I am greater than god & jesus put together can you prove me wrong

ducati996s2001: I exist & those 2 delinquents don't therefore I am greater than them.

Try to prove me wrong but you can't.

Their non-existence means they have no power but I have the power to do anything I want.

To prove me wrong would be to say I don't exist but you can't prove it because I do exist.

Go ahead.

ducati996s2001: Muhahaha!

ghostgeek: Can you prove you exist?

Angry Beaver: @ ghost I stink, therefore, I am...

ducati996s2001: well "I think, therefore I am."

axocanth: re OP

Your argument commits the same fallacy -- if indeed it is -- as that of the age-old 𝑶𝒏𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 supposedly proving the existence of God. Some readers may have heard it. It goes like this:


God, by definition, is perfect. God, therefore, also by definition, has all the attributes one might expect of perfection (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.). However, something that had all those attributes yet lacked the attribute of 𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 would be less perfect than something with all the same attributes and 𝒅𝒊𝒅 exist. A god lacking the attribute of existence would not be a perfect being. Therefore, God exists.


The Ontological Argument has been criticized for committing a category mistake, namely, treating the predicate [𝒙 exists] the same way we treat other normal predicates such as [𝒙 swims] and [𝒙 is callipygous].

Statements such as "Mary exists" and "Mary swims" do indeed have the same 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 structure, but if there's one lesson Frege, Russell, Chomsky and a hundred others have tried to teach us, it is that 𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈. Superficial structure does not necessarily reflect 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒍𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 structure.


To assert "Mary swims" is to assert that there exists a certain person (Mary) and that a certain attribute (swims) can be predicated of her.

Frege, in particular, made explicit that [𝒙 exists] and [𝒚 doesn't exist] cannot be treated the same way as normal predicates. Otherwise, in asserting "Santa Claus doesn't exist" you would be asserting that there exists a person (Santa Claus) and predicating of that person that he doesn't exist.

You would, in short, be contradicting yourself.

The predicates [𝒙 exists] and [𝒚 doesn't exist], therefore, must be regarded as 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔, applicable to 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒔, not objects.

Thus, to assert "Santa Claus doesn't exist" or "Lemurs exist" is to assert, in the former case, that the concept SANTA CLAUS has no instantiations (the concept corresponds to nothing in reality), and in the later case, that the concept LEMUR is instantiated. There are such 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔.



Now, your argument takes the form:

𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒆: I have an attribute that God and Jesus lack; something can be (truly) predicated of me which cannot be predicated of them - 𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆

𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏: Since I have something they lack, I am greater than them




I trust the fallacy is now clear. The predicate [𝒙 exists], properly understood, 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔.


Since the Ontological Argument supposedly fails due to the very same error you're making, you cannot maintain the validity of your own argument without also maintaining the validity of the Ontological Argument. You can either accept or reject both.

If you insist your own argument is valid then -- on pain of inconsistency -- you must accept that the Ontological Argument is too and accept its conclusion, namely, 𝑮𝒐𝒅 𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔.


And if that's true, He is a lot greater than you are.

axocanth: Put another way, what you're asserting is that the concept 𝑰 -- when uttered by yourself -- is instantiated, it corresponds to something in reality.

The concepts 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 and 𝑮𝒐𝒅, on the other hand, you argue, are not instantiated. They are "empty" concepts, if you like, corresponding to nothing real.

Now, if we can all agree ( ) that a concept being instantiated makes it greater than a concept which is not, what your argument shows is that one 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕 is greater than two others.

Nothing whatsoever about 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 greatness has been demonstrated.

axocanth: And if that's still not clear, reflect on the title of your thread (combined with the assertions about existence contained therein):


"I am greater than god & jesus put together can you prove me wrong"


Besides yourself, 𝒘𝒉𝒐 are you talking about? Which 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆/𝒐𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 are you comparing your own greatness against? How many 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 or 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 are involved in your argument? And how many 𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒔/𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒔?


Is it your position that the statement "Jesus is/was a person/being" is 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆? How about God?

Are you aware that in asserting "Jesus is a delinquent" you already implicitly assert his existence?

Otherwise, what are you supposed to be telling us -- "Jesus is a delinquent and 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏"? How exactly can you predicate 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒆 to that which -- on your own account -- does not exist?

That which does not exist 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒆𝒔.

Troublinn: Taking this argument at face value claiming the delinquency of God snd Jesus surely implies their existence. Whatever it is that God and Jesus should have paid but are now in arrears, would assume the existence of God and Jesus to make payment in the first place.

Or, if by delinquent you mean they have committed some crime, the very commission of a crime would implicate existence.

Are we absolutely convinced that “greater thanness” is synonymous with existence? I think therefore I am greater than? From a purely solipsistic point of view i cannot verify the existence of anything but my own consciousness, and how can i achieve a “greater thanness” of something that does not exist. In order to claim I am “greater than”, would mean that there is “something” other than “I” that exists of which i am greater than

.

axocanth: Besides, everyone knows Muhammad Ali is the greatest anyway.

Troublinn: Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

ducati996s2001: you still haven't proved I don't exist & that god & jesus do.

axocanth: "you still haven't proved I don't exist & that god & jesus do." (above)



This is to miss the point. You set your readers a challenge in the title of the thread, that is, to disprove the claim that you are greater than God and Jesus combined.

But you immediately go on to tell us that Jesus and God do not exist, thus rendering your challenge 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒐𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕.


Given a suitable definition of "greatness", a comparative appraisal of the respective greatnesses of X, Y, and Z can be made -- Ali vs Foreman vs Frazier, say.

But since 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 assert that Y and Z (i.e. Jesus and God) do not exist, 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒅𝒆.

ducati996s2001: well why don't you try.

axocanth: re above?

Try to do what? Try to make an appraisal that cannot be made?

ducati996s2001: you're not trying, you don't have to prove i exist because my posts prove i exist, therefore, you have to prove god & jesus are in existence - which you cannot

axocanth: Are you now conceding that your original challenge is incoherent and proposing a new one?

ducati996s2001: you're trying to come across as intelligent but it's not working

axocanth: With all due respect, I'm not the one here making incoherent claims.

ducati996s2001: you say it's incoherent but it is quite simple

ducati996s2001: your trying to elude truth

ducati996s2001: you have proof of me, ergo I exist, you have no proof of god & jesus being in existence, ergo they don't exist. Simple.

ducati996s2001: I am greater than them both combined.

axocanth: and I'm richer than the Tooth Fairy.



Let us be proud of our achievements.

ducati996s2001: in order to negate my op you must prove god & jesus are in existence, which you cannot.

axocanth: re above


Your OP would only be coherent if you actually had an opponent (or two) in this proposed contest of greatness. And this is what 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 explicitly deny.


What next? A one-man boxing contest from which you emerge world heavyweight champion?

Just think of the post-fight press conference . . .

"I sure gave those nonexistent suckers a hammering "