The Honest Atheist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Before we can even start exploiring the arguments and evidence for God, a person must be at least open to the idea that a maximally great being could exist.

This seems to simply be substituting one vague and poorly defined phrase for another. What does "a maximally great being" mean?

[NormATive]

This seems to simply be substituting one vague and poorly defined phrase for another. What does "a maximally great being" mean?

I think he's referring to The Great Pumpkin. I, for one, plan to spend tomorrow evening in the pumpkin patch awaiting his arrival to bring Halloween candy to all the (deserving) children of the world.

NORM

[Cow Poke]

I think he's referring to The Great Pumpkin. I, for one, plan to spend tomorrow evening in the pumpkin patch awaiting his arrival to bring Halloween candy to all the (deserving) children of the world.

NORM

It's ABOUT TIME you said something I could amen!

[Mountain Man]

This seems to simply be substituting one vague and poorly defined phrase for another. What does "a maximally great being" mean?

I'm afraid you've missed the point.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm afraid you've missed the point.

I agree that I missed your point! It's rather difficult to understand the point someone is trying to make when you don't understand the phrases that he is utilizing. That's why I'm asking you what is meant by "a maximally great being."

[Mountain Man]

I agree that I missed your point! It's rather difficult to understand the point someone is trying to make when you don't understand the phrases that he is utilizing. That's why I'm asking you what is meant by "a maximally great being."

It comes from Alvain Plantinga's ontological argument: "Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls 'maximal greatness.'" Such a being, asserts Plantinga, is intuitive and coherent -- that is to say that it is in no way illogical to suppose that a being greater than ourselves could exist -- and therefore plausible.

[Paprika]

It comes from Alvain Plantinga's ontological argument: "[URL="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god"]Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.

I have my doubts that 'maximally great' is consistent.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It comes from Alvain Plantinga's ontological argument: "Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls 'maximal greatness.'" Such a being, asserts Plantinga, is intuitive and coherent -- that is to say that it is in no way illogical to suppose that a being greater than ourselves could exist -- and therefore plausible.

And how does he define omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection?

[Adrift]

It comes from Alvain Plantinga's ontological argument: "Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls 'maximal greatness.'" Such a being, asserts Plantinga, is intuitive and coherent -- that is to say that it is in no way illogical to suppose that a being greater than ourselves could exist -- and therefore plausible.

Technically, I think it goes back to Anselm, and maybe even earlier. BP, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a great outline for the ontological argument that MM is referencing: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

I've read a bit of Plantinga's work on the subject, but I don't remember him offering any special definitions for "omniscience", "omnipotence" or "moral perfection" for his ontological argument. If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine that his definition of omnipotence would probably include some sort of clause that exempts the logically impossible. God is all powerful, but he can't make a square circle, or a rock that he can't lift...that sort of thing. And I'd imagine that moral perfection has something to do with his own personal nature, and God's necessary existence in relation to the universe.

Oh, and the philosopher Edward Feser deals quite a bit with Plantinga's arguments on his blog, so for more information you may want to check there as well.

[publius]

It is a truth that some atheists will invest their lives to suppress the truth. One example is the 'Freedom From Religion Foundation' who files law suits to suppress every Christian from freely practicing their faith, or even mentioning Christ. They have had some success in removing crosses, displays of the ten commandments, paintings of Jesus and even the word "Christmas" (replaced by 'Holiday') and its displays from public places. Interestingly, their leader (Dan Barker) is a former Christian minister, song writer and musician.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It is a truth that some atheists will invest their lives to suppress the truth. One example is the 'Freedom From Religion Foundation' who files law suits to suppress every Christian from freely practicing their faith, or even mentioning Christ. They have had some success in removing crosses, displays of the ten commandments, paintings of Jesus and even the word "Christmas" (replaced by 'Holiday') and its displays from public places. Interestingly, their leader (Dan Barker) is a former Christian minister and song writer and musician.

The FFRF does not "file law suits to suppress every Christian from freely practicing their faith, or even mentioning Christ." The FFRF files lawsuits when they are aware of a government agency or representative illegally supporting a religion.

[Mountain Man]

And how does he define omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection?

Oh for crying out loud.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Oh for crying out loud.

If you are asking me to consider the possibility of a "maximally great being," and then you define a "maximally great being" as one which is "omniscient," "omnipotent," and "morally perfect," then you should not complain when I ask for definitions of these terms. I have heard omniscience and omnipotence defined in numerous different ways, some of which are entirely incoherent. As for "morally perfect," I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, at all.

[Mountain Man]

I have my doubts that 'maximally great' is consistent.

You're suggesting that it's possible to have something better than perfect which strikes me as an incoherent notion in and of itself.

[Paprika]

You're suggesting that it's possible to have something better than perfect which strikes me as an incoherent notion in and of itself.

No, I'm suggesting that because there is no integer greater than any other integer, it may not be coherent to speak of a being greater than any other with respect to an attribute or quality; ie that there may not be a 'maximum' of that quality, or, if you like, that 'perfection' with regards to that quality does not exist.