By defining "God" the only thing you will do is give them a clear excuse to reject anything you say.

They are all made up and none of them are real, so what does it really matter.There are far more interesting Things in life than god(s).

You only see the pain as bad because of your limits as a human. God sees all and in His great wisdom knows this pain is not bad but good.

Hey, Mr. Wanna Be Scientists go prove your "fact".

I don't see atheists strapping bombs to their chest and blowing people up.

As an aside and for the record, humans are absolutely more powerful than God.

It would seem that God being omnipotent means[. . .] — Ben Hancock

So you are going to decide the limits of an all-powerful being? Really? That is some ego you have, but OK. So what you are saying here, is that humans have the power to limit and define the power of an all-powerful being. Which makes humans more powerful and thus humans are now GCB+1.

That seems to beg the question of what makes that being 'great'? — Ben Hancock

You are just now realizing this? The moment you read the word "greatest" you should realized that was an entirely subjective gradation.

The omni traits carry a slew of inconsistencies and conflicts, for a conceptual being to have a rational form, that humans can actually convince, it is far better just to forget about them.

f I say, "the greatest possible being can lift a car over his/head" and you say, "the greatest possible being can lift a skyscraper over his/head" clearly the being you have conceived of is greater than mine. However, the concept of the GCB+1 ends because, eventually, it becomes clear that truly the greatest conceivable being must be able to move any object, and so we can all agree that unless the being we are conceiving of can move any object, it is not the Greatest Conceivable Being. — Ben Hancock

So can your GCB make an object so big it can't lift it? Your entire argument is logically flawed, so your purposed GCB being is deeply flawed. Thus by limiting my conceptual being my GCB > your GCB, as with removing the omni traits it becomes more logically congruent.

Omni traits make for horrible conceptual beings.

I think some of you don't actually understand how subjective and shallow the argument laid out in the OP is, due to the way it is written I can always move the goal post.

I can think of a being that is omnipotent. I can conceive of a being that is omniscient. I can conceive of a being that is omnipresent and even omnibenevolent. — lupac

All three of those traits have fallen under heavy criticism over the ages. They cause logical and moral conflicts and are far from being characteristics of a "greatest" conceivable being. I think a conceptual being which does not possess any of those traits is a vastly superior concept, as it is a far more practical conceptual form.

GCB +1

So it looks like it is good on paper and in practice.

No matter what you think up, or try to put in thought, mine will always be greater, because that is the door the OP left wide open.

If it is called the Greatest Conceivable Being, then you should be able to conceive of it, right?

So don't be shy, religion has been trying to do it for thousands of years and they still suck at it, so what do you have to lose.

Can anyone here actually conceive of this supposed GCB? Anyone at all?

@LD Saunders doesn't even know what a basic fact is.

But go and prove your position, post the details of the GCB and I will show you some flaws in it. You will never be able to conceive of this supposed GCB.

I think you are making that blank statement because you are unable to follow me.

It is a logical proof.

A simple version of a proof by contradiction, the plus one simply represents one thing is greater than the other, and the original statement is shown true because supposing the negation leads to a contradiction. So this contradiction that you are hung up on, that there can't be a GCB and a something greater than GCB is exactly what proves there that there is no GCB, as supposing that there is a GCB leads to a contradiction.

You arguing the existence of this contraction only makes me more right. You are proving my position, without even realizing it, as the more you hammer on this contradiction the more it validates my simple proof.

Whatever GCB you can think of I can think of one greater, therefore there is no GCB, because supposing there is one leads to a contradiction.

Btw, religious groups have been warring and killing each other over who has the GCB for thousands of years. Christianity, Islam and Jaduism are prime examples of GCB+1 at work.

Then don't think of it as an infinite set, think of it as your finite set plus one. Honesty, I don't think you even understand what infinity represents. If GCB is your top rank then mine will always be GCB+1 more rank.

OK your GCB can be at the top rank, and my will be at your top rank plus one more rank. Dang, another contradiction.

Think of the greatest integer you can and we'll call this the greatest conceivable integer (GCI). Post that number here and I'll show you one greater by adding a one.

It is a common example found in text books of the proof that there is no greatest integer. So, what do you think, is there a greatest integer?

You are talking about an ordinal scale, where objects or events are distinguished from one another on the basis of the relative amount of some characteristic they posses. Or ranking, the idea that things can be lined up from least to greatest.

Your ranks of greatness would simply be integers.

1,2,3,4,..., n

There is no greatest integer and there is no GCB.

I think we can show that there is no such thing as a greatest conceivable being.

Greatest is a ranked gradation so let's say that there is a ranked scale of greatest beings.

My statement is that there is no greatest conceivable being (GCB).

However, let's suppose there is a GCB and we'll call it B. Then B > b where b is other beings. Now let G = B+1 where G is a being equal to B plus one more rank. Then G > B; however, B is the GCB, so we have have a contradiction which shows there is no GCB.

Couldn't the GCB by human understanding conceive of a even greater conceivable being? Than that being could conceive of even a greater being, and so on to infinity. Meaning that a GCB is could not possibility exist.

The Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) exists in the understanding. — lupac

The GCB limited by human understanding would not be that great, it would be full of human flaws and limits.

Isn't it scarier to believe in nothing than something? — Play-doh

No.

I find that Existential Nihilism, on a whole is generally fundamentally misunderstood.

The idea that a single timed test can measure the entirety of a person's intellectual range is a very stupid idea.

Any advice appreciated. — Posty McPostface

Forget double majoring, also don't over stuff your semesters with credits. Take a few good classes then use the extra time to learn the subjects more deeply. The goal should not be to just get your grade then move on, it is to learn and have real comprehension.

Objective reality has far more creditably and consequence than your nonsense. That's why you look both ways before you cross the road and don't just walk off high places, as for all your gobbledygook you still very much behave as if you exist in an objective reality. You don't even believe your own nonsense.

@LD Saunders I am still waiting for you to prove your "fact".

That is how things work in science, and maybe if you took some classes in a science then you would know that.

I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. — LD Saunders

They also tend to learn what a basic fact is, maybe you should take some of those classes.

What I stated is a fact. — LD Saunders

You clearly have no clue what a fact is, at any rate please provide the empirical evidence and PROVE IT.

Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here. — LD Saunders

That is a statement that you cannot prove.

Please try to stay on topic, you are derailing the thread.

I don't care what they are looking for, this is the only rational course of action. There are only two choices, either you kill yourself, or you engage the reality you find yourself in. There are no other choices, so people can abuse the term "logic" all they want and they can fantasize about magical demons, but when you get right down to it the only true way to deny reality is to kill yourself, and if you do anything other than that, then you accept the truth of reality.

I am weary of replying to you — khaled

That is a lie, you sent me a bunch of PMs. It is clear to me, that you want me to response.

I don't know why these denialist completely disregard the very likely possibility that the material (for lack of a better term) world is real.

Just apply Occam's Razor; line up your theories and pick the best one. If you have any common sense at all, then it will be the very likely reality, that reality is reality.

Furthermore, reality is really nothing but the reality in which we find ourselves in, whether that is, could be a dream, illusion or whatever, it is entirely moot, as empirical evidence is still the best lead we have. There is nothing else around and it is the only trail of breadcrumbs you have. So the rational thing to do is to examine it and see where it leads. The only other choice here is killing yourself and anyone reading this is clearly not ready yet to test out that option. So it simply does not matter if there is some magical illusion spinning demon as examining those illusions is still our best option.

However, the idea that there is a demon spinning illusions is unverifiable, which means it is about as realistic as the notion that there are mini unicorns that crap gold and gems living in the swears of New York. So how is investing so much of your belief system in an unverifiable entity any different than theism? It is not, and in essence it is the same thing.

These denialist don't even believe their own nonsense, they still eat don't they? They still sleep, shit and type on their keyboards. They claim one thing, but yet they behave as if everything was real, as they realize on some level that is the more likely case and the safest bet. And when you say one thing, yet do another we call that hypocrisy

Just apply Occam's Razor.