well, clearly they aren't (as set out above).

Put it this way, if the simple imagining of awesome self-creating beings is enough to create them, then why are the self-creating electric-landsharks that I'm imagining right now not popping up all over Hyde Park?

The answer is because ontological beliefs are all circular. They rely on imagining something that could be, imagining it to have the capability of self-generation, then alleging that such beings must exist because they can self-create.

And the fact that you peppered it with "imagine" (presumably to give it a fairy-tale bent) doesn't change it one bit.

I peppered it with the word 'imagine' because that's an accurate description for what you're actually doing.

The fact that you added a ridiculous 'winksmile' at the end of your post doesn't change that one bit.

[SultanOfSurreal]

1. Is that really the case? Sounds like a big fat assumption to me. Prove to me that it's better to exist in reality than to exist only as a concept.

"Better" is the wrong word. It wouldn't be "better" if Godzilla existed in reality. It would be "greater" though, meaning that the entity that is Godzilla would be more than a concept.

dm is going to swoop in with a wall of text that no one will read but which will nicely refute your seriously retarded post, but i just wanted to zero in on this lame opening salvo

you have not defined "great" (or "greater") in any meaningful way. you seem to be implying that "greater" is just "more," as in "more substantial" or something similar. if you really do mean it that way (which anslem, the argument's originator, did not), then your version of the ontological argument is that god exists as more than a concept because he is more than a concept.

but david hume refuted this entire stupid fucking argument way better than i could ever hope to do, so i'll just link that. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/hume-on-a-priori-existential-proofs/

The argument in this passage, formalised, goes something like this:

(1) The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.
(2) If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.
(2) Everything can be conceived not to exist.
Therefore:
(3) Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.

To find out whether a statement can be proved a priori, we try to imagine that it is false. If we are able to imagine that it is false, then we may infer that it cannot be proved a priori; empirical investigation will be necessary in order to discover whether the statement is true or false. If we are unable imagine the statement being false, then we may infer that the statement is true. This is because conceivability is a guide to possibility. What is impossible involves a contradiction, and what involves a contradiction is inconceivable, so what is impossible is inconceivable.

To find out whether God is a necessary being, therefore, we must try to imagine that he does not exist. As we are able to do so, his non-existence is possible. No amount of abstract reasoning will be able to establish his existence, therefore, because only necessary truths can be proved a priori. The conceivability of God’s non-existence shows that no a priori proof of his existence is possible.

[jonesthecurl]

I buy my hyper-mustard from the monster in a nearby four-year old's closet.
It really is divine.
I make a profit by buying it wholesale (the monster's a bit shy) and retailing in Hyde Park.

[Lord and Master]

You have not dismantled anything. All your doing is trying to use 21st century logic to dismantle that "thought" does not make it real, not true, but real.

No, I really have dismantled something. Namely, your opinion.

I have:
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition does not fit with reality
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition clearly cannot be true
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition is self-contradicting
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition devalues the very God it seeks to defend

Seriously, deny it all you like (once again, without any rational defence of your proposition), but you have been comprehensively demonstrated to be in error here. You are wrong on every level. Yell 'nuh uh' all you want and bury your head in the sand as far as it will go... but the simple fact is that your original proposition has been completely broken down and dismantled.

Furthermore, how exactly are you going to conduct debates if not with "21st Century Logic"? What are we going to judge arguments based on, their volume? Their wordcount? Their incidence of vowel usage? By what other standard would you have our propositions judged? Perhaps you'd just like it all to revolve around 'belief' and have this devolve in to a shouting match in which we tested who could out-bellow who in trumpeting our respective beliefs the loudest? Is that how you'd like proceedings to continue?

Trying to entice me into continuing a debate with you that I won't agree to your side and you to mine is a waist of time.

*Sigh*

Wrong. How many times will people continue to insist on wheeling out this jaded old mule of an excuse when they feel themselves being logically crushed?

I realise that you're too stubborn to change your mind. But the purpose of proceeding is to convince observers and to provide them with interesting points of view. Simply barking opinions at each other, then 'agreeing to disagree' is pointless as it fails to showcase how well viewpoints stand up to logical scrutiny.

By continuing this you would be able to indulge in the opportunity to salvage your proposition from the ruins it currently stands in. By backing out now you leave your ideas debunked.

On the other hand, if you think that conceding defeat and running away is a better way to proceed... then be my guest.

I find it funny how you try and size me up at the end. I wonder if you would be so bold in person?

You bet your arse I would.

I'm quite happy to size you up based on this thread and entirely entitled to do so. Your intellect and character has been demonstrated very clearly, allowing me to create a cogent and defensible opinion of you.

But please, keep the internet hard-man "Oh yeah! Well I may be wrong, but I totally bet that I'm bigger than you in real life!!!" wank out of it. That's just BS and a smokescreen to divert from the intellectual defeat that you've suffered here. If I had wanted to engage you in a knob-measuring contest then I'd have just e-mailed you a shot of my wang a long time ago.


Now back on track: Can you defend your proposition and/or rebut my arguments. Or are you just going to essentially concede defeat while retreating under a flimsy shield of "Nuh uh!" and "Er, well I don't agree, and my lack of any argument whatsoever does not demonstrate that I am unable to defend myself... I just, er, um... look I'm right ok!!" posts?

I'm laughing hysterically. You should get paid for this.

Seconded, DM's nearly as cool as the original DM (That's Danger Mouse, not the crappy short-arse bald Dungeon Master creep)

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, you're way better than me.

i never said i'm better than you, only that i'm better at insulting. there are lots of other things you're better than me at. you have it all over me as far as dopey equivocations go, for example.

By the way, I think religious faith does essentially boil down to having the mental capacity (or imagination) of a four year old.

that's a strange thing for a religious person to freely admit bro

I was being serious (although not entirely clear) - you are the best at insulting people on the CC fora. DM is good, you're much better. It makes me want flame wars back.

It's not strange for a religious person to admit that... in fact, the homily the other day at church was essentially about believing on faith, not fact. So, at least one other person (a priest no less), admits essentially the same thing.

[Dancing Mustard]

you are the best at insulting people on the CC fora. DM is good, you're much better. It makes me want flame wars back.

How fucking dare you. I will not take such insolence lightly.

FW is literally filled with posts in which I flamed people so hard that their fucking heads exploded. Back when I was active casual forum observers were regularly admitted to burns-units across the globe because I insulted people so damn well (and that was just the observers perusing the Map Foundry, those in FW are now in urns). I used to regularly drop posts that made Nagasaki look like a shitty little party-popper, they burned people so brightly that every other member of their household went blind from the glare. Whenever I logged on it was like the whole site turned into a motherfucking blast-furnace, even when I was just checking my PMs. Hell, the shockwaves from my work even managed to kill Atilla's bloodhound (no seriously, true story)... that's how fucking bad a man I was.

Hell, right now I'm typing with two pairs of oven-mitts on, just to stop the emanating heat from obliterating CC's message boards. That's how fucking bad I am, even when I'm being nice to people I burn hotter than a petrol-doused BBQ. If FW was ever returned then I'd probably just ignite the atmosphere of the internet within 24hrs and wipe out all cyber-based life as we know it. So next time, be careful what you motherfucking wish for.

Trust me. The last thing in the world that you want is FW back. Because if it came back right now I'd flame you so goddamn hard that even your mother wouldn't be able to distinguish you from a pork-scratching. No shit; Vesuvius would look like a winter's day in comparison.

So don't forget: I'm bad. I'm the baddest motherfucker in the world. When it comes to being unpleasant to other human beings via the internet, I am the undisputed champion.





PS. If you took this post seriously, then you need to get a sense of humour.

[thegreekdog]

you are the best at insulting people on the CC fora. DM is good, you're much better. It makes me want flame wars back.

How fucking dare you. I will not take such insolence lightly.

FW is literally filled with posts in which I flamed people so hard that their fucking heads exploded. Back when I was active casual forum observers were regularly admitted to burns-units across the globe because I insulted people so damn well (and that was just the observers perusing the Map Foundry, those in FW are now in urns). I used to regularly drop posts that made Nagasaki look like a shitty little party-popper, they burned people so brightly that every other member of their household went blind from the glare. Whenever I logged on it was like the whole site turned into a motherfucking blast-furnace, even when I was just checking my PMs. Hell, the shockwaves from my work even managed to kill Atilla's bloodhound (no seriously, true story)... that's how fucking bad a man I was.

Hell, right now I'm typing with two pairs of oven-mitts on, just to stop the emanating heat from obliterating CC's message boards. That's how fucking bad I am, even when I'm being nice to people I burn hotter than a petrol-doused BBQ. If FW was ever returned then I'd probably just ignite the atmosphere of the internet within 24hrs and wipe out all cyber-based life as we know it. So next time, be careful what you motherfucking wish for.

Trust me. The last thing in the world that you want is FW back. Because if it came back right now I'd flame you so goddamn hard that even your mother wouldn't be able to distinguish you from a pork-scratching. No shit; Vesuvius would look like a winter's day in comparison.

So don't forget: I'm bad. I'm the baddest motherfucker in the world. When it comes to being unpleasant to other human beings via the internet, I am the undisputed champion.





PS. If you took this post seriously, then you need to get a sense of humour.

I really miss Flame Wars.

[Falkomagno]

I think that is a point being ignored here. If someone says So If a person has a thought does that thought exist?...that puts the existance at level of thought, of concepts. And of course that at level of concept God exists, as the concept of Peace, Hate, Perfection or whatever other intagible concept. Even more, if you take for example, God, you print it, then you have a "tangible" god. It's clear that with logical means, there is no further point to religious people to prove the existance of god btw. It's the original intentions of cogito ergo sum, since Descartes as a religious person, write his logical prove of god existance some like that:

I think, therefore I am
If I am, therefore I'm exist
I can conceive the idea of perfection
Therefore, the perfection exist.
Since I'm imperfect, there is another perfect being ...
And there you go...God.

Of course, that dark side in the Descartes logic it's almost hidden.

Evidently,from the mere existance as concept of God, to the real personification, antropomorfic -moral -attached-contradictory character shown in holy texts, it's a long long way.

So far, I'm really impressed with the concepts given by farang demon, and it's likely my own vision as well. Not at all, because I'm kind of agnostic, because I can not be sure if exist or not, but I think that the bet is so high to waste my life with non-logical attachments, instead living it as a masterpiece.

[john9blue]

Sorry, no deal.

This game of dancing semantics is fun and all, but the point still stands. Why would it be 'greater' to exist than not exist? Says who? Prove it to me with all the 'logic' that you claim this theory employs.

This whole circus of a theory revolves around the assertion of your personal opinion, and unfortunately I'm afraid that I'm going to need more than just a little hand-waving before I blithely accept the bald presumption that backbones your entire argument.

We aren't striking a deal, I am spoon-feeding this to you whether you want it or not.

I guess I'll use the dictionary for this one.

The state, condition, or quality of being great; as, greatness of size, greatness of mind, power, etc; : Pride; haughtiness

Clearly to have size, mind, power, etc. you have to exist.

Again, no deal.

One could happily define 'hyper-mustard' as the greatest condiment possible. That would be the 'definition' of hyper-mustard. That would not however cause pots of it to magically appear across the nation.

All the semantics in the world won't change that. The fact is that simply coming up with the concept of the 'greatest possible being' doesn't cause that concept to manifest. You can dress the notion up with any words you like (including 'definition), but the point still stands. Having an idea (or creating a definition for a concept) doesn't cause the imagined entity to come into being, no matter how capable of self-creation you imagine it to be.

But hyper-mustard is just a condiment. Condiments aren't the greatest thing ever. God is the greatest thing ever. Condiments need not even exist.

Once more, no deal.

This has everything to do with wanting and nothing to do with logic.

As pointed out above, the whole argument revolves around wanting to conceive of an entity with a certain set of characteristics, then willing it into existence based upon the characteristics that you've imagined it to have.

There's literally nothing logical about it... and if there was, then the same being could be instantaneously proved not to exist by precisely the same 'logical' process (see: Sultan's post).

I already addressed sultan's post... and yeah, this is an "argument" so you've got to have logic.

Well, clearly they aren't (as set out above).

Put it this way, if the simple imagining of awesome self-creating beings is enough to create them, then why are the self-creating electric-landsharks that I'm imagining right now not popping up all over Hyde Park?

The answer is because ontological beliefs are all circular. They rely on imagining something that could be, imagining it to have the capability of self-generation, then alleging that such beings must exist because they can self-create.

It's not about "self-generation", it's about necessity of existence.

I peppered it with the word 'imagine' because that's an accurate description for what you're actually doing.

The fact that you added a ridiculous 'winksmile' at the end of your post doesn't change that one bit.

I gave it a winksmile because that's my purpose to ridicule your arguments.

[Neoteny]

Your ability to completely miss points is staggering.

[john9blue]

Your ability to completely miss points is staggering.

Well thanks for enlightening me.

[Neoteny]

Just making sure you know.

DM has done a rather nice job of, not just pointing out where the problem with ontological thought lies, but in expressing why the problem is there, and you just continue to play around with semantics. There is little force behind your "argument," as you call it.

I suppose you're well-off not siding completely with the ontological argument, but "interesting" is not a word I would use to describe it. At least when Anselm was discussing it, there was novelty to the concept.

EDIT: For hyphen-age.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I gave it a winksmile because that's my purpose to ridicule your arguments.

Ah, i see, here's your problem, you need to present actual arguments to ridicule other arguments, not just smilies.

Also, greatest being possible, kind of similar to largest number possible. There's no such thing.


According to your dance around the meaning of the word "great", what is the problem with this line of thought:

- We can conceive of hyper-mustard in our thoughts
- It is greater to be both in reality and in human thought, rather than only in human thought
- Hyper-mustard is the greatest possible condiment
- Therefore, hyper-mustard exists both in reality and in human thought

All you say is

But hyper-mustard is just a condiment. Condiments aren't the greatest thing ever. God is the greatest thing ever.

So what if it's not the greatest thing ever? it's the greatest condiment ever and as such must exist because otherwise a greater condiment could exist.

Condiments need not even exist.

gods need not even exist either.

[thegreekdog]

Hold up... first the religious try to take away our condoms, then our abortions, and now they want to take away our condiments? For shame!

[Dancing Mustard]

Hmmm, well I was going to take another short break to continue pointing out the absurdity of ontology, but it looks like others have already done what little demolition needed doing. Bravo to you chaps, it's nice to know that I'm not alone in my quest to point out some of the complete bunk that passes for 'argument' around here.

We aren't striking a deal, I am spoon-feeding this to you whether you want it or not.

Hurrah! Semantic pantomime.

The state, condition, or quality of being great; as, greatness of size, greatness of mind, power, etc; : Pride; haughtiness

Clearly to have size, mind, power, etc. you have to exist.

But you're tripping over your own 'logic' again here.

If 'greatness' is merely an expression of the quantity of an entity's manifestation, then it fails to justify why it is 'greater' to exist than to not exist. If you're going to make this absurd argument fly then you need to use 'greatest' as a synonym for 'best', which you will then have to justify as a concept to us (a task that you're currently jumping through your own anus to avoid having to do).

After all, a billion mile wide water-melon would be the 'greatest' possible manifestation of a water-melon... but that doesn't necessitate its existence.

Once again, your argument wraps itself in a circle and devours its own tail.

But hyper-mustard is just a condiment. Condiments aren't the greatest thing ever. God is the greatest thing ever. Condiments need not even exist.

As pointed out, neither do Gods.

Anyway, your point here is so flawed that it can be dealt with in multiple different ways.

1. Prove that 'God' is the greatest thing ever. Prove to me that he's not just the 'greatest' thing that you personally can imagine (invalidating your argument).

2. Stop dancing round the point and explain to us why it is that the greatest possible thing has to exist at all. There's no necessity for perfection of concepts to be manifest in order to render their inferior brethren existant.

3. Again, justify to us why it is better to exist than not exist. Again, this 'existence = best' theory is merely your own personal opinion.

I already addressed sultan's post... and yeah, this is an "argument" so you've got to have logic.

So where on earth has all yours gone to?

It's not about "self-generation", it's about necessity of existence.

But you haven't demonstrated the necessity of any such thing.

All you've done is say that you think that God would be awesome, so therefore he must exist... because he'd be awesome if he did. That's not logical and it's certainly not a demonstration of necessity.


Again, ontology is just about the most completely debunked theory in the history of theological discussion. Several people have now demonstrated that it is circular, self-defeating and completely untenable. So far, all you've really responded with is empty semantic game-playing and vacant smily-spam that glosses over your argument's flagrant failings.

Why are you so desperate to cling to a philosophy that is so clearly unworkable?

I gave it a winksmile because that's my purpose to ridicule your arguments.

...yeah, lot's of CC's other junior members are fond of that technique too. But once they reach adulthood most of them tend to conclude that it just makes them look like intellectual lightweights who need silly pictorial smokescreens as a crutch to prop up their flimsy arguments.

[jonesthecurl]

Star Trek is true because someone conceived the idea, and others bought in.
Sherlock Holmes is even more real, because large numbers of people have believed him to be a real character and not a work of fiction. ANd after all, he is the "Great Detective", Greater than other detectives, and detectives are real. so he must surely be more real?

[MeDeFe]

The state, condition, or quality of being great; as, greatness of size, greatness of mind, power, etc; : Pride; haughtiness

Actually the definition is only this part: The state, condition, or quality of being great

This part gives examples of usage: as, greatness of size, greatness of mind, power, etc

This part gives historical ways the word was used that are now obsolete: Pride; haughtiness



So, according to the definition you gave neither size, mind nor power are necessary for greatness, greatness is an attribute that those things can be said to have provided they posses certain unnamed qualifying characteristics.

Everything else has already been said, I just don't like it when dictionaries, including wiktionaries, are misread.

[daddy1gringo]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

How about this one:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=22&version=31
In this passage, the Israelites have settled in the plains of Moab, and the locals are worried that the Israelites are going to ravaged the land. So they send for this holy man Balaam and offer to pay him to curse the Israelites. God tells Balaam to refuse because the Israelites are bessed. The Moabites ask Balaam to curse the Israelites a second time, and this time God tells Balaam to go with them, but to only say what He tells him to. Then Balaam saddles his donkey and rides of to Moab. For some reason, this makes God very angry and he stands in the road with his sword drawn to oppose Balaam's progress. After a brief confrontation (where God says he would have killed Balaam if his donkey hadn't run off the road in fright), God again tells Balaam to continue on his way, but to only speak the words that God provides to him. So they get to Moab and three times Balaam instructs the Moabites to build altars and make sacrifices. The God visits Balaam and tells him what to say. The second time he does this, God (speaking through Balaam) says: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly, God changed his mind several times in this story.

Well, after the big buildup and how much you seemed to like my other response, I’m afraid this one is pretty much destined to be a bit of a disappointment. You may well say “I don’t buy this. The ‘God changed his mind’ theory makes more sense to me.” It depends largely on your point of view. This is how I read it.

The key to understanding where God is coming from and why the apparent change of mind is the context of the statement: “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” This was the second attempt to get Balaam to curse Israel. The first time, Balaam had come back with the answer that God loved these people and had blessed them and would not curse them. Now they’re expecting God to change that just because they’re standing on a different hill? I can just see God shaking his head and saying “No he didn’t just do that. He just does not get it.”

His point is that they are not going to change his mind about blessing or cursing Israel, and actually that stays consistent through the whole thing. What? OK, Summary: 1. People offer Balaam money to curse Israel. 2. Balaam asks God, God says no, don’t go. You can’t curse ‘em; they’re blessed. 3. Balaam answers the people: “God won’t let me.” 4. People offer more money. 5. Balaam asks again; God says “go ahead, but you can still only say what I tell you” 6.The whole business on the road with the angel and the donkey.

Just like later on the hilltops, Balaam had gotten God’s answer the first time, but kept pushing for what he wanted. So like a good parent will sometimes do, if the child won’t listen, God says “That’s what you want? Go ahead; see what happens.” I take the angel/donkey incident as a reminder to Balaam to do as he is told. He’s already proven that he has a short memory when money is at stake.

God sees the end from the beginning, and his plan is set. Still his plan allows some flexibility for us to make choices. Overall, we can’t change the end results, but God can allow our choices to have some eternal consequences, though mostly, I think, only affecting how we fit into the plan. A New Testament reference calls Balaam at the donkey incident a “prophet” (2Peter 2:16). An Old Testament verse calls Balaam in later life merely a “soothsayer.” Big demotion. (I am still working on my response to the 3 or 4 responses to my post in "Omnipotence, evil, and free will. Consider this part of it)

Interesting sidelight. What God caused Balaam to experience on the road with his ass was exactly what God was experiencing with Balaam. A creature of lower intelligence, who is supposed to be following your directions keeps pushing for doing something else, like he knows better. Very frustrating. Made Balaam want to kill the dumb ass, and feel justified in doing so.

[MeDeFe]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

How about this one:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=22&version=31
In this passage, the Israelites have settled in the plains of Moab, and the locals are worried that the Israelites are going to ravaged the land. So they send for this holy man Balaam and offer to pay him to curse the Israelites. God tells Balaam to refuse because the Israelites are bessed. The Moabites ask Balaam to curse the Israelites a second time, and this time God tells Balaam to go with them, but to only say what He tells him to. Then Balaam saddles his donkey and rides of to Moab. For some reason, this makes God very angry and he stands in the road with his sword drawn to oppose Balaam's progress. After a brief confrontation (where God says he would have killed Balaam if his donkey hadn't run off the road in fright), God again tells Balaam to continue on his way, but to only speak the words that God provides to him. So they get to Moab and three times Balaam instructs the Moabites to build altars and make sacrifices. The God visits Balaam and tells him what to say. The second time he does this, God (speaking through Balaam) says: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly, God changed his mind several times in this story.

Well, after the big buildup and how much you seemed to like my other response, I’m afraid this one is pretty much destined to be a bit of a disappointment. You may well say “I don’t buy this. The ‘God changed his mind’ theory makes more sense to me.” It depends largely on your point of view. This is how I read it.

The key to understanding where God is coming from and why the apparent change of mind is the context of the statement: “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” This was the second attempt to get Balaam to curse Israel. The first time, Balaam had come back with the answer that God loved these people and had blessed them and would not curse them. Now they’re expecting God to change that just because they’re standing on a different hill? I can just see God shaking his head and saying “No he didn’t just do that. He just does not get it.”

His point is that they are not going to change his mind about blessing or cursing Israel, and actually that stays consistent through the whole thing. What? OK, Summary: 1. People offer Balaam money to curse Israel. 2. Balaam asks God, God says no, don’t go. You can’t curse ‘em; they’re blessed. 3. Balaam answers the people: “God won’t let me.” 4. People offer more money. 5. Balaam asks again; God says “go ahead, but you can still only say what I tell you” 6.The whole business on the road with the angel and the donkey.

Just like later on the hilltops, Balaam had gotten God’s answer the first time, but kept pushing for what he wanted. So like a good parent will sometimes do, if the child won’t listen, God says “That’s what you want? Go ahead; see what happens.” I take the angel/donkey incident as a reminder to Balaam to do as he is told. He’s already proven that he has a short memory when money is at stake.

God sees the end from the beginning, and his plan is set. Still his plan allows some flexibility for us to make choices. Overall, we can’t change the end results, but God can allow our choices to have some eternal consequences, though mostly, I think, only affecting how we fit into the plan. A New Testament reference calls Balaam at the donkey incident a “prophet” (2Peter 2:16). An Old Testament verse calls Balaam in later life merely a “soothsayer.” Big demotion. (I am still working on my response to the 3 or 4 responses to my post in "Omnipotence, evil, and free will. Consider this part of it)

Interesting sidelight. What God caused Balaam to experience on the road with his ass was exactly what God was experiencing with Balaam. A creature of lower intelligence, who is supposed to be following your directions keeps pushing for doing something else, like he knows better. Very frustrating. Made Balaam want to kill the dumb ass, and feel justified in doing so.

God says the guy shouldn't go there under any circumstances.
God says he can go there after all.
God sends an angel to prevent him from getting there.
The angel stands in his way three times and then says he can go there.

I don't know, but it sure seems like someone can't quite make up their mind.

[daddy1gringo]

You may well say “I don’t buy this. The ‘God changed his mind’ theory makes more sense to me.” It depends largely on your point of view. This is how I read it.


Interesting sidelight. What God caused Balaam to experience on the road with his ass was exactly what God was experiencing with Balaam. A creature of lower intelligence, who is supposed to be following your directions keeps pushing for doing something else, like he knows better. Very frustrating. Made Balaam want to kill the dumb ass, and feel justified in doing so.

God says the guy shouldn't go there under any circumstances.
God says he can go there after all.
God sends an angel to prevent him from getting there.
The angel stands in his way three times and then says he can go there.

I don't know, but it sure seems like someone can't quite make up their mind.

Case in point.